View Full Version : Society
John McClane
06-19-06, 01:59 AM
Please people. Tell me, what is the number one thing you hate about society as a whole?
Godsend
06-19-06, 02:05 AM
American society?
The "system" will sort out any of their problems. Let's be honest here! The government is supposed to fear the people, right? *rolls his ******* eyes*
undercoverlover
06-19-06, 06:18 AM
celebrity obsessions, they're everywhere you turn
Apathy, In my corner of the globe (Melbourne, Australia) everyone is so reactive instead of proactive.
If people just took charge of their lives and got determined about achieving an awesome future then there would be a lot more happy people around, there's no point wollowing in what you don't have and not bothering to try because then you'll never know what you were capable of.
If everyone just put in the time/effort to make something of themselves, be a person of substance and character, eager to work out why they were put on this earth and not just being a nameless face in the crowd, then maybe they could impact the world and make a difference rather than just reacting as the world pushes them along the conveyrbelt that can be their lives. (*just something I've been thinking about since I've seen 6 of my friends drop out of college, their reason "boredom" and there seems to be no purpose to their life and they can't be bothered thinking about what it could be either....... :( )
The Taxi Driver
06-19-06, 10:05 AM
Racism. it seems like everywhere I turn I seem to hear another black/Hispanic/Asian joke. everyone says oh im just kidding but they are constantly saying things and I know deep down without even knowing it they are racist. At first I used to think when i heard kids in my school they were just beiung dumb teenagers and they are saying stuff they hear on tv and they would grow out of it. but many kids tell stories about how their parents go around saying the same things they do. By the way my school/town is primarily white.
adidasss
06-19-06, 10:17 AM
croatian society? at the moment, widely approved homophobia...
Career polititians and attorneys.
nuff said.
SamsoniteDelilah
06-19-06, 02:03 PM
Apathy, In my corner of the globe (Melbourne, Australia) everyone is so reactive instead of proactive.
If people just took charge of their lives and got determined about achieving an awesome future then there would be a lot more happy people around, there's no point wollowing in what you don't have and not bothering to try because then you'll never know what you were capable of.
If everyone just put in the time/effort to make something of themselves, be a person of substance and character, eager to work out why they were put on this earth and not just being a nameless face in the crowd, then maybe they could impact the world and make a difference rather than just reacting as the world pushes them along the conveyrbelt that can be their lives. (*just something I've been thinking about since I've seen 6 of my friends drop out of college, their reason "boredom" and there seems to be no purpose to their life and they can't be bothered thinking about what it could be either....... :( )
Great post!
I'm signing my name below Spooky's on this.
Lack of nudity at the DMV. Let's face it, 'ol Margey would be just THAT much easier to deal with if she wasn't all buttoned up in the girdles and such. Boy, I would renew my stuff every week! Float those babies over the counter and I'll pay extra!
allthatglitters
06-19-06, 03:45 PM
the "anything goes" additude
SamsoniteDelilah
06-19-06, 04:07 PM
Lack of nudity at the DMV. Let's face it, 'ol Margey would be just THAT much easier to deal with if she wasn't all buttoned up in the girdles and such. Boy, I would renew my stuff every week! Float those babies over the counter and I'll pay extra!
:rotfl:
You clearly have a different sort of people working at your DMV as here.
:rotfl:
You clearly have a different sort of people working at your DMV as here.
Oh, believe me, the reason the joke works (hopefully) is that they are very much NOT the people you want nude in public....
SamsoniteDelilah
06-19-06, 06:15 PM
Oh, believe me, the reason the joke works (hopefully) is that they are very much NOT the people you want nude in public....
Ah. In that case, you are not a well man, Sedai. ;) brrr!
Pyro Tramp
06-19-06, 06:46 PM
Chavs and emo kids.
Shoot 'em all i say.
emo kids.
"im an emo kid, non-conformist as can be, you'd be non-conformist too if you looked just like me."
;)
Purandara88
06-20-06, 05:51 PM
Sand religion and the associated moral dualism...
Ash_Lee
06-20-06, 06:03 PM
Lack of patience. For example, I could be driving along a country road, at night, and more importantly, at the speed limit, and then some idiot will turn up behind me and decide that the best course of action is to drive right up behind me, not only creating a hazard by giving himself f-all reaction time if I were to break, but also by severely reducing my visibility of the road ahead with his headlights.
Idiots.
Sand religion and the associated moral dualism...
Eh? Are you saying monotheists are all eggtimers? Do explain. (Preferably without somehow calling the rest of the world spoon-fed Visigoths).
---
What's wrong with society?
Dandruff and hair-care products.
John McClane
06-20-06, 07:22 PM
Well, I think it's about time I put my voice in this thread. I'd say the thing I hate most is how religion seems to be the driving force of everything we do.
Purandara88
06-20-06, 07:29 PM
Eh? Are you saying monotheists are all eggtimers? Do explain. (Preferably without somehow calling the rest of the world spoon-fed Visigoths).
It's a self-explanatory statement. Which part did you not understand?
Well, I think it's about time I put my voice in this thread. I'd say the thing I hate most is how religion seems to be the driving force of everything we do.
Talking of which, can someone out Ann Coulter as a witch? Just saw her on Newsnight, and that woman needs her head examined (with a blunt instrument). I never knew anyone could be further to the Right than Bill O'Reilly.
---
EDIT:
---
Pure-hate, that was a relatively polite request to have the term 'Sand religion' explained. I've never heard the term before. Thought it was fairly obvious.
Lance McCool
06-20-06, 07:32 PM
Chavs
Shoot 'em all i say.
Have Fun (http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/309600)
Well, I think it's about time I put my voice in this thread. I'd say the thing I hate most is how religion seems to be the driving force of everything we do.
I don't see how you could expect anything else. It only makes sense that if people believe in a God, that they dedicated a great deal of their lives to the idea. Anything else would be irrational.
Purandara88
06-20-06, 07:39 PM
'Sand Religion' = Judaism, Christianity and Islam, for reasons that should be fairly obvious.
I never knew anyone could be further to the Right than Bill O'Reilly.
I'm surprised by how often people say things like this. O'Reilly is not especially far to the right. Certainly not far enough to become some sort of archetype for Conservatism. He's against the death penalty, if memory serves, and fairly moderate on abortion, often the definitive left/right issue. How he's gotten lumped in with the likes of Pat Robertson, I'll never know.
'Sand Religion' = Judaism, Christianity and Islam, for reasons that should be fairly obvious.
If you will invent your own terms, expect to be misunderstood. There's plenty of sand out in California. Do the peyote crew count too?
O'Reilly is not especially far to the right. Certainly not far enough to become some sort of archetype for Conservatism.
I guess the limited exposure i get over here comes in the form of his more fire-and-brimstone perfomances (Like in that Fox-spanking doc, and on The Daily Show maybe).
From the little i've learnt of Coulter already, she seems to be so far to the Right that she's fallen off the end of the world. She seems to like it down there tho.
A few more things:
Airlines who only give you 1/8th of a can of sprite during the 12 hour flight, after announcing they only have one movie on board that they will have to play three times, which happens to be Babe: Pig in the City. Society could do without that
Unions. (Trade unions.) I believe in worker's rights, and i believe that sometimes action and orginization is needed to attain these rights. This was the case in the shaping of many nations, but today, many unions seem to monopolize the trade, which forces workers to pay to join the union in order to obtain a job. Thats ridiculous. Sorry, Mr. Jenkins, We really need another makeup artist for our new film, and you are clearly the best, but you'll need to sort it out with the union first. They have us by the ballz. Then poor old Mr. Jenkins pays his union dues only to find out that the no-talent Ms. Jones got the job instead. (She was there first.) Society can do without that.
People who write "420" on any/every surface they can get their grubby little paws on. Come on folks, if you're going to smoke the stuff, then smoke it, as long as your not hurting anyone then i dont give a flip- but what are you aiming at with this vandalization? Do you seriously think some politician who sees it on a bathroom stall is going to come to some sudden and true realization and think, "by george, i better legalize it!" Yeah, we can do without that, too.
"People who are intolerant of other peoples cultures."
"The Dutch" ;)
International masses who take Michael Moore's movies as near-religious truth, finding a way to introduce a "Moorism" into every single conversation, Beginning every debate with, "Well, Michael Moore said.." And denying an American's point of view, which is based off of experience, because it conflicts in any way with images seen in Bowling for Columbine. :furious:
Americans who hate America for all of the wrong reasons. If you want to criticize, do so in an intelligent, informed manner. I will then reply likewise. Do not give me someone else's opinion, unless you make it clear to me that you understand that opinion and are able to communicate why you agree with it. Living abroad, it gets tough to deal with anti-americanism by the locals, but its tougher to deal with the other Americans, the ones who denounce all things USA, and seem to be even less informed than the internationals.
People who say 'like' improperly. This is absolutley intolerable for me, because, like, i just cant handle it, and, like, its annoying, you know? And like, its kind of an embarassment when people, like, insist on emphasizing, like, their own stupidity, and like, ya know, whatever. ;)
Phew. Time for lunch...
Purandara88
06-20-06, 09:11 PM
Golgot, 'sand religion' is a fairly common reference to the Semitic monotheistic tradition. And, like I said, it's pretty much self-explanatory.
Golgot, 'sand religion' is a fairly common reference to the Semitic monotheistic tradition. And, like I said, it's pretty much self-explanatory.
My father went to seminary, and I've never heard the term. A search on Google yields precious little in the way of enlightening results, too. I'm not saying you made it up, necessarily, but it seems rarely used at best. Also, at risk of seeming needlessly contrarian, I don't find it self-explanatory, either.
Golgot, 'sand religion' is a fairly common reference to the Semitic monotheistic tradition. And, like I said, it's pretty much self-explanatory.
Well, i'd never heard it, it didn't google well, and so i asked. I also included the word 'monotheists' in my question to indicate that that was my guess as to what you meant.
Shockingly enough, not everyone uses your vocabulary.
(Altho, for what it's worth, i'm happy to be as disdainful towards you as you are to others)
:)
Purandara88
06-20-06, 09:42 PM
My father went to seminary, and I've never heard the term. A search on Google yields precious little in the way of enlightening results, too. I'm not saying you made it up, necessarily, but it seems rarely used at best. Also, at risk of seeming needlessly contrarian, I don't find it self-explanatory, either.
Google's limitations with regard to pulling up bulletin board posts are pretty well known, and that's where you're going to find the overwhelming majority of references to slang terms...
John McClane
06-20-06, 10:29 PM
I don't see how you could expect anything else. It only makes sense that if people believe in a God, that they dedicated a great deal of their lives to the idea. Anything else would be irrational.So dedicating their lives to a god means messing with other people's lives? Seems like an odd way to dedicate oneself. I understand your thinking and agree but, I'm talking about how it makes what's acceptable and unacceptable in society. Whenever I ask someone why they agree with certain things they point to the Bible or some other religious foundation. Could it be possible that we just know it's wrong or unacceptable?
Google's limitations with regard to pulling up bulletin board posts are pretty well known, and that's where you're going to find the overwhelming majority of references to slang terms...
I've been developing websites for about nine years, and running forums for about seven, and I don't know where you're getting this. Google spiders a great many forums (the overwhelming majority of our traffic here comes from them); certainly enough that we'd find some decent evidence of this allegedly common term.
Even if this were not the case, however, it doesn't explain why I'd somehow manage to have never heard the term, despite having an interest in theology, having spent hundreds of hours arguing over religion in my lifetime, and living in a house where even the youngest children have enough interest in the "Semitic monotheistic tradition" to learn swaths of Hebrew. My aforementioned old man, who as I said studied at Seminary and sometimes translates Scripture on the weekends (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin), has also never heard of it.
Remember that part before where I said you weren't necessarily making it up? I'm rethinking it.
So dedicating their lives to a god means messing with other people's lives?
Hm, don't recall saying that. :)
I understand your thinking and agree but, I'm talking about how it makes what's acceptable and unacceptable in society. Whenever I ask someone why they agree with certain things they point to the Bible or some other religious foundation. Could it be possible that we just know it's wrong or unacceptable?
It could be that we think it is, but objective morality is dependent on a higher power of some sort. If we're merely atoms floating around the Universe, no one has the authority to simply declare that something is wrong.
To use an extreme example: if there is no God, and you say murder is wrong, and I say that it isn't, how, exactly, would you go about proving otherwise?
John McClane
06-20-06, 10:49 PM
Hm, don't recall saying that. :)Yea, I know. :p
It could be that we think it is, but objective morality is dependent on a higher power of some sort. If we're merely atoms floating around the Universe, no one has the authority to simply declare that something is wrong.
To use an extreme example: if there is no God, and you say murder is wrong, and I say that it isn't, how, exactly, would you go about proving otherwise?The question can be asked the same way. However, with religions there is no such thing as universal or absolute morality. What's good in one society can be bad in another. Murdering might be bad in America but some societies find head-hunting a part of life. Humans could give themselves morals wherever they live because they just might be a moral/social species.
To use an extreme example: if there is no God, and you say murder is wrong, and I say that it isn't, how, exactly, would you go about proving otherwise?
Coz the other person would be dead before their time. Not much more proof is needed, on the whole.
Moral systems have emerged under numerous theologies, as you know - and remain enshrined in secular societies too. But more persuasively, justice seems to be innate, to varying degrees. Monkey's have their own 'justice' systems concerning theft, and distribution of effort, for example.
It seems more than likely that this is why rudimentary morality might emerge amongst groups. Coz it works in the group's favour, overall.
Ain't so much atoms flying about, as beguiling chemistry at work ;)
To use an extreme example: if there is no God, and you say murder is wrong, and I say that it isn't, how, exactly, would you go about proving otherwise?
Well thats what MoFo is for. (duh!) ;)
Lockheed Martin
06-21-06, 12:02 AM
Something that really pounds my skull about western society today is advertising. If the bastards aren't trying to exploit existing neuroses, they're doing their damned best to create a whole new batch.
Here in Britain they play every trick in the book, and some of them are so dirty even Goebbles would have thought twice about exploting them. We've got miracle deep-pore invigorating Youthi-Plus Nutriversal AgeDefyMax with pure extract of mahogany and ground gold will help women protect themselves from the horror of natural aging, just as long as they fork over £35 for a ounce. Anthropomorphic furry animals whittering paranoia about becoming a social pariah if you don't fill every socket in your home with a glade plug-in. Dolls that teach kids not old enough to spell their own names the twin virtues of slap artistry and dressing like you're giving it away. And don't even get me started on those wretched domestic cleaning products that scream babydeath at you if you don't wipe down every surface with their particular brand of toxic blue. Scrub, scrub, scrub with Domestos and everything'll be fine. And psychologists wonder why OCD is on the up.
Jesus! The patronising tone of it. Cars that're guaranteed to reverse a mid-life crisis, a thousand brands of sugar-frosted heart-killers laser-targeted at screaming brats with a busy mums and those God-awful pop-cultural bandwagon jumpers. Look, those ironically dressed 118 runners are doing the A-team! That's so cutting edge I can feel my comedy gland bleeding out. Oh, and the health supplements that ghastly Mckeith woman flogs. You're only truly healthy if you're drinking a twig and dandelion smoothie every morning, and even then you should probably buy a £15 bottle of placebo to stop the modern world killing you. Hell, while you're out buying all the trinkets and geegaws that're guaranteed to protect you from the wicked, awful horror of absolutely everything, you should probably grab some life insurance, BECAUSE DEATH STALKS YOU AT EVERY TURN.
Those poor old people. Imagine fighting your way up the beaches of Normandy for an ideal, then forty years eroding your mind contributing to the economy, maybe raising a family and finally retiring only to be talked down to by Dolphin Bathrooms and the woman who used to be in corrie. Hell, most advertising aimed at the elderly demographic is a more sophisticated, slightly less illegal version of those conmen who sell senile widows the same security system eight times, only using a set of worthless commemorative plates instead.
I guess my short, non-polemical point is that advertising is evil. Probably not the biggest social evil of today, but I still wouldn't be suprised if the antichrist turned out to work for Saatchi & Saatchi.
(Oh, this is my first post. So, hello everyone.)
Hello Lockheed. I hate that wittering Glade-skunk and all (or whatever it is).
So long as you don't prove to be an undercover Cillet Bang salesman, you're fine by me ;)
Purandara88
06-21-06, 12:30 AM
I've been developing websites for about nine years, and running forums for about seven, and I don't know where you're getting this. Google spiders a great many forums (the overwhelming majority of our traffic here comes from them); certainly enough that we'd find some decent evidence of this allegedly common term.
My point is that google searches only rarely return invididual forum POSTS. 'Asshat' was in pretty common BB usage 5 years ago, but you'd get nothing or almost nothing if you'd googled it then. Dunno about now.
Lockheed Martin
06-21-06, 01:09 AM
Hello Lockheed. I hate that wittering Glade-skunk and all (or whatever it is).
So long as you don't prove to be an undercover Cillet Bang salesman, you're fine by me ;)
It's the voice that gets me. That skunk sounds like it needs some serious diazipam before she's found ankle-deep in the remains of her family.
Anyway, thanks for the hello. After re-reading my post I've realised that I come off a little like a cross between Mary Whitehouse and one of those people who believe that the US government is trying to control the population by lacing pistachio nuts with LSD, so you're probably quite brave to approach me.
Thinking of Barry Scott in disguise, did you hear about Cillit Bang's attempt at viral marketing? Their agency left messages on various blogs purporting to be from Mr. Scott himself, it all went rather wrong when they took it a step too far and left a message of condolence on some chap's obitury for his father.
If you did, you probably read TFT too, which is awesome.
John McClane
06-21-06, 01:35 PM
My point is that google searches only rarely return invididual forum POSTS. 'Asshat' was in pretty common BB usage 5 years ago, but you'd get nothing or almost nothing if you'd googled it then. Dunno about now.Right now, it's everywhere for reference and it's meaning. So wouldn't you think your other word would be as well? If it was so popular, where is the attempt to document it? No where. What do you smoke to make this stuff up? Because if it's anything that's OTC, I got to sue the company. :)
Purandara88
06-21-06, 06:10 PM
Right now, it's everywhere for reference and it's meaning. So wouldn't you think your other word would be as well? If it was so popular, where is the attempt to document it? No where. What do you smoke to make this stuff up? Because if it's anything that's OTC, I got to sue the company. :)
The point is that 5 years ago, "asshat" was common BB slang, but hadn't reached a point where it was 'defined' outside of the communities that used it. 'Sand religion' is fairly common, but it remains 'underground' in the sense that it is confined to internet communities with an anti-religious bent.
I first came across on forums dedicated to black metal, which is where it is still most common.
John McClane
06-21-06, 06:39 PM
The point is that 5 years ago, "asshat" was common BB slang, but hadn't reached a point where it was 'defined' outside of the communities that used it. 'Sand religion' is fairly common, but it remains 'underground' in the sense that it is confined to internet communities with an anti-religious bent.
I first came across on forums dedicated to black metal, which is where it is still most common.Would you care to point us to a forum that uses this term?
I feel like such an asshat, um asset to this place.
Yep that one site was right, you can use this word in many ways.
Purandara88
06-21-06, 07:40 PM
Would you care to point us to a forum that uses this term?
A quick google search turned up message board posts from as early as 2004 on FrontPageMag (a neo-con site) and MysticWicks.com (which is, it appears, a Wiccan forum). The Bravewords.com forums also returned a hit (heavy metal magazine), as did the Ruthless Reviews board.
I originally came across the term 4 or 5 years ago on the old Dark Legions Pub forums.
Links:
http://www.mysticwicks.com/archive/index.php/t-67419.html
http://www.bravewords.com/braveboard/viewtopic.php?t=18687&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=25&sid=d9c10b4eaffb8fdb10aeb9890399da3c
http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/CommentsOverview.asp?ID=15169
http://www.ruthlessforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=530745&sid=8c858054af0b6abb72d70655928ec5a4
John McClane
06-21-06, 10:13 PM
A quick google search turned up message board posts from as early as 2004 on FrontPageMag (a neo-con site) and MysticWicks.com (which is, it appears, a Wiccan forum). The Bravewords.com forums also returned a hit (heavy metal magazine), as did the Ruthless Reviews board.
I originally came across the term 4 or 5 years ago on the old Dark Legions Pub forums.Would you care to actually link me to a post or site where it's being used?
Society, whether we like it or agree with it, is made of individuals. Sure there are stereotypical beliefs, religions, morals, etc… but really many of us seem to “go with the flow” so to speak. Certainly there is nothing wrong with that if one is not lying to themselves. What I see a lot of, in America anyway, is “leafs” flowing with the current of a typical “sand religion :rolleyes: ” philosophy. For example: It is okay to stretch that yellow light out if one can get through the intersection without getting hit or it is okay for someone to be homosexual as long as they stay away from me and do not hit on me. We are all, in most countries, governed by laws. We may not like or agree with them, but laws are what makes any civilized entity successful. Most of us tend to follow the laws if for no other reason than because we enjoy our freedom such as it may be. The “Horse and Buggy” laws are outdated but most of us would break for a horse-driven carriage if it pulled out in front of us would we not? We all need to accept the things we cannot change and fight to change the things we can. Defeatism is an epidemic and dogmatism is right up there with it. We have come a long way from our Cro-Magnon days but we do have a long way to go. So I say love thy fellow man/woman, flaws (as we as individuals may see them) and all. Respect each other and always give someone the benefit of the doubt unless they show they do not deserve it, and ya know what?... I think for the most part a great percentage of society already does this. I may be an optimist but I haven’t had to hit a woman over the head with a club to have sex in a long time, well not since I was 24 anyway.
it all went rather wrong when they took it a step too far and left a message of condolence on some chap's obitury for his father.
They know no bounds! (I swear the marketing guys were sniffing that stuff ;))
If you did, you probably read TFT too, which is awesome.
I'm afraid my delvings stop at B3ta far too often. What's TFT stand for? Please tell me it isn't Trustafarians For Temazipan ;)
I haven’t had to hit a woman over the head with a club to have sex in a long time, well not since I was 24 anyway.
This bit should not have been bolded 7th :D
My point is that google searches only rarely return invididual forum POSTS. 'Asshat' was in pretty common BB usage 5 years ago, but you'd get nothing or almost nothing if you'd googled it then. Dunno about now.
It doesn't have to return individual posts; only the pages on which said posts appear. These "explanations" don't add up.
Regardless, if all you say is true, it's still a niche phrase in an extremely small sub-set of forums which, apparently, have managed to mostly avoid being indexed by Google. Thus, your passive-agressive response to Gol (which you repeated later) for simply asking what it meant was rather bizarre.
Purandara88
06-26-06, 05:55 PM
It doesn't have to return individual posts; only the pages on which said posts appear. These "explanations" don't add up.
It won't return them because it doesn't generally search forums at all, which are often hosted offsite.
Besides, I already found at least 4 usages after a brief search, so clearly, you didn't do a great job of looking.
And, obviously, it's not a 'niche' phrase given that the four usages I found turned up on four radically different forums (a political forum, a religiously oriented forum, a music forum and a forum for movie and game reviews).
It won't return them because it doesn't generally search forums at all, which are often hosted offsite.
What on earth are you talking about? Where a site is hosted has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's indexed by Google, unless you're claiming that the phrase is only used on forums unavailable online (for example, on an intranet forum, which are generally only used by corporations and inhabited by people on a local network). Which, you know, doesn't make any sense.
You're pulling these explanations out of you a**, man. It might have worked if you were talking to someone who has absolutely no clue how the Internet works, though.
Besides, I already found at least 4 usages after a brief search, so clearly, you didn't do a great job of looking.
Yeah, four whole examples. The phrase is so well-known and common that after about a week this thread is already the #2 result on Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22sand+religion%22) when searching for it.
Purandara88
06-26-06, 06:10 PM
What on earth are you talking about? Where a site is hosted has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's indexed by Google, unless you're claiming that the phrase is only used on forums unavailable online (for example, on an intranet forum, which are generally only used by corporations and inhabited by people on a local network). Which, you know, doesn't make any sense.
1. There are many, many sites google won't return at all because of relatively low levels of unique traffic. You can and do have fairly lively forums that have no google presence, because they're only getting traffic from the same 30-40 people on a day in, day out basis.
2. A lot of websites that do get a fair amount of traffic host their forums through other sites or space providers. While their websites may be heavily trafficked, the forums are not necessarily getting the numbers of unique page views to show up in a google search. So their bulletin board posts are 'invisible' to google users.
Purandara88
06-26-06, 06:12 PM
Yeah, four whole examples. The phrase is so well-known and common that after about a week this thread is already the #2 result on Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22sand+religion%22) when searching for it.
For obvious reasons: the phrase is used OVER AND OVER AGAIN in this thread, and this is a fairly high traffic site (as you obviously know).
1. There are many, many sites google won't return at all because of relatively low levels of unique traffic. You can and do have fairly lively forums that have no google presence, because they're only getting traffic from the same 30-40 people on a day in, day out basis.
Google's PageRank uses incoming text links as its primary form of weighting, not traffic, which it has no way to adequately measure anyway. The only way it could even estimate the traffic of various sites is through its toolbar.
Besides, if the phrase were even remotely "common," why would it only appear on lowly-trafficked forums?
2. A lot of websites that do get a fair amount of traffic host their forums through other sites or space providers. While their websites may be heavily trafficked, the forums are not necessarily getting the numbers of unique page views to show up in a google search. So their bulletin board posts are 'invisible' to google users.
This is nonsensical. Again: how and where a forum is hosted is completely irrelevant to Google. I don't know how to say it any simpler than that. And there certainly isn't any traffic minimum requirement to be listed in Google.
The only possible exception would be any instance in which Google blacklisted a service provider, which doesn't fit with what you're saying, either.
For obvious reasons: the phrase is used OVER AND OVER AGAIN in this thread, and this is a fairly high traffic site (as you obviously know).
According to eMarketer magazine, search engine optimization was a $2.3 billion industry in just the first half of 2005. Do you actually believe that one can achieve a high ranking for a common phrase by simply repeating it over and over? If only.
Purandara88
06-26-06, 06:29 PM
Google's PageRank uses incoming text links as its primary form of weighting, not traffic, which it has no way to adequately measure anyway. The only way it could even estimate the traffic of various sites is through its toolbar.
So sites that don't get linked alot don't show up? Then you have your answer. Forums are pretty low on the list to get linked.
Besides, even if the phrase were even remotely "common," why would it only appear on lowly-trafficked forums?
Even many active forums don't get a lot of unique traffic though, because you can sustain a very active forum with less than 30 regular participants. Case in point: the 110 'guests' who are on this site at any given point are generating a lot more traffic for MoFo than Golgot and I do on a daily basis, even though we actually contribute content on a regular basis, and most of the guests will never be back.
According to eMarketer magazine, search engine optimization was a $2.3 billion industry in just the first half of 2005. Do you actually believe that one can achieve a high ranking for a common phrase by simply repeating it over and over? If only.
If a target phrase is mentioned many times on one site and only once on another, there's a good chance that site will turn up higher on list after a search, yes. Google search is weighted for the number of a appearances of the target word or phrase. Especially if it is a more heavily trafficked site than the latter.
Stop squirming on the hook Pure-hate. It's so undignified.
So sites that don't get linked alot don't show up? Then you have your answer. Forums are pretty low on the list to get linked.
Well, first of all, it's not that they don't show up, it's that they show up less (or lower). But regardless, since when are forums "pretty low on the list"? I haven't noticed any such trend.
Also, even if this were true, it's not what you said before. You've offered maybe three completely different explanations now, a new one each time the previous one is shown to be erroneous.
Even many active forums don't get a lot of unique traffic though, because you can sustain a very active forum with less than 30 regular participants. Case in point: the 110 'guests' who are on this site at any given point are generating a lot more traffic for MoFo than Golgot and I do on a daily basis, even though we actually contribute content on a regular basis, and most of the guests will never be back.
This is all true, but it's irrelevant. Did you miss the part where I made it clear that Google has no real way to accurately measure traffic? What reason do you have to believe it can, and what reason do you have to believe it uses that traffic to influence its rankings?
Also, what of the claim about "offsite hosting"? Can I assume that was completely made up?
If a target phrase is mentioned many times on one site and only once on another, there's a good chance that site will turn up higher on list after a search, yes. Especially if it is a more heavily trafficked site than the latter.
Again, traffic has nothing to do with it, and even if it did, SEO is not so simple that a repeated phrase will noticably increase your ranking. It's a tedious, arduous, fluctuating process, otherwise I'd plaster Lindsay Lohan's name everywhere and retire.
chicagofrog
06-27-06, 10:10 AM
To use an extreme example: if there is no God, and you say murder is wrong, and I say that it isn't, how, exactly, would you go about proving otherwise?
if you've read so much (what i'm quite sure of, but then why does it seem like you've specialized your reading very much??), and especially about diverse stuff and not only christian and other theistic religions, you'd know there are religions without god(s) (at least not adoring them) that still consider, and yes, prove, the existence/concept of what one'd call "negative" actions like your extreme example, murder.
we could on a very tolerant way regard your concept of "god" as something more abstract than a god, or God, and then you would seem more open/tolerant to other concepts than your christianity and monotheism, but really, can we??
if you've read so much (what i'm quite sure of, but then why does it seem like you've specialized your reading very much??)
I have no idea why it seems like that to you. One of the first things my dad gave me to read when I started reading about theology was Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian.
and especially about diverse stuff and not only christian and other theistic religions, you'd know there are religions without god(s) (at least not adoring them) that still consider, and yes, prove, the existence/concept of what one'd call "negative" actions like your extreme example, murder.
we could on a very tolerant way regard your concept of "god" as something more abstract than a god, or God, and then you would seem more open/tolerant to other concepts than your christianity and monotheism, but really, can we??
It'd only be a semantic difference if you did. You'd ultimately come back to some sort of "God," even if you chose to think of it as some sort of vague force, rather than any sort of intelligent being. Either way, some force or standard greater than ourselves is necessary if one is to postulate objective morality, which is all I said.
Lockheed Martin
06-27-06, 10:26 PM
I have no idea why it seems like that to you. One of the first things my dad gave me to read when I started reading about theology was Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian.
It'd only be a semantic difference if you did. You'd ultimately come back to some sort of "God," even if you chose to think of it as some sort of vague force, rather than any sort of intelligent being. Either way, some force or standard greater than ourselves is necessary if one is to postulate objective morality, which is all I said.
I have no interest in attacking someone's faith, but I'd like to point out that in Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Selfish Gene", makes an excellent argument for Godless morality. Although it relies rather heavily on meme theory, which is highly disputed.
There's also a theory that suggests a rudimentry morality may be hard-wired into our genetic code, which is largely supported by anthropologists and sociobiologists. This would certainly make sense, considering the sociopathic personality and our closest living genetic relative, the bonobo chimpanzee.
The bonobo chimpanzee displays extrordinary capabilities for altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience and sensitivity (according to Frans de Waal, a leading primatologist). Considering that our other closest genetic relative, the common chimpanzee, practices very little in the way of human morality, this suggests that bonobos and humans share a gene for moral behaviour that arose very late in the evolution of primates. If basic morality were an emergent behaviour or a social construct, then all social animals would share it and if it were God's work, you'd have to wonder why He'd only bestow it on humans and one other animal that breaks His laws (as written in the Bible) quite often (Bonobs practice a rudimentry morality, they have no qualms about incestuous sex for example). Of course, this is all conjecture and isn't supported by hard-facts. But nonetheless, it's all very interesting.
Purandara88
06-27-06, 10:33 PM
There have also been some reasonably well-argued suggestions from sociobiologists that humans are hard-wired for war and racism, so it's not exactly a crystal clear picture.
Lockheed Martin
06-27-06, 10:47 PM
There have also been some reasonably well-argued suggestions from sociobiologists that humans are hard-wired for war and racism, so it's not exactly a crystal clear picture.
Precisely, a lot of our behaviour probably is genetically determined. Inherent prejudices and a predisposition to defend territory would've served our tribal ancestors extremely well in terms of survival, but so would a proclivity towards maintaining the tribe outside of conflict.
War and altruism aren't mutually exclusive, in fact they compliment each other well when it comes to society.
SamsoniteDelilah
06-28-06, 01:21 AM
Sure it is.
Humans are complex creatures.
What isn't clear?
Purandara88
06-28-06, 01:29 AM
Precisely, a lot of our behaviour probably is genetically determined. Inherent prejudices and a predisposition to defend territory would've served our tribal ancestors extremely well in terms of survival, but so would a proclivity towards maintaining the tribe outside of conflict.
War and altruism aren't mutually exclusive, in fact they compliment each other well when it comes to society.
My point was more that we're also quite possibly 'hardwired' for 'immoral' behavior...
Octavian
06-28-06, 05:56 AM
The thing that ticks me off about society is the blatant miss-use and miss-education of our history that this country was built on. In a Society that teaches its youth Hero-fication rather than the Truth. One can clearly see why the Country is in the state it's in .
chicagofrog
06-28-06, 08:30 AM
It'd only be a semantic difference if you did. You'd ultimately come back to some sort of "God," even if you chose to think of it as some sort of vague force, rather than any sort of intelligent being. Either way, some force or standard greater than ourselves is necessary if one is to postulate objective morality, which is all I said.
:yup: agreed. so it's semantic, but not so superficial a difference either, between a (what you call) "vague" - (but, let's say, the karma and reincarnation principles are the contrary of vague, they're precise and logical) - force/power/mechanism and an intelligent being.
sadly enough, people have been burnt cuz they believed in a "vague" hollistic conception of "God".
Please people. Tell me, what is the number one thing you hate about society as a whole?
The word hate, what it means, the things it causes :(
The bonobo chimpanzee displays extrordinary capabilities for altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience and sensitivity (according to Frans de Waal, a leading primatologist). Considering that our other closest genetic relative, the common chimpanzee, practices very little in the way of human morality, this suggests that bonobos and humans share a gene for moral behaviour that arose very late in the evolution of primates.
There was some interesting backup for one of de Waal's ideas published last June. Apparently bonobos and humans share a DNA section which regulates how we respond to vasopressin (the hormone which can strongly influence attachment and bonding etc).
Chimps lack this section. [More here (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825201.500.html) - it's subscription tho ;)]
As you say tho, talk of 'morality genes' is still pretty much conjecture at the mo. This discovery just strengthens the ideas that humans (and bonobos) are more social & cooperative, and less vicious, than chimps. Which is kinda class anyway ;)
...you'd have to wonder why He'd only bestow it on humans and one other animal that breaks His laws
Perhaps they were His first attempt - but they ate a few too many apples? ;)
---
I'm intrigued by Yods' statement:
...some force or standard greater than ourselves is necessary if one is to postulate objective morality, which is all I said.
More for the idea that belief in 'objectivity' itself requires a belief in 'greater' forces/'rules'. It's another example of how both Theism and science can engender respect and awe. (...And the writing of slightly-less-great human-centric rules, of course ;))
Lockheed Martin
06-29-06, 02:35 AM
Purandara - Yes... I'm still not sure how you're disagreeing with me.
Purandara88
06-29-06, 03:30 AM
Purandara - Yes... I'm still not sure how you're disagreeing with me.
If you're going to posit a sociobiological 'morality' of genetic predisposition, you'd either have to fundamentally redefine much of what is understood to be 'moral' behavior or show that no immoral behaviors have a biological basis.
Lockheed Martin
06-29-06, 04:52 AM
If you're going to posit a sociobiological 'morality' of genetic predisposition, you'd either have to fundamentally redefine much of what is understood to be 'moral' behavior or show that no immoral behaviors have a biological basis.
I think I see your reasoning, although I'm still not sure I understand its relevance.
My argument was that a rudimentry system of ethical social behaviour is shared by human beings and the bonobo chimpanzee. A set of core moral values, if you will. Such as a rejection of murder and unprovoked violence against other members of what we perceive to be our "tribe", the impulse to aid those in distress or danger, sharing resources and compassion.
All other 'values', like not stealing, rules about sexual intercourse and proper social conduct, are most likely learned behaviours.
It's entirely possible for an impetus for moral and immoral behaviour to be inherent in human beings. Could you better explain why you disagree? You're not giving me much to work with.
Purandara88
06-29-06, 02:39 PM
I think I see your reasoning, although I'm still not sure I understand its relevance.
My argument was that a rudimentry system of ethical social behaviour is shared by human beings and the bonobo chimpanzee. A set of core moral values, if you will. Such as a rejection of murder and unprovoked violence against other members of what we perceive to be our "tribe", the impulse to aid those in distress or danger, sharing resources and compassion.
All other 'values', like not stealing, rules about sexual intercourse and proper social conduct, are most likely learned behaviours.
It's entirely possible for an impetus for moral and immoral behaviour to be inherent in human beings. Could you better explain why you disagree? You're not giving me much to work with.
Morality, by definition, is a comprehensive system of ethical thought that serves both to provide a context for the abstract valuation of past action and as a guide for future action. To posit a 'godless' biological morality, you'd have to demonstrate a biological basis for a system of ethical thought, otherwise you're just looking at natural variances in the aggression of animals and arbitrarily calling some of it 'primitive morality.'
My question is, "Where in the genes is the system, and why do moral systems conflict if they are biologically determined?"
ash_is_the_gal
06-29-06, 03:28 PM
Yeah, four whole examples. The phrase is so well-known and common that after about a week this thread is already the #2 result on Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22sand+religion%22) when searching for it.
For obvious reasons: the phrase is used OVER AND OVER AGAIN in this thread, and this is a fairly high traffic site (as you obviously know).
you know.... for some odd reason this whole conversation has kind of creeped me out, but i'll keep reading anyhow.
this whole conversation has kind of creeped me out, but i'll keep reading anyhow.
As Archie would say:......."Ditto";)
I have no interest in attacking someone's faith, but I'd like to point out that in Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Selfish Gene", makes an excellent argument for Godless morality. Although it relies rather heavily on meme theory, which is highly disputed.
There's also a theory that suggests a rudimentry morality may be hard-wired into our genetic code, which is largely supported by anthropologists and sociobiologists. This would certainly make sense, considering the sociopathic personality and our closest living genetic relative, the bonobo chimpanzee.
I think we have a slight misunderstanding. I am not suggesting that people need to believe in a higher power of some sort in order to behave in way that you or I might consider "moral." Only that such morality remains subjective in the absence of such a power. In other words, that their "moral" behavior is either illogical, or simply a convenient way of living, rather than based in anything real. It is either a social construct or a delusion when not accompanied by a God of some kind.
Also, even if this were true, it's not what you said before. You've offered maybe three completely different explanations now, a new one each time the previous one is shown to be erroneous.
This is all true, but it's irrelevant. Did you miss the part where I made it clear that Google has no real way to accurately measure traffic? What reason do you have to believe it can, and what reason do you have to believe it uses that traffic to influence its rankings?
Also, what of the claim about "offsite hosting"? Can I assume that was completely made up?
I'm never going to get an answer to this, am I?
Lockheed Martin
07-02-06, 02:02 PM
I think we have a slight misunderstanding. I am not suggesting that people need to believe in a higher power of some sort in order to behave in way that you or I might consider "moral." Only that such morality remains subjective in the absence of such a power. In other words, that their "moral" behavior is either illogical, or simply a convenient way of living, rather than based in anything real. It is either a social construct or a delusion when not accompanied by a God of some kind.
Humm, I see. Well, I retract from the debate then. I can't argue theology or philosophy.
I dunno; I've never cared much for "formal" philsophical terms. I like to think of philosophy as the act of trying to solve any problem whose solution resides only in the mind (not something you can prove with a study or a source, in other words). I despise words like "ontological" and think most philosophical discussion should be about making concepts as clear as possible, rather than obscuring ideas with inaccessible words.
Anyway, what you said about de Waal is pretty interesting; could you by any chance link me up to some more information on the subject?
Lockheed Martin
07-02-06, 03:00 PM
Happy to. If you're flushed and fancy having a book on your shelf that impresses visitors, then you can pick up his excellent "Good Natured" from amazon for a lot less than I paid for it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674356616/sr=8-2/qid=1151859696/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-8273588-5478535?ie=UTF8
De Waal is a serious academic, however and it can be a hard read if you're more used to professional writers.
If you don't feel like shelling out or you have an irrational phobia of paper, he has a few articles online:
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i09/09b00701.htm
and
http://www.paulagordon.com/shows/waal/
Are a couple google threw up after a casual search. However, I really do suggest you buy yourself "Good Natured", or you might get lucky and find it wedged between a couple of Harry Potter books at your local library.
When it comes to philosophy, well, I have nothing against it. It's always just struck me as futile to debate. I have friends who describe themselves as "Kantian" or "Goetheist" and can argue their stances long into the night, but they never conclude anything or shift their positions because there's no evidence. Without proof or other strong evidence it becomes little more than debating preference for foods. That's not to say Philosophy doesn't have some worth; it can provide stunning glimpses behind the veil of reality and profound insights into the human mind, but give me neuroscience and economics anyday. They may not be perfect, but they're tangible.
That's not to say Philosophy doesn't have some worth; it can provide stunning glimpses behind the veil of reality and profound insights into the human mind, but give me neuroscience and economics anyday. They may not be perfect, but they're tangible.
Phew, at least my degree is worth something.;)
"If you are interested in professional or graduate school, be aware that philosophy majors on average perform remarkably well on the standard examinations required for admission.
•According to a 1991-96 study of scores on the GMAT, the exam used by business schools to assess candidates, philosophy majors, on average, outperformed business majors and ranked fourth or fifth among all majors during those years.
•According to a 1994 study of the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test), philosophy majors outperformed political science and pre-law majors, and were fifth among all humanities and social science majors.
•According to a 1998-91 study of the GRE, philosophy majors performed better than any other major on the verbal section, better than any humanities or social science major on the quantitative section, and had the second best of all majors on the analytic section.
Similar studies of these three exams have produced similar results. Now, as you will learn when you study philosophy, that philosophy majors score well on certain exams does not show that their study of philosophy causes their high scores. But it is at least plausible that the study of philosophy contributes to these good results because it emphasizes rigorous thinking, requires one to interpret complex texts and arguments, and may include training in areas tested on the exams in question."
Wow now I have a headache after reading that.....:p
John McClane
07-02-06, 06:11 PM
I just got a new one. The way Boy Scouts really does discriminate against atheists, agnostics and gays. Example with atheists: They don't care what you believe in. Whether it be God, gods or Mother Nature. But you have to believe in a higher power to be part of the organization. They say a citizen can't become the best they can be without a higher power. :rolleyes:
Purandara88
07-08-06, 05:14 PM
I'm never going to get an answer to this, am I?
If google is incapable of gauging traffic, why do they have this (http://googlerankings.com/)?
If google is incapable of gauging traffic, why do they have this (http://googlerankings.com/)?
Do you have any idea what that even does? Because I do: it retrieves search rankings. It's not a measure of traffic. You should probably read more about it (http://googlerankings.com/help.php).
Also, you still haven't answered this...
Also, even if this were true, it's not what you said before. You've offered maybe three completely different explanations now, a new one each time the previous one is shown to be erroneous.
...or this...
Also, what of the claim about "offsite hosting"? Can I assume that was completely made up?
Purandara88
07-08-06, 05:28 PM
Ok, so I was wrong about the mechanics of google, so what? I've already shown numerous usages of the phrase in the same context I used it in through the same google search you claimed turned up nothing.
I've therefore proved that, in fact, the phrase is in usage in precisely the context I used it in, which was the question originally raised. You've ignored the debunking of your 'nobody uses it' argument in favor of a 'well, you don't know google' argument.
Ok, so I was wrong about the mechanics of google, so what?
It's not that you were simpy ignorant of the mechanics of Google; it's that you pretended you were not, and continued to do so even after you were confronted with evidence to the contrary.
Reading your posts, one notices several themes. One of which is a very strong tendency to speak as if you were an authority on the subject at hand. And while I've no doubt that in some cases you are, threads like this demonstrate that you're willing to pull things out of your a** in those instances in which you are not. This, and the fact that you don't seem to find this revelation relevant, indicate that you have a rather casual relationship with the truth.
I've therefore proved that, in fact, the phrase is in usage in precisely the context I used it in, which was the question originally raised. You've ignored the debunking of your 'nobody uses it' argument in favor of a 'well, you don't know google' argument.
I showed some skepticism towards the phrase, absolutely, but if you'll recall (and you can go back and verify this), my primary complaint was that you took a condescending, dismissive tone with Gol for not having heard of the phrase. And it's been quite easily demonstrated (both anecdotally and empirically) that it is not especially common, and certainly not to the degree that should earn Gol even an implication of scorn for being unfamiliar with it.
Purandara88
07-08-06, 06:31 PM
Regardless of how common (or not) 'sand religion' is, it's a phrase so self-explanatory that a reasonable person shouldn't need explication.
Regardless of how common (or not) 'sand religion' is, it's a phrase so self-explanatory that a reasonable person shouldn't need explication.
Yeah, but see, Golgot is a reasonable person by any standard. And reasonable people do not take shots in the dark about phrases they've never heard. He did the reasonable thing and simply asked you, and instead of receiving an answer, he was met with a bizarre mix of incredulity and condescension.
He asked a simple, reasonable question, and you decided to take a dig at him rather than answer. That's pretty ridiculous.
He asked a simple, reasonable question, and you decided to take a dig at him rather than answer. That's pretty ridiculous.
:yup:
Krackalackin
08-18-06, 03:33 AM
Racism. it seems like everywhere I turn I seem to hear another black/Hispanic/Asian joke. everyone says oh im just kidding but they are constantly saying things and I know deep down without even knowing it they are racist. At first I used to think when i heard kids in my school they were just beiung dumb teenagers and they are saying stuff they hear on tv and they would grow out of it. but many kids tell stories about how their parents go around saying the same things they do. By the way my school/town is primarily white.
People tend to think of Racism as a hatred to another race. That's Slander. Racism is the loyalty to your own race and there's not a damn thing wrong with that. There's a hell of a lot of racism in this country but can you blame them? This country was founded as a European colony and on European values and religion. It was this way up until the sixties when the Immigration arm of the Federal Government decided to stop letting in Europeans and start letting in a hell of a lot of third world hispanics. Today, America itself is a wash and it no longer means anything to be an american.
"How quickly we are to give away the nation we for so long sought, worked and died for." Paul Merring
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.