Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#563607 Nov 17, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have seen the pm's. I had to block him. Won't he be surprised when James sends him an autographed photo.
:)
What are pm's?

;-p
endtime

AOL

#563608 Nov 17, 2012
.

PROOF Obama's ReElection = ANTICHRIST_______

&fe ature=plcp


.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#563609 Nov 17, 2012
Truth signed in wrote:
Yes it is...but having a healthy respect for the human condition and a love for your enemies is kinda two different things all together.
Assuming that we mean the same thing by the word "enemy" - somebody that wishes you harm and possibly causes it, too - why would you love an enemy? How is that good advice? I would recommend not making enemies, trying to resolve your differences with the rare enemy that you do make when possible, avoiding enemies whose hatred you cannot assuage.

But love them? Who gives that advice?

A concern for the human condition is the global version of love thy neighbor. They are synonymous.

It is also proper to attempt to improve the condition of suffering animals where possible.
Truth signed in wrote:
Seriously, do you think you have it in you to love selflessly, sacrificially, and ...
All love is selfless or it's not love. All love is sacrificial, or its not love. They mean the same thing. The object of mature love is as important or more important than oneself to a lesser or greater degree, depending on the relationship. Love for strangers is also selfless and sacrificial, but at a lower intensity than other love. That is, I would sacrifice less and put my interests first sooner with a stranger than family member. But until that threshold is reached, the relationship is selfless and sacrificial.
Truth signed in wrote:
... and unconditionally?
No.

Nor would I recommend it to others, except in certain cases - your children, animals, the demented, and the like.

But for any competent adult, even an adult child, spouse or parent, it is possible to betray my love sufficiently to kill it.

Incidentally, the absence of love is not hate. It's indifference.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#563610 Nov 17, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
Conspiracy theories are not theories, they are fables, tall tales out of control. They are just more religions, in other words.
The government hides things, would you announce to the neighborhood that you have a 45 in your bedroom and the safe combination is 429? I hope not.
Just what constitutes a conspiracy theory, or what ought more properly be called a conspiracy hypothesis? Can it refer to so trivial a conspiracy as a con man working with a shill to cheat you? We know that people plot secretly to do unethical things, and that this ranges from cheating you out of ten bucks to stealing all of your savings or toppling a government.

When you wrote, "Conspiracy theories are not theories, they are fables, tall tales out of control," you must have been thinking of plots to dominate the world, or of an alien presence already on earth to call such a hypothesis a fable without knowing any more about it than that it involved suspicion of a conspiracy.

Where's the line? We both hear people 9/11 Truthers referred to as conspiracy theorists, and that is certainly correct. But the mainstream hypothesis is also a conspiracy theory, namely, that the plan was conspired and executed by bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I doubt tht you consider that a fable.

So how would you define conspiracy theory consistent with the idea that they are all fables? Here are a few definitions from the Internet to help :

From Wiki:

"A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."

From OxfordDictionariesDOTcom:

"a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event"

From Merriam-Webster says:

"a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators"

From DictionaryDOTcom:

"[1] a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

[2] the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."

From FreeDictionaryDOTcom:

"A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#563611 Nov 17, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a typo, and they ran with it.
LMAO! Ok, thanks for the clarification, although, I highly doubt it since that was one of if not the most important document ever written concerning our Republic turned Democracy turning...
LOL ;)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#563612 Nov 17, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Conspiracy is not theory.
Do you call the belief in little green men a theory?
Conspiracy is unsubstantiated BS. If there were evidence of these things, they wouldn't be a conspiracy.
Wasn't Watergate about a conspiracy?

If you believe anything other than that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK, you believe a conspiracy theory.

When did "conspiracy" become such a hot potato that even the use of the word causes us to define them as "fables" and "unsubstantiated BS." A lot of the bad stuff that happens is planned in secret by two or more people. That's a conspiracy in the broadest sense. Most people also insist that it be unethical. Thus, your friends planning a surprise party, thought technically a conspiracy, is a nice thing to do. Let's agree that we should be talking about some kind of unethical behavior, where one party is trying to exploit another.

And let's make it a big deal. Something significant needs to be at stake. But what kind of thing, and how significant, before it rises to the level of "BS" just by being suggested? It seems to me that conspiracies are being unearthed frequently enough that we should be talking about how to distinguish the valid ones from the overactive imaginations, not how they're all ridiculous.

Weren't the Watergate co-conspirators called that because it was a conspiracy? From Wiki: "The grand jury secretly named President Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator."

That's not a fable or BS. But it was a conspiracy theory from the time it was first suggested until it was proven to be true, and became the fact of a conspiracy.

So, what is a conspiracy theory to you?

It concerns me that so many people are willing to reject an idea out of hand because it's a conspiracy theory. Doesn't that make conspiring a lot safer and easier to defend?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#563613 Nov 17, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Conspiracy is not theory.
Do you call the belief in little green men a theory?
Conspiracy is unsubstantiated BS. If there were evidence of these things , they wouldn't be a conspiracy.
The theory is that there is/was a conspiracy, even though the published "facts" state otherwise, so the conspiracy theory is a theory. If, in the case of the killing of JFK it was actually a CIA conspiracy or Lyndon Johnson conspiracy, then that would be a definite fact rather than just a conspiracy theory, although, the actual facts of that case pretty well convince me that there is much that the world was never told, and may never be told.

“Nothing can stop, This Pony..”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#563614 Nov 17, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Just what constitutes a conspiracy theory, or what ought more properly be called a conspiracy hypothesis? Can it refer to so trivial a conspiracy as a con man working with a shill to cheat you? We know that people plot secretly to do unethical things, and that this ranges from cheating you out of ten bucks to stealing all of your savings or toppling a government.
When you wrote, "Conspiracy theories are not theories, they are fables, tall tales out of control," you must have been thinking of plots to dominate the world, or of an alien presence already on earth to call such a hypothesis a fable without knowing any more about it than that it involved suspicion of a conspiracy.
Where's the line? We both hear people 9/11 Truthers referred to as conspiracy theorists, and that is certainly correct. But the mainstream hypothesis is also a conspiracy theory, namely, that the plan was conspired and executed by bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I doubt tht you consider that a fable.
So how would you define conspiracy theory consistent with the idea that they are all fables? Here are a few definitions from the Internet to help :
From Wiki:
"A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."
From OxfordDictionariesDOTcom:
"a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event"
From Merriam-Webster says:
"a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators"
From DictionaryDOTcom:
"[1] a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
[2] the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."
From FreeDictionaryDOTcom:
"A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act."
You are equating the allegation of conspiracy plots with
"conspiracy theories" . The two are not the same when applied in the real world , as the phrase "conspiracy theory" when used today is a collection of arguments built on fallacy , quote mining , misrepresented evidence , fabricated evidence , conjecture , straw man arguments and lies.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/...

Example
The 9/11 plot by Bin Laden and al Qaeda is a true conspiracy plot and theory based on evidence collected by the PENTTBOM investigation conducted by the FBI.

The destruction of WTC 7 was done by firemen is a conspiracy theory based on a quote mine of Larry Silverstein
saying "pull it".

“Nothing can stop, This Pony..”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#563615 Nov 17, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory is that there is/was a conspiracy, even though the published "facts" state otherwise, so the conspiracy theory is a theory. If, in the case of the killing of JFK it was actually a CIA conspiracy or Lyndon Johnson conspiracy, then that would be a definite fact rather than just a conspiracy theory, although, the actual facts of that case pretty well convince me that there is much that the world was never told, and may never be told.
My problem is the scientifically correct usage to the word "Theory".
The JFK conspiracy theory is not based on evidence and is not a theory , rather it is based on conjecture.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#563616 Nov 17, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Kinda like the Russel Springs one these guys keep referring to? The forum where these stalkers taunt the Hadley woman on a daily basis? I finally took a peek at that a couple minutes ago.
I suspect they wouldn't be terribly happy if someone were to make their real names public on Topix...daily, for several years...the way they do YD. Nope, I think they might run away like the cowards they are. You know, like Bob did.>:)
.. the individual in question revealed her true identity long ago and continues to call posters immoral abominations. You also taunt people regularly. What's the difference ??..

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#563617 Nov 17, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> lolerbat....
No, I haven't. Strangely enough, last night my son was telling me about a guy at his high school that does.
Seems he's a minor legend of sorts.

“Nothing can stop, This Pony..”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#563618 Nov 17, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't Watergate about a conspiracy?
If you believe anything other than that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK, you believe a conspiracy theory.
When did "conspiracy" become such a hot potato that even the use of the word causes us to define them as "fables" and "unsubstantiated BS." A lot of the bad stuff that happens is planned in secret by two or more people. That's a conspiracy in the broadest sense. Most people also insist that it be unethical. Thus, your friends planning a surprise party, thought technically a conspiracy, is a nice thing to do. Let's agree that we should be talking about some kind of unethical behavior, where one party is trying to exploit another.
And let's make it a big deal. Something significant needs to be at stake. But what kind of thing, and how significant, before it rises to the level of "BS" just by being suggested? It seems to me that conspiracies are being unearthed frequently enough that we should be talking about how to distinguish the valid ones from the overactive imaginations, not how they're all ridiculous.
Weren't the Watergate co-conspirators called that because it was a conspiracy? From Wiki: "The grand jury secretly named President Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator."
That's not a fable or BS. But it was a conspiracy theory from the time it was first suggested until it was proven to be true, and became the fact of a conspiracy.
So, what is a conspiracy theory to you?
It concerns me that so many people are willing to reject an idea out of hand because it's a conspiracy theory. Doesn't that make conspiring a lot safer and easier to defend?
Well I admit I worded it badly conspiracies do exist , but in order to be a "Theory" it has to have evidence backing it up.
You know how that works , its simple the phrase "conspiracy theory"
is used in a way so cheaply it can be equated to saying something like "creation science". Sure conspiracies plots exist , but
again to make a "Theory" of conspiracy it cant be based on logical fallacy , quote mines, misrepresented evidence, conjecture ,straw man arguments , lies , fabricated evidence , and unsubstantiated BS the phrase "conspiracy theory" has come to mean.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#563619 Nov 17, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
What are pm's?
;-p
Apostrophe's get lonely sometime's.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#563620 Nov 17, 2012
What kind of wacky stuff is Tide posting today?!?!?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#563621 Nov 17, 2012
dnky oe wrote:
Its extremely close. The End, that is. Please listen Jehovah God does exist, the son that He sent to die for our sins exist. These points are extremely important if we want Jehovah and Jesus to remember then WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THEM! And do what is asked of us through the pages of the bible. And not just any religion will do, but only the one that does exactly what Jesus did while one earth. These actions are the model the footprints he left us. Show love without hypocracy. Lay down your life for your neighbor without using violence. That mean you dont go to war, you dont retaliate. He preached the good news of Jehovah God's kingdom. Going from city to city sending other door to door. Who does these things. Who is politically neutral as Jesus was. Who doesnt retaliate as Jesus didnt. Who goes from door to door.
come knock on my door, stand upon my stoop, and tell me that you are morally superior to me, because you advance a god hypothesis. Bring your lawyer.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#563622 Nov 17, 2012
dnky oe wrote:
And just because they took no note or believe it did not stop it from raining 40 days and nights till the whole earth was flooded. And if you want proof you only need to look at the ice caps. When we have winter it always takes awhile for 4"-10" of ice to melt. So image water that flooded the whole earth that no mountian tops were seen. Then freeze it. How long do you think that would take to melt? Everyone says the polar caps are melting, and they are. But thats the natural process. When snow starts to melt no one say the snow is melting. These polar caps are just whats left of the global flood!
you have the correct amount of education, to be a chrsistian

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#563623 Nov 17, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Unconditional love can be destructive to the person giving that love. If certain boundaries or conditions are not set, that person will or cannot say no or enough is enough and that person will give everything leading towards his/her detriment.
I'm sure that that cannot be healthy.
I don't necessarily agree with this Al. I see what you're saying, but I don't view unconditional love in that way. I think you and Nano are kinda seeing it the same way. She said she'd have walked through fire for her second husband. I don't see that as "unconditional". It could be...but It could also just be an unhealthy, obsessive kind of love. I think to love unconditionally doesn't require that you would do or allow anything no matter what the person you love does. For example, I definitely love my children unconditionally. No matter what they do, I will always love them. But, because I love them, truly love them...I'm not gonna allow them to do whatever they want. That's not love. Children require discipline and correction. As parents we have to say "no" and set boundaries for our children. We do that because we love them. If they If they disobey, and we have to correct them, it doesn't mean we stop loving them or placed a condition that would ultimately determine whether or not we loved them. If I said, "you're curfew is 11:00 o'clock and if you come in at 11:30 then you will be punished and I will no longer love you". Well...then that would be conditional.

When I was 19 I fell head over heels for my husband. At that time, I was still up in the air as to whether or not I believed in God and didn't understand what "love" really was. But I thought I did. I would, like Nano, have walked through fire for him. But back then, if I'd have caught him with another woman, I would've sulked for a couple of weeks and then wished every horrible kind torment possible on him. Forgiveness would have been laughable. Now, if I caught him with another woman, it would literally kill me. I'd probably take to my bed for a couple months. I'd leave him, but I wouldn't wish him unhappiness. Because I love him. See the difference?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#563624 Nov 17, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If by 1787 you mean God as referenced in the Declaration of Independence then it would be a God who provides unalienable rights to all humans. Created equal. When governments usurp those rights through a long train of abuses then it is the duty of the people to resist. In other words, resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. Wheras the atheists believe their rights come from men with no souls. Big difference.
No, I meant the Constitution. The Constitution as written September 17, 1787. The Declaration of Independence was written July 4, 1776. Jefferson got his idea about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness from John Locke (originally Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property) who got HIS ideas from Thomas Hobbes. And the God they all referred to was the God that was referred to by Jefferson et. al. Whatever you believe, it's all good. Stay true to your beliefs and I will stay true to mine, as that's the beautiful thing about individuality.(Atheists believe that their rights come from soulless men? I wasn't aware of that.)
gods are funny

South Bend, IN

#563625 Nov 17, 2012
all gods are funny

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#563626 Nov 17, 2012
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't necessarily agree with this Al. I see what you're saying, but I don't view unconditional love in that way. I think you and Nano are kinda seeing it the same way. She said she'd have walked through fire for her second husband. I don't see that as "unconditional". It could be...but It could also just be an unhealthy, obsessive kind of love. I think to love unconditionally doesn't require that you would do or allow anything no matter what the person you love does. For example, I definitely love my children unconditionally. No matter what they do, I will always love them. But, because I love them, truly love them...I'm not gonna allow them to do whatever they want. That's not love. Children require discipline and correction. As parents we have to say "no" and set boundaries for our children. We do that because we love them. If they If they disobey, and we have to correct them, it doesn't mean we stop loving them or placed a condition that would ultimately determine whether or not we loved them. If I said, "you're curfew is 11:00 o'clock and if you come in at 11:30 then you will be punished and I will no longer love you". Well...then that would be conditional.
When I was 19 I fell head over heels for my husband. At that time, I was still up in the air as to whether or not I believed in God and didn't understand what "love" really was. But I thought I did. I would, like Nano, have walked through fire for him. But back then, if I'd have caught him with another woman, I would've sulked for a couple of weeks and then wished every horrible kind torment possible on him. Forgiveness would have been laughable. Now, if I caught him with another woman, it would literally kill me. I'd probably take to my bed for a couple months. I'd leave him, but I wouldn't wish him unhappiness. Because I love him. See the difference?
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see what any of this has to do with what you call unconditional love. What's unconditional about any of it?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 7 min Rosa_Winkel 608,147
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 18 min Insults Are Easier 268,860
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 49 min kent 573,862
Moses never existed 1 hr Insults Are Easier 1,277
To buy safe and cheap FIFA 15 Coins, i do reall... 1 hr Amir2015 4
My Name WAS Renee " This is my story" (Sep '10) 1 hr One Mans Opinion 102
You can buy Cheap FIFA 15 Coins on this site 1 hr Amir2015 1
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr velvet ant 97,875
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) 7 hr Jack 18
More from around the web