What do believers say when you ask or tell them..

[Pippy]

Work faster! God damn it's a zoo in there...

I don't think you any nicer to me than anyone else, but I get a lot of grief so from my POV it's a blessing. I try to stay positive, remind myself we are all related...
I don't hate porn because I read somewhere that I should. I only ever form my own opinions. I hate porn (and those other things) because they have fucked with me, and I don't like being fucked with. I had a period in my life where I was very, very confused. I had voices in my head (DID, not Schizoid), I did a lot of very, very strong drugs, and I was quite young. I entered a state of mind where I became a sexual degenerate. I don't want to get to detailed, but lets just say I got bit by a very bad bug. I take no responsibility for these bad thoughts that found their way into my head. It is far more likely that I have been coerced into having such horrible thoughts, and not that they are a product of some illness I had. They weren't my fault, and that wasn't me. It is a thing I learned from the Buddhists, that we are not in full ownership if whatever happens to come floating into our heads. And during this period I had a clear pornography addiction. It started kinda innocent, but followed the same path as any unhealthy relationship with an object. I watched more and more, worse and worse and worse pornography. It deeply affected my ability to function and cope day to day. I would see a girl, and a terrible thought would creep into my head, and then I would be ashamed and scared. It was devastating me. And all the while leading me more and more into becoming a sexual degenerate. It disgusts me now to look back. The only positive is that I won that fight. I carry the scars, but I won it. I realized that porn was very destructive, and could lead to huge changes in your life. The more I researched it (know your enemy) the more I came to understand that the porn industry, while not being charming at it's outset, had been co opted. That the same forces that had gotten into the Pharmaceuticals (that is what Pharma means, drugs that mommy says are OK as opposed to drugs she says are not), gotten into the food production, education, banking, you name it... Not that there is an evil cabal in charge, but that whoever we put in charge is evil. I don't think all these people get together and plan their evil deeds, they just do what they do. It is not organized, but as a warrior for Good, my enemy is anyone who decides to be evil. Regardless of any other factor. That porn now was a far different thing than glossy magazines you snuck into your buddies dad's basement to see. It was ubiquitous, ever more domineering, and constantly inventing new lows to scrape.

That is where I form my opinions, my life experiences. That is why it is harder for me to prove my points, because I just have to ramble. And as much as I'm hoping you will at least try to get through and understand this rant, there are others here who will think it disingenuous, and not hesitate to tell me so...

I'm sure the reasons you think I might hate America and drugs and stuff are relevant. I hate TV for the exact same reasons I hate drugs. All we have in this adventure with any real fixable value is limited time and energy, yes? So TV wants you to waste your valuable time and energy so that they can make money letting other people try to coerce and device you into spending your money. I am not a fan of anything that is nothing but a waste of time and brain power. And again it is based on my life. If I have to hear one more stupid kid repeating a line from a movie while all his idiot friends laugh along, I swear to Allah! You know how much better I would be at guitar if I didn't know everything that ever happened on the Simpsons? Even the internet, did you get to see that great article in the Atlantic a little while ago about how the internet is unfortunately rewiring our brains? How this medium (and TV before it) is so captivating, and moves at such a speed, that we train ourselves not to be able to comprehend slower processes. Pretty well written. And it can't be untrue. People react to changing situations, and there is no way for our neurology to maintain some state over generations. That isn't to say that we should be 1995 model humans forever, but that if the changes in our brains and ability to adhere to reality are negative, detrimental, then we have a problem.

I hope this in some way helps to answer what I took to be a refreshingly honest question. I know I can go on, and not make sense while I go...

And all this talk about hatred. It needs to be a point that humans are so complex as to sometimes appear contradictory. In that sense, I carry a lot of hatred. A lot. A fucking hell of a lot. But all my hatred is because I don't like seeing people get taken advantage of, lied too. My hatred itself is a positive, because of what I hate. Is hatred of Nazis the same as hatred of Jews? I could make the point that it is, but do you get what I mean? And so please let me disclaim. Although I talked at length about hatred, the real answer can only be love. Love, love, love. Bum ba bum! We are all brothers and sisters, we are all in this together. We need far less division and disagreement, and far more respect for one another. That I hate, but only because of how much I love. I love the trees, and the hideous Day Star. I love being able to take part in this grand adventure. I love bickering with atheists. I hate porn though...
What do you think?
Thanks,
-Pip

[Soyouz]

Interesting post, but why would TV be bad? Now a days pretty much the only thing I like to watch are the discovery programs and those are great for learning. All my friends are watching "Paradise Hotel" but I just won't fall for the peer pressure and watch such a crap program. I suppose TV is good and bad, but for me it's nothing but good.

[Zen Badger]

I have to agree with Pip on this, 99% of TV is rubbish or advertising.

It rarely goes on except for the ABC and SBS.

[Ryft]

I don't think you completely understood what I wrote, then.

I understood it very well, actually. What your claim meant and what you meant were two very different things, Tav. That was the point I was trying to bring to your attention. You can't state the truth claim that "there is no objective evidence for God" without shouldering an enormous burden of proof, which cannot be supported validly at any rate. (There's lots of ways to do it invalidly, like the route you took.) As I said, the only thing you can point to is the fact that you've never seen any such evidence; but being unaware of that evidence doesn't make it non-existent—unless you're a solipsist, which you're not. Your truth claim pointed to reality ("there is no"), when it should have pointed to your self ("I've never seen any").

Do you want such evidence? Apparently. Have you been provided any? It seems not. Does that mean such evidence doesn't exist? Non-sequitur.

Having God as a claim within the realm of science (especially in the Carl Sagan example) is a scientific question.

Certainly. But where has anyone posited God as a scientific claim? Yeah, "Nowhere." So your eloquent sermon on the matter was a very odd red herring.

The article looks to have been written out of a response to atheists you've talked to that don't have answers for their standard of evidence.

Then you misunderstood my article, despite its very clear statements. It was inspired by the fact that no atheists I've ever talked to, or read from, can "define univocal criteria for either what an extraordinary claim is or what extraordinary evidence looks like." A rather different issue, yes? Since such a project, although compatible with, is not by any stretch the sum of their standard of evidence, I had no interest in their standard of evidence. It was about the fact that no atheist has ever defined univocal criteria for what an "extraordinary claim" is or what "extraordinary evidence" looks like. I was pretty clear.

[Your argument in that article leaves out] the overwhelming social and political control that religious groups have, especially in the U.S. [...] Now, if you change the situation a bit, and the majority of the country believes in [God] ...

First, my point has nothing to do with American political landscapes or demographics. Another red herring that distracts from my point, which was that "neither the reality of the case nor the facts thereof have anything to do with [an atheist's] ability to believe it." It seems that ought to be a fairly self-evident point, and incontestable to anyone but solipsists. Second, the majority of the people in the U.S. believe in God, and that country operates by the will of the people. If you dislike the convictions that the majority votes by, then change their convictions. But try persuading them with valid reasoning, if you want to be effective, since brute pontification from your personal beliefs is doomed to be insufficient; showing them that their views conflict with yours simply cannot persuade. (Reverse the roles and you'll see what I mean.)

It may be frustrating that most atheists will fall back to a "show me evidence" tactic, especially when you don't care either way what they believe or don't.

Their "show me evidence" tactic is not frustrating. Their brutal irrationality is. I wish I could be surprised that you missed the point. Again.

The world could definitely benefit if Christianity as a whole was as tolerant as you portray yourself to be.

I appreciate the compliment. However, "Christianity as a whole" actually is as tolerant as I portray myself. I think you're confusing the noise of the part with the character of the whole; e.g., right-wing fundy conservatives in the U.S. are but a fraction of the billions of Christians. In fact, many of those right-wing fundy conservatives are likewise as tolerant as me (e.g., Greg Koukl); the highly vocal ones who won't reason calmly are simply given more attention, not only by the media by also by atheists. Their pulpit depends on you contributing to the attention they receive. So don't.

It was a general statement made for those who contend that God exists in reality objectively. The criteria is the scientific method, which is based in logic.

First, the scientific method is the criteria only for empirical claims. Second, 'objective' does not mean 'empirical'. Don't be surprised when others reject such an obvious ad hoc redefinition. Third (and back to the point I was making), it was "a general statement made" by whom? If not me, then who is the presumptuous prick that's shoving his beliefs down my throat, as though my world view must play by the rules of his? That question, oddly enough, went unanswered.

If a statement has no evidence to support it, a logical conclusion cannot be made.

It is deeply tragic that you would make such a statement, because it means you're not already aware of how false it is.

To say you know something to be true, but can't back it up with adequate evidence for the claim, it would be intellectually dishonest to say it is absolutely and necessarily true.

I'm going to assume that you didn't mean to pull an equivocating switch (your sentence begins on an epistemic point, "I know X is true," but ends on an ontological point, "X is true"), so I shall re-write your sentence and you can tell me if it's what you meant: "It is intellectually dishonest to say you know something is absolutely true if you can't back it up with adequate evidence." And if that's what you meant, why is it intellectually dishonest?

The Pirahas, for example.

I'm aware of the Piraha (you're not the first to invoke them). I am not aware of "objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method backing up" the claim that they "have no knowledge of a God concept." That's what I asked for. Handing me a noun does not meet the standard of evidence you profess.

Being free of bias: it's not impossible with an atheistic position, but is impossible in a Christian one.

An atheistic position is biased by definition, its every reasoning and criteria starting from a biased "no gods" presupposition. You feel that's the best and default position. Fine. That simply means you have this particular bias. And my position starts from the opposite bias.

There is a range of views on this topic, and although many researchers and psychoanalysts disagree, none of the well-respected and accepted methods include a God in the infant or newborn stage.

You claimed, "Atheism is the default position for mankind, as we are not born with inherent knowledge of God." I asked for your claim to meet your own standards of evidence. You provided two papers, one from Harder that summarizes Erickson's views, and one from an anonymous source that summarizes Piaget's and Kohlberg's views, neither of which meets your standard of evidence (insofar as they presented no objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method to back up your claim). Knowing that it's invalid to reason FROM your conclusion TO your conclusion (question-begging), where is the objective scientific evidence that we're not born with inherent knowledge of God?

The scientific method [is my standard of evidence].

How do you independently verify the validity of that standard? Do you use your standard of evidence to verify your standard of evidence?

[RedFish]

@ Pippy... Well said, I have to admit to being a little less able to live up to my ideals re sex and drugs and rock n roll, but I'm a lot better now than I used to be. The 'titillating' red-light district of Amsterdam takes its fuel from the people whose faces appear in missing posters all over the area. Beautiful, beautiful women, turned to dead-eyed mannikins to 'dress' shop windows. I found it very sad. Sadder still the attitude of most of my friends.
Cannabis I view as a sacrament, not a drug. People will always want to get high, that's a fact. I feel the illegal market is the real problem.
TV is mainly destructive.
The US is, in my humble opinion, the finest country in the world. Although sometimes not the smartest. (ducks)
Love is the answer. Absolutely.

[tavarish]

I understood it very well, actually. What your claim meant and what you meant were two very different things, Tav. That was the point I was trying to bring to your attention. You can't state the truth claim that "there is no objective evidence for God" without shouldering an enormous burden of proof, which cannot be supported validly at any rate. (There's lots of ways to do it invalidly, like the route you took.) As I said, the only thing you can point to is the fact that you've never seen any such evidence; but being unaware of that evidence doesn't make it non-existent—unless you're a solipsist, which you're not. Your truth claim pointed to reality ("there is no"), when it should have pointed to your self ("I've never seen any").

Do you want such evidence? Apparently. Have you been provided any? It seems not. Does that mean such evidence doesn't exist? Non-sequitur.

I actually addressed this in the same post to which you replied. No, I don't know absolutely. In fact, I use the words "in my experience", and bolded them to illustrate urgency.

In my experience, there hasn't been any evidence presented to me that would demonstrate the existence of a God or gods. This is not a belief, it's an observation. There very well may be a piece of evidence that would show certain credibility, it just hasn't been provided to me yet.

Since it's not your job to do such a thing, I suggest we move on to more relevant topics.

Certainly. But where has anyone posited God as a scientific claim? Yeah, "Nowhere." So your eloquent sermon on the matter was a very odd red herring.

Not quite. You referenced Carl Sagan in your aristophrenium post, and went on to generalize as to what "they" (atheists) posit when they require extraordinary evidence. You did not establish that what Sagan, and other scientists referred to is the extreme complexity that such a being would encompass and that the claim places him necessarily as not only the creator of all that we know, but a frequent force of intervention, with his own nature and intentions. This is by all means, an extraordinary claim that deals with multifaceted scientific elements. I've also addressed the specific scientific assertions made by theistic claims in this post and others where we've conversed. If you want me to reiterate those arguments, let me know.

You quoted Sagan, and simply went on to how some people can't construct their arguments correctly - then made the assertion that the argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you don't mind, I'll entertain your questions in the matter.

This is my understanding of the topic. This applies to me and not necessarily anyone else.


(1) What is an ‘extraordinary claim’, and what is ‘extraordinary evidence’?

Extraordinary is simply something out of the ordinary. In this case, an extraordinary claim would be anything that can warrant immediate disbelief due to its: 1. Unlikelihood and 2. Counter-intuition. These claims also may have the effect of necessarily affecting the knowledge base, behavior and worldview of those who subscribe to its assertions.

I'll give you a few examples or ordinary claims:

I have a red apple in front of me.
Cars are primarily a form of transportation.
Shoes are meant to be worn on the feet.

Notice how in Western society, this is common knowledge, and although the claims require evidence, such evidence is readily available and even if it isn't, the claim has a negligible effect on anyone hearing it.

Here are some extraordinary claims.

Humans evolved from apes
Fairies want mankind to commit mass infanticide on the 13th of April.
The U.S. Government planned the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Note how the criteria for these claims isn't necessarily common knowledge, and requires and necessarily demands evidence to support it, as it can be the crux of a worldview, knowledge base, and certain behaviors.

Extraordinary evidence is something that would create a logical, unbiased and coherent understanding of the claim as it pertains to reality for the most accurate explanation of the subject.

(2) Specifically, what is the univocal criterion for establishing either?

Logic and societal norms establish these claims as ordinary or not. I'm speaking solely for claims made in Western society in which skepticism is encouraged and the scientific method is used to separate fact from fantasy.

3) What does their ability to believe that some X is true have to do with whether or not X is actually true?

Nothing. The only thing that it can do is explain the notion better, and dismiss or accept the claim to the best of our (mankind's) knowledge. This, just as science- which relies on methodological naturalism, does not operate in absolutes.

No red herring here.


“Sagan’s dictum makes it sound like any claim which violates widely subscribed beliefs or received wisdom automatically is at an evidentiary disadvantage. This is simply prejudicial,”

I agree. As humans, our brains work in a way to accept certain norms, and have a way to weed out that which does not conform to our ideology and sense of normalcy. I wouldn't contend that this is prejudicial in a pejorative sense, but a descriptive sense, to illustrate an involuntary or subconscious preference towards a set of values, information, or experiences.

Then you misunderstood my article, despite its very clear statements. It was inspired by the fact that no atheists I've ever talked to, or read from, can "define univocal criteria for either what an extraordinary claim is or what extraordinary evidence looks like." A rather different issue, yes? Since such a project, although compatible with, is not by any stretch the sum of their standard of evidence, I had no interest in their standard of evidence. It was about the fact that no atheist has ever defined univocal criteria for what an "extraordinary claim" is or what "extraordinary evidence" looks like. I was pretty clear.

First, you're making the same mistake I made in not phrasing yourself correctly. You start off decribing those that you've talked to, then include an all-encompasing "no atheist has ever...".

Second, I just gave you my take on it, I await your reply.

First, my point has nothing to do with American political landscapes or demographics. Another red herring that distracts from my point, which was that "neither the reality of the case nor the facts thereof have anything to do with [an atheist's] ability to believe it." It seems that ought to be a fairly self-evident point, and incontestable to anyone but solipsists.

I'm not contesting that point, nor did I ever wish to.

Second, the majority of the people in the U.S. believe in God, and that country operates by the will of the people. If you dislike the convictions that the majority votes by, then change their convictions. But try persuading them with valid reasoning, if you want to be effective, since brute pontification from your personal beliefs is doomed to be insufficient; showing them that their views conflict with yours simply cannot persuade. (Reverse the roles and you'll see what I mean.)

I agree.

I also am quite relieved that the Western world is abandoning bronze age myths and becoming more secular. -quick digression.

Their "show me evidence" tactic is not frustrating. Their brutal irrationality is. I wish I could be surprised that you missed the point. Again.

Missed the point? Did you not explain to me that you did not care to convert those on this forum? Is that not the exact sentiment that I alluded to?

I do agree with you on irrationality though.

I appreciate the compliment. However, "Christianity as a whole" actually is as tolerant as I portray myself.

I disagree.

I think you're confusing the noise of the part with the character of the whole; e.g., right-wing fundy conservatives in the U.S. are but a fraction of the billions of Christians.

...but hold a pretty large influence as opposed to those in the unitarian denomination. We had a presidential candidate who ran on this platform, and didn't do horribly, not to mention the overwhelming percentage of biblical literalists that want to "teach the controversy" about evolution and creation.

In fact, many of those right-wing fundy conservatives are likewise as tolerant as me (e.g., Greg Koukl); the highly vocal ones who won't reason calmly are simply given more attention, not only by the media by also by atheists.

Do you really want to speak for fundie neo-cons? The Ted Haggards, Wendy Wrights and Jerry Falwells of the world have mass appeal and influence in this country, but are some of the most intolerant, willfully ignorant, and dangerously inconsistent people that hold political and social power. The reasons they are given attention is because they always make a story more interesting and sensational, but they seriously can damage the social environments for those around them.

Simply put, their actions are fucking dangerous to others.

The scariest part is that they're not a fringe group like the Phelps Clan, they're mass marketed and broadcast to the general public, who thankfully is more reluctant now to swallow their various forms of self-righteous hogwash. /rant.

Their pulpit depends on you contributing to the attention they receive. So don't.

I contend that laughing at them does more good than simply dismissing their claims. It's a light-hearted approach to a serious problem in this country.

First, the scientific method is the criteria only for empirical claims.

Close, but not quite. It is made to investigate phenomena, acquire new knowledge, or correct previous knowledge.

Yes, it utilizes empirical data, which is observable and testable.

Second, 'objective' does not mean 'empirical'.

Never did I say it was. The scientific method can, however, investigate extraordinary claims by means of analyzing evidence of the argument. Are you trying to make the point that a God claim resides only in the supernatural?

Don't be surprised when others reject such an obvious ad hoc redefinition. Third (and back to the point I was making), it was "a general statement made" by whom?

I made the statement.

If not me, then who is the presumptuous prick that's shoving his beliefs down my throat, as though my world view must play by the rules of his? That question, oddly enough, went unanswered.

I didn't answer it because it's quite absurd how you phrased it. The wealth of knowledge we have amassed because of these guiding methods has changed the face of the world, and steadily and explosively progressed mankind since the inception of rational thought. It's no individual's beliefs, but the collective efforts of those who strive to eliminate fantastic claims from what actually occurs in reality.

You're quite free to believe what you wish, but it is the quality of life that you enjoy today that was provided to you by those who utilized and respected reasoned logic. You don't have to choose to play by those rules, you already do, as you've demonstrated thus far.

You wouldn't get far in this society if you didn't.

I'm simply calling people out who claim they absolutely know God necessarily and objectively exists and cannot demonstrate it. If it doesn't apply to you, then let's move on.

It is deeply tragic that you would make such a statement, because it means you're not already aware of how false it is.

Yes, deeply tragic. Elaborate please? Phrasing problem perhaps?

I'm going to assume that you didn't mean to pull an equivocating switch (your sentence begins on an epistemic point, "I know X is true," but ends on an ontological point, "X is true"), so I shall re-write your sentence and you can tell me if it's what you meant: "It is intellectually dishonest to say you know something is absolutely true if you can't back it up with adequate evidence." And if that's what you meant, why is it intellectually dishonest?

It's dishonest because if you have no good reason for assertion of a claim, you can't make a credible, coherent and convincing argument in which you know it to be true. Belief isn't knowledge.

If I make the claim that I know I can fly under my own power, but don't actually do anything to demonstrate such a claim with supporting evidence, it's intellectually dishonest of me to say to someone else "I know I can fly".

Simply put, you're fooling yourself.

I'm aware of the Piraha (you're not the first to invoke them). I am not aware of "objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method backing up" the claim that they "have no knowledge of a God concept." That's what I asked for. Handing me a noun does not meet the standard of evidence you profess.

Empirical observations conform to the standards of the scientific method. So do peer reviewed papers on the subject of spirituality and the God concept in the Piraha culture in Current Anthropology by Daniel Everett.

In addition, here's an article about the whole process of what Everett accomplished, and how people checked the facts after him.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/..._colapinto

An atheistic position is biased by definition, its every reasoning and criteria starting from a biased "no gods" presupposition. You feel that's the best and default position. Fine. That simply means you have this particular bias. And my position starts from the opposite bias.

What? Would you also say a lack of belief in dragons constitutes a bias? Would you consider your worldview part of some sort of non-dragon agenda?

You're building a false dichotomy. One side makes a positive claim that God exists, but the other side makes NO positive claim. The only way to evaluate a claim sans bias is to approach it from outside the realm of emotional attachment in either direction.

If I want to evaluate if imps exist, I can't start off already believing that imps exist/do not exist. The only way I can do this unbiased is if I don't have a belief in it and gain understanding through evidence. The same goes for God. I can't assume he exists before I evaluate the claim that he does and remain unbiased.

Through your understanding, there can NEVER be an unbiased view on the subject.

You claimed, "Atheism is the default position for mankind, as we are not born with inherent knowledge of God." I asked for your claim to meet your own standards of evidence. You provided two papers, one from Harder that summarizes Erickson's views, and one from an anonymous source that summarizes Piaget's and Kohlberg's views, neither of which meets your standard of evidence (insofar as they presented no objective, credible evidence conforming to the standards of scientific method to back up your claim). Knowing that it's invalid to reason FROM your conclusion TO your conclusion (question-begging), where is the objective scientific evidence that we're not born with inherent knowledge of God?

Why do they not meet the standards of evidence? A summarization of well-publicized, respected and peer reviewed theories of infant development don't meet the criteria for observed empirical data?

I don't have links, but I do have access to the journals and can refer them to you:

Markstrom, C.A. and Marshall, S.K. (2007). 'The psychosocial inventory of ego strengths: Examination of theory and psychometric properties.' Journal of Adolescence. vol.30

Conway, M.A. and Holmes, A. (2004). 'Psychosocial stages and the accessability of autobiographical memories across the life cycle.' Journal of Personality. vol. 72.

Another link with references:

http://psychology.about.com/od/theorieso...social.htm


Again, this topic is heavily researched objectively using testable, observable methods.

How do you independently verify the validity of that standard? Do you use your standard of evidence to verify your standard of evidence?

I use logic to verify the scientific method.

[Pippy]

Hey RedFish,

Thanks for the post, I quite appreciate what you said. I'm happy you understood my prior post, it was pretty personal and dark upon retrospect. I enjoy the avatar, rain rolling across the window was a big part of my childhood...

The 'titillating' red-light district of Amsterdam takes its fuel from the people whose faces appear in missing posters all over the area. Beautiful, beautiful women, turned to dead-eyed mannikins to 'dress' shop windows. I found it very sad. Sadder still the attitude of most of my friends.

I'm almost moved to make that into a song. That is very poetic, I'm impressed. And I can agree with the statement about the peers around us, ever feel like an alien? I think some of them are not very human at all, and some of us are still quite human...

Cannabis I view as a sacrament, not a drug. People will always want to get high, that's a fact. I feel the illegal market is the real problem.

I'm high right now, but I'm not a junkie anymore. A little reef after work is no harm no foul. I agree that the black market is a huge problem, but I worry that the War on Drugs™ is part of the problem, not part of the solution. I am amazed at how fast "they" got an entire generation hooked.

The US is, in my humble opinion, the finest country in the world. Although sometimes not the smartest.
Love is the answer. Absolutely.

The ideas are paramount. personal sovereignty, equal rights and human dignity... But that is an older America, and there are many unfortunate circumstances where modern America and her friends are certainly not representative of those ideals. Good people, good food, the bosses are a little past ripe though. I also suspect that the stupidity of it's citizenry may be not entirely their fault. You can't help being lied to and coerced.

Love, love, love. Hatred and division are tricks of Zatan!

Thanks again,
-Pip

[RedFish]

I feel alienated often, but not alien any more. We're all human, just not all humane, I think.
Yes, an older America. Before the cold-war MAD ness filtered down to our personal lives. By this, I mean 'game theory'. Makes interesting reading, was adopted in Uk by Thatchers' cronies, and I feel it is the major problem. We're encouraged to consume everything without thought, in the mistaken belief that having 'more' of everything makes us better. Failings, faults and weaknesses are to be exploited, not examined, in our personal quest for celebrity.(=wealth) It's brinksmanship, towards our neighbours, friends, family, and eventually ourselves. We come to police our own sanity. Out of fear. Where is the quiet, considerate, loving soul in all this? Lost in the trample for plasma tv, car, house, sex, drugs and notoriety. If you see it, and speak out, you will be called mad. After all, all this 'stuff' is what we all want. Isn't it? Well., no, it isn't.
Thanks to you Pippy, your post made good sense. Amor Vincit Omnia.