OctoMom question chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: OctoMom question

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 36 (view)

OctoMom question Posted: 3/12/2009 1:50:03 PM
Ok, I'll make a bet with you. If this place is still around in 5 years, I will come on and post a thread on an Octo Update. I am betting that in 5 years time people will have gained a new empathy for her. Her kids will be doing ok from all the initial publicity and she'll have written a book not just about her experiences child rearing but on the way she was treated due to having unusual values. She'll still be considered unusual but due to the population declining, accepted. Reality shows may have very well run their course by this time because our entertainment picks change. The focus is going to be more on her challenging life than how she is harming the kids. IF, she has lost custody of her kids (this doesn't include if she loses temporary custody due to unfounded complaints or sabotage) and is known to be incompetent to take care of her children..... You win. I think she is a lot stronger than people realize. She has been under A LOT of pressure that would have made me crack and retreat. She is still appearing calm and articulate. She just might have the right level of insanity to pull it all off.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 34 (view)

OctoMom question Posted: 3/12/2009 1:23:22 PM
Just to play Devil's Advocate.. Her latest plan is to sell the birth video. Step1: Have Babies Step2: Have more Babies Step2: profit 1. That's speculation 2. It's also a value judgment, who is to say that by doing so she isn't providing them with even more opportunities. It's wrong, because it seems like exploitation where the child doesn't have a choice. But if that's wrong, then every documentary made about women's childbirth or childrens self-help book was exploitation too and you just don't hear that. 3. You don't know she did this for profit. Telling her story "may" have been on her mind but I don't think that's why she did it. She was an only child and has always said to everyone she wanted a huge family. When she started to have them, I'm sure it nourished something inside her that she felt she had missed her whole life. More children means, whatever that is, gets nourished more. It may be addictive type behavior but it's not necessarily an indication of someone who is corrupt. As far as the OT i still think that IVF should be handled like responible horse breeding. Don't flame me yet here is my reasoning I don't think it would work just because you get into the issue of parental legal rights and a child's right to know. Horse's don't have all the rights we do. They are discriminated against ;) As far as "responsible" breeding, I do agree that people need to take responsibility for their actions, including a doctor (sworn to do no harm) implanting a woman with that many embryos due to the health risk carrying that many babies can have on a woman. We wouldn't even be debating THIS decision, if that doctor behaved in a responsible way. He violated standard operating procedure by implanting that many embryos in a woman her age. I think he needs to be put under investigation for malpractice along with whomever has the medical license to perform all the surgery that's happened on Michael Jackson's face.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 17 (view)

OctoMom question Posted: 3/6/2009 4:26:40 PM
^^ I have watched her interviews. Here is the thing, when I compare her to some of the crazy people I know...she's not that abnormal until you put her under a microscope. Her issue happened to be she is having babies while others have different issues. I also saw her WITH her babies and regardless of what her issues are, she loves those kids and you can see how she is willing to do a huge amount due to that want and love. Look at how much she had to save to have those treatments....that's tenacity. The fact she had a back injury is irrelevant because many employees have gone through the exact same thing she had in that regard. We wouldn't have a worker's compensation system if she was an unusual case. I feel this had to do with our attitude about the "poor" having babies and she has been used as that venue to promote that cause. Regardless if she's actually an educated woman who is trying to form some kind of plan for the future of these children.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 15 (view)

OctoMom question Posted: 3/6/2009 4:09:40 PM
I used to work with a hearing and speech clinic who dealt with autistic children under the age of 5 and I myself (along with half of my successful family) have adhd due to it being a genetic disorder. Early treatment is key to the success of these children. Credentialism is a form of harassment. Harass many people? ....just curious. I'm also an awareness educator about how we dismiss opinions sheerly based on perceptions of who is deserving to have those opinions based on our own uneducated biases.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 4 (view)

Lies - A natural survival instinct? Posted: 3/6/2009 4:05:28 PM
So does anyone else feel that lying can be viewed as a self preservation technique or is it just bunk science? It actually is a self-preservation technique. If you always told the truth, you would be screwed. Here are just some examples: 1. You tell an employer how you really feel about them. You could be considered a threat and fired - impacts survival 2. You openly express your opinions about your company's business practices - you are considered disloyal and can be fired - impacts survival. Considering we live in society that is run by business with few other beliefs taking precidence over that, you DO NOT want big business to feel you are a threat. 3. You tell a friend their bf is cheating on them when they are not prepared to deal or hear it, they can take a defensive stance and attack you - impacts social survival. We are after all, just animals. Our survival is very important to us. If it wasn't, the human race would have already died out.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 71 (view)

Are americans ready for 1984 Posted: 3/6/2009 3:53:33 PM
I find these bail out plans quite amusing in America wear the wealthy say screw the poor because if they die out it's due to natural selection, it's natural. Unless they need to start feeding more off of those lower down because they simply are not efficient or productive enough to survive without feeding off the poor. This isn't about productivity, it's about greed. Those who wanted more did it at the sacrifice of those supporting the systems which increased a gap. They are still looking for support despite engineering their own demise.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 20 (view)

Are humans reversing natural selection? Posted: 3/6/2009 3:47:57 PM
@ok cupid I am one of the ones who would have died without medical advances due to genetic disorder. I haven't reproduced due to that disorder but not because I don't want to pass it on but because of the challenges child rearing would have made life very difficult and I never felt I had a partner who could pick up the slack. There are actually benefits to my disorder that make me in some ways more advanced than others. But it's like an uregulated type of advance. In educated societies, those with these disorders take having children far more seriously regardless of what medication can do for you. Considering that nature WILL interfere and screw with fertility if a species becomes overpopulated, I don't think medical advances are having the "big picture" impact on our species that people think.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 11 (view)

Why ACTG? Posted: 3/6/2009 2:50:44 PM
I had a thyroid disorder (Graves Disease) which means I have irregular Thiamine issues. Thiamine promotes growth, protects the heart muscle, and stimulates brain action. I grew so fast as a child it was painful and was 5'9" by the time I was 12 years old (even though I was on medication since I was 5). I also had to be put on heart medication due to irregular heart beat and my brain spins faster than most people think which can cause problems with social interaction. Eventually, these things would have led to my death had I not had my thyroid removed when I was 12 and put on medication to regulate it and my thiamine levels. I have to pay close attention to my B1 levels even now. Considering how sensitive I know I am to Thiamine, I'd say that those other components are essential or everything goes out of wack. Had I not had my thyroid removed and managed to survive, I would have probably been about 6'5" by the time I stopped growing but I just grew a little after wards putting me under 5'10". My brain also could not keep up with my growth making me very uncoordinated with my motor actions as a child. I was a clutz. It's about regulating. You can have lots of systems but you need regulators there or those systems will go haywire and chaotic. You only need a certain amount of regulators otherwise anymore would be redundant. If there are issues with one of those regulators, a person needs to be put on medication to restore that balance or they will eventually die an early death due to not having their systems regulated. Whether or not I had my thyroid removed, irregularities in Thiamine REQUIRE medication to balance things out or someone with a severe thyroid disorder would die and maybe a be an ostracized giant genetic freak of nature when they did.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 13 (view)

OctoMom question Posted: 3/6/2009 2:33:55 PM
* I'm assuming she's been on welfare for a long time and it's not just temporary. Well I guess she will be permanently now. You are assuming wrong. She is an educated woman with a degree who was previously a professional. It is how she was able to afford to these procedures. Other than getting additional support just that last few months for 2 children she has with disabilities which was not welfare but disability cheques to help with their treatment (autism and adhd which can be overcome and highly productive brilliant adults can be fall into this group) and recently starting to use food stamps, she has not been getting any support from the system.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 6 (view)

Warhol's theory Posted: 3/6/2009 2:30:02 PM
I don't think I agree. We don't live in a society that encourages individualism that can get you that 15 minutes unless you are particularly attractive, smart, talented, passionate, action-oriented or do something incredibly stupid or incredibly profound. The majority of people do not stand out because to do so can make you a target. People actively try to make themselves as similar as possible so they won't get their 15 minutes. I've thought of my family and tried to add up what could equate to "fame" even if there name is not attached to it but their actions and it does not add up to 15 minutes accept for some individuals in my family who happen to be more passionate or bright than the others which led to high profile jobs in education, sciences or leadership. I know a lot of people that would not make it to the top 500 list for attractive people, are not active or individual enough to ever make a distinction between them and others, and would only get that 15 minutes if some kind of accident occurred.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 10 (view)

OctoMom question Posted: 3/6/2009 1:59:31 PM
If this woman had a husband, people would be leaping to help her instead of crucifying her. The thing is, people are making her out to be just some welfare mom when she is actually and educated articulate woman who just wanted to have a huge family regardless if there was a man involved or not. This gives her full control over the raising of her children. If you look at a lot of native communities, it is not unusual to see families with 12 children. People might have been complaining before but now many of those children are educated and/or experienced adults who are filling the gap left by babyboomers who are retiring. Now she has people saying her children need to be taken from her without any actual proof she's a bad mother. Reminds me a lot of what happened to the Dionne Quintuplets in Canada. When people other than the parents got involved, they screwed everything up for those kids when they would have been happier if people provided the support to the parents. With the population decline going on, I'd say try to support and educate those children. Leave your judgments to the side because we need children in North America regardless of how they get here. The media really turned against this woman when her own mother didn't back her up. Her own mother would not have more than one child herself so from her perspective, this is unfathomable. Along with the pressure it puts on the family. Here's a shocker, in the past....your family actually helped you with your kids. Kids were raised "by a village" and there were stronger senses of community. I suspect by the time these children make it into the workforce, we'll be glad there are a few baby machines out there.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 16 (view)

Are humans reversing natural selection? Posted: 3/6/2009 1:49:24 PM
^^^ I'd say there were a lot more than 13. For every culture, you also have to take into consideration those who are bi, tri etc. cultural. The more cultures you are exposed to, the more it changes the way you think. So I think that is more of a stereotype generalization than fact.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 6 (view)

Are humans reversing natural selection? Posted: 3/6/2009 1:07:07 AM
First of all op, those having the most babies are not the least intelligent but the least educated which has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection....but opportunity and environment. What this does do is create economic challenges for a country but doesn't make us less bright as a species. All populations of a species peak at some point in numbers and then there is a decline. Our decline is due to happen globally around 2030. It's already begun in Europe and places in Asia where the births are not enough to replace the dying off generation. Africa will be the last to peak but is following the same trend. Does this mean we will go extinct? Err no. If our numbers get too low the cycle will start to rise again. In terms of length of a specie's existence we are still babies with the time we've been on this earth in comparison with others. If all of a sudden some catastrophe happened to us and it wiped out a significant portion of the male population you would see a rise in the male birth rate. It's just this really neat thing that happens in nature to keep species balanced. Evolution has to do with more factors than just Natural Selection. If we were not controlling the birth rate, with our growing numbers, with birth control and education then nature would do it by making us less fertile. Globally, the average IQ of humans is rising with each generation. That doesn't seem to indicate we are de-evolving in anyway. What I do see happening is globally a change in thinking that is long overdue. Our progress is defined by each generation. We have not had a societal evolution in thought since prior to the babyboomer generation due to their numbers and how long that generation lasted. As a society, they believed in you live to work. X, Y, and Z generations do not believe in this, they believe in you work to live and balance is more important than material gain. They are also much wiser when it comes to the environment, human dynamics, science, and technology. They are also less religious than previous generations which could lead to the end of many conflicts. We are just following an older way of thinking still. There are ways the elderly babyboomer generation could get wallopped when it comes to deaths and we saw that in Europe during the 2003 heatwave where 30,000 people died (mostly elderly) in developed countries due to the heat (which is on the rise). Coincidentally, generation X's way of thinking has already taken a foot hold in Europe. We are behind in that respect in North America. I think all the ducks are lining up in a row for a major evolution of thought if not a physical adaptation. We are coming out of an ice age still. What humanity has experienced is a cold dip in a cyclical pattern of temperatures on the earth. We may end up physically evolving as well to cope with higher temperatures.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 467 (view)

Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory? Posted: 3/5/2009 5:22:48 PM
There is a book out there called "The Privileged Planet". You can see a good documentary of it at http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4133141933405335414&ei=KMOqSdXXJZ7OqwKexeGJDA&q=planet+earth+documentaries&hl=en It's actually pretty interesting stuff that does make you wonder if things were not designed. Basically, what they are saying is that their research points to that, not only are we designed for discovery, but there are a lot of coincidences making our planet the perfect place to make those discoveries and observe the galaxy. If you are trying to determine the best purpose for us in the Universe by using our environment, you may come to the conclusion that for "some reason" we are hear to study and observe the Universe. Considering we know that there is actually a reason usually in both nature and science for everything, then it makes you wonder why are we designed to observe the Universe. One of the biggest faults I saw with this was: 1. The theory came from the perspective a person who is drawn to observing the Universe and not all people are. Maybe they should be but right now, there aren't. 2. There could be a reason for all of these coincidences and they are connected just not in the way these people are suggesting. Sometimes you luck out and have one thing that can serve multiple purposes like a shoe can be used as footwear but a doorstop too. From the perspective of the door, the best purpose for that shoe is to keep it wedged open and not on a person's foot. If you think of us as the door and the shoe as the environment we live in, we are right only in that this shoe had a purpose (just like our environment) but we were way off as to what it's actual purpose was. The fact that it was just perfect to keep our door open, is a useful coincidence. 3. Yes there are a lot of factors in the coincidences pointed out by the Privileged Planet, but the Universe is a lot bigger than our porch allowing for more chances to have these coincidences. I personally think it would be really cool if the theory was right because it would mean that we were gathering data for some reason. It makes you think who/what are we doing it for an why? Are they getting data from us now? If so, how?

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 14 (view)

DANCE AT THE RODEO LOUNGE MARCH 13/09 Posted: 3/4/2009 3:22:18 AM
I despise country music but still like going to the Rodeo on occasion. It's usually a pretty good crowd there regardless of the music.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 6 (view)

Jehovas explain..... Posted: 3/4/2009 2:41:41 AM
One of my friends growing up had JW parents but he wasn't. I remember a big rift happened between them because my friend was in a near fatal motorbike accident and, despite he himself not being JW, his parents made the decision to refuse a blood transfusion. He did survive, but with brain damage and never forgave his parents. His parents were good and decent people but it was their faith that forbid them to do what, we all thought, was the right thing. I have a lot of respect for differing cultural beliefs and religion. I believe everyone has the right to believe what they believe but after this, it made me question whether it was a religion or a cult. I'd be interested in hearing from some JW's too just to see what makes them have the faith they do in those beliefs as opposed to many of the more traditional ones they likely grew up with.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 67 (view)

Nominations for Worst movie of all time Posted: 3/2/2009 2:46:18 AM
Any movie with: Jim Carey Nicolas Cage Steven Segal Jean Claude Van Dam(sp?) or movie that gives Arnold Schwarzenegger actual dialogue Bad Movies: Howard the Duck Night Stalker, the Richard Ramirez story Blair Witch Project Cloverfield Scream movies Night Listener I agree 10,000 BC was a huge disappointment. Would have rathered a sequel to Clan of the Cave Bear. I actually liked Tank Girl hehe.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 43 (view)

School Closures Posted: 2/27/2009 4:12:55 PM
So where are we lacking? I'd say, consistency. How do you prepare a budget if you are trained in accounting? You look at the budgets of previous years. If you are planning based on previous spending, you are at a loss when it comes to NS weather and climate change. In the valley, where they are prepared for higher snow accumulations, it is more a surprise not to get it then to go without unlike the capital which is right on the ocean. In NB, you can't cut that budget because you KNOW you are going to need it. In NS, you do not know this. When we do have a bad winter, we are robbing from Peter to pay Paul. I don't know if we are lacking anything other than an understanding and acceptance of our own weather. This may very well be a cultural thing in NS. We get one good winter, and all you hear from people is how mild our winters are. It's like we are victims of our own optimism. If social programs or infrastructure programs are being cut to afford programs (which we "may" not need) due to unforeseen weather, NS's would get pissed off and the politicians know it. We have a wild card in NS that gives politicians a little financial breathing space. You can always trim the winter snow removal budget in hopes of milder winter.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 41 (view)

School Closures Posted: 2/27/2009 3:25:51 PM
I've worked in both Fredericton and Moncton. The big difference I saw was they seemed more prepared for it whereas our temperatures fluctuate so much that you can't really prepare for the type of winter we will have. We "typically" have snow storms followed by rain storms which washes away much of the snow. Having a winter with no melts or major rain storms is not typical for us. I also don't think we have the snow removal budget in place to deal with it. Fredericton and Moncton are more consistent than NS. We can be like them some winters, and some winters we are like BC depending on where the gulf stream is located. We are simply not prepared to deal with the same environment that they have. We have warm spells that will last a decade and then get walloped for a few years. You have to remember that the gulf stream moves and we are more affected by that movement typically than NB due to our location. Also, you don't notice the snow accumulation within the cities as much. I'm not sure if this is due to better snow removal or they simply just don't get as much snow due to the colder climate. I lean to better snow removal due to the consistency of their climate. Although, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that NS records very high precipitation rates. It's usually rain, but in winters such as this one, it's snow. Regardless, I was working in Fredericton after their big ice storm last year that shut that city down and was shipped there from NS (in a big a$$ SUV with winter tires) due to the lack of available bodies due to the weather there so I can't really say that they are any better than us there when hit with extreme weather. We in NS seemed more prepared for an ice storm and I felt comfortable driving in it whereas my colleagues in NB would have been more comfortable driving in a snow storm....not that any of us should have really been on the roads.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 39 (view)

School Closures Posted: 2/27/2009 2:47:52 PM
I fell on the ice a few weeks ago, it freaking hurt and I was limping for weeks. My brother in-law fell a few days before breaking his leg. The next icy morning, I was calling in to work saying that I was going no where until things were salted. With 24 hours given to salt and shovel by the municipality that leaves you a day to get injured if you go out in it. Considering my bro-in-law had to go to 3 hospitals just to get a doctor to see him with a broken leg, I have no qualms about them canceling school when our medical system can't handle the injuries that happen when they don't. Our hospitals could not handle all the injuries they were getting even with less people on the roads due to cancellations. WTF would they do if everyone was out and about getting injured? When you think about it, European countries typically get a lot more time off work and school than we do and it is not harming their education or economy whatsoever. So what's a few storm days unless you are a work-a-holic who wants to see everyone else be one too or you haven't made arrangements for child care for children who are not in school due to poor weather. I mean, as a parent, are you not supposed to have the back up plan in place for storm days in the winter or make arrangements with your work that you take time off on those days? I would say MOST workplaces are very understanding if you have a child and need to take a day off due to cancellations and are willing to accommodate with some give and take.....if you just ask. BTW, this was one of the coldest winters we have had in many years. We usually get warms spells to break it up and the ice. This year we didn't. If the trend continues (as the Farmer's Almanac says it will) I'd say that we need to put in more back up plans to give people time off for poor weather. Due to geography and climatology NS DOES have it worse than a lot of places due to the amount of storms we have and where we are located. Our proximity to the polar vortex, being on the east coast where global winds blow west to east, and having a milder climate making it warm enough to have these crazy storms that blow in, makes us a very very bad place to live in terms of storms. Blame mother nature, not Nova Scotians. Statistically, we work more hours for less pay than anywhere else in Canada. Lord help us for canceling things due to safety reasons. P.S. I was raised in the Valley with no bus system in the school I went to so, when other schools were getting cancelled, we were not because the student population walked to school. The sidewalks though were safer than what I see in the city because the town poured their resources into it knowing we were all walking. I'm sorry, but HRM does not seem to have those resources. I have no idea how those who rely on sidewalks are managing to get around like those with baby carriages, are in wheel chairs, or are blind trying to guide themselves with a cane.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 47 (view)

To tell or not to tell - when you catch someone cheating Posted: 2/27/2009 2:19:33 PM
It would depend on the friend, do they: 1. Tend to take a lot of crap and justify for their bfs behavior, use it as a tool to gain pity for themselves, or seem doomed to repeat drama they seem to be inviting in their life or.... 2. Do they have a level head on their shoulders and know not to shoot the messenger. If they were the #1 type friend, probably not. I had a really bad experience trying to help out a "friend" this way. I did tell a friend her bf was trying to cheat on her and with me. She did everything for him a woman could possibly do despite him not being deserving of it. He propositioned me and it was no joke. I was engaged at the time and he was trying to talk me out of getting married saying he wanted me and he would drop my friend. This was like 2 weeks before my wedding and he was the best man. After a month of waffling after the wedding he did something with another girl that was kind of ambiguous but I knew his intentions due to how he had come after me, I finally told her because I thought she was a "stand by" gf as he was waiting for the right one to come along and did she leave him? No....instead she spread rumours about what a shit disturber I was rather than believe that he would do that to her. Because I'm not the type to even bother with ridiculous accusations and keep a lot to myself, she was believed by many making my life more difficult in a small town. He on the other hand, had the $hit scared out of him because my husband at the time did believe me along with the guys who actually knew him. Without my knowledge, a whole posse went after him for justice. So I was disliked for squealing to his gf and for putting him in physical danger despite having absolutely nothing to do with anything other than revealing the truth to the two people who mattered...my friend and my husband (who was best friends with the ***hole who tried to steal his gf so I had to see him regularly). I would more likely try to manipulate the guy into spilling the beans a second time around before telling a friend they were being cheated on. Being the messenger can ruin a friendship if the relationship does not end and invite lots of unwanted drama into your life.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 198 (view)

Religion and Politics - The US is number 1!!!!! Posted: 2/19/2009 11:25:04 PM
I don't think America is going to collapse in a big way but think its on a downward slope that is going to take it out as the most dominant leader. I think this because of its values and at what stage it is at when it comes to generational values. Each defined generation grows up with a certain set of values which leads to the evolution of our society. The baby boomer generation in North America will wield great voting power as seniors. It will still be time before generations X, Y, Z get to make their contributions to change in society at that level. They are starting to do it now in the workplace but are still doing it within the context of old systems. Y and Z are great at the systems we use so will help with that. The thing is, we are behind in terms of our societal values and these generations compared to other countries. If you look at Europe you see values reflective of the X, Y, and Z generations. In Canada, we have some of these values but are still a lot like the US in many ways. Basically, the world is going to be functioning different and unless the US adapts to those values it's pretty much doomed to fall behind and meet resistance because they are fighting evolution. Generations X, Y, and Z are very smart and want more balance out of life. Unlike their predecessors, they don't live to work but work to live. If it requires sacrifices like a bunch of access resources you didn't require anyway, they will make those sacrifices. They don't have the same fears which require them to hoard as some of their predecessors. I think America needs change but the change is so fundamentally different from how it's been acting as a whole, I don't know if it's ready to accept it. You can see Obama almost chomping on the bit to express his X, Y, Z values but he has to play that fine line of being respectful to their predecessors generation because anything too radical would lose their voting power.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 11 (view)

The Structure of Life Posted: 2/19/2009 10:18:44 AM
I think nature has made us to be quite balanced actually. When we are weak in one area, another becomes even more developed. I think our systems automatically try to balance in some way if something is out of wack. I see it a lot with various disorders. You may have something that impacts your thinking in one way but your brain adapts to that by maybe making you slightly more intelligent or creative. You often hear that those who are "slow" are gifted with the ability to love and see everything positive which allows them to get more help than if they were slow and negative plus some are really good with repetitive tasks that would bore another brain but need to be done. I sometimes think these differences are for a reason and when we see someone with faults we must ask ourselves what gifts did they get in exchange.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 8 (view)

Sharing Memory Posted: 2/18/2009 4:16:28 PM
In the example given by the op, I'd say its a case of great minds think alike. We are often friends with , family with , or in love with people who quite often think in similar ways. People are actually quite patterned. You could share similar patterns are just really in tune with the patterns of those around you. We also just don't speaking with our mouths, we speak with our eyes, facial expressions, body posture, etc. etc. we give a lot of hints off as to what is running through your heads. I think the best chance to test that we are communicating through means other than the physical that we know of, is by having more controlled tests regarding whether we can tell if we are being stared at. Don't just use humans either. Also use animals that we had relationships dating back to hunter/gatherer type days like deer. In self-defence courses they teach you to pay attention to your intuition because people report to having felt they were being "stared at" prior to being attacked. Some of the test results I've seen on staring don't take into consideration the motives of the person for staring. It may not be the stare we are feeling but the fear and/or adrenaline of the person/animal doing the staring. You could do this I would think by monitoring the reactions of an individual when you can get them in a predator or fear of predator state. You'd be able to gauge I would think whether results were consistent by monitoring both tester and testee's reactions.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 31 (view)

My Great Awakening Posted: 2/17/2009 6:12:00 PM
Some random thoughts: 1. To be able to give to others, you first need to give to yourself because it provides a stronger foundation to work from. It is not selfish to nurture yourself, it's selfish to be a martyr to ensure you are pleasing everyone when you are not actually giving all you can actually give. If someone is constantly giving without taking care of themselves, they have gaps that they will look to others to fill which they should be filling themselves. Some of the biggest givers are the most needy people of all. They may look really busy, but the potential differences they could be making are wasted. 2. You can't have Power without Fear. If you accept a society which strives for power you also accept a society that is in constant fear of losing it. When you prioritize power over the things that truly make people happy, you see less and become more vulnerable. Power will always rise and fall because it undermines itself. The bigger the power, the more vulnerability and fear. Power is a happiness killer, not savior. All power's value is sheer illusion with no tangible benefit to society. Power only exists if you believe in it. 3. The more powerful a society is, the more it will be a classist society that accepts gaps between the poor and the rich. Power can't exist without something to be powerful over. In order to achieve power, you must increase the gap. This may increase power, but it decreases productivity, economic well-being of a country, and everyone is unhappy because those without power are suffering and those with it live in fear because they are so vulnerable. Countries with fewer gaps not only have better economics but over all more happier people. 4. The "truth" is often made out to have many facets when it's actually just one really big diverse picture. Quite often there is truth but if you are under the power of others, you never quite know what the truth is to come to rational judgments. It is not "communism" to say that seeking power is not a good thing for society. It's more like, if you are going to live in a society you have responsibilities to it, including not harming it for your own personal gain. I think many people do see a lot of these things but feel helpless. When you look to countries which report happier people, you see fewer gaps. Those who "stay in their place" will often deter any others from making changes because "it's not their place" and they fear power too much. This holds society back. Power is so vulnerable because it's biggest enemy is the truth and transparency because it allows you to see how weak it really is. Want to change society? Ask questions and know you have the right to answers that make sense and are the truth. Know that only giving you partial information to misguide your opinion is wrong and ask for accountability. Know that we don't actually need "powerful" people running things. There are different ways to do things that involve a lot more cooperation and openness that can lead to greater productivity.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 80 (view)

Overestimation of intelligence Posted: 2/17/2009 2:59:47 AM
Universities are research institutions. Such a true statement, not only that, many high ranking professors who would love to do research end up guiding their students in it while their main job becomes chasing after funding grants. I've often thought it must be pretty dissolutioning to get involved in a field because you love to research only to find out that eventually, your job is to write research "proposals" instead of doing actual research. The whole system seems a little screwy and makes Universities not into academic driven institutions but number driven organizations where the $$ is more important than the knowledge. The more $$ you bring the higher value you have.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 172 (view)

being gay - genetic or social Posted: 2/17/2009 2:51:12 AM
I believe it's genetic and at times more socially acceptable in humans prior to religions that implanted the seed that it was wrong. I don't think gay people need to be cured although a society that fears differences so much it suggests it I think may need a little a therapy.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 27 (view)

Two Satellites Collide! Posted: 2/16/2009 3:29:13 PM
I was getting sick of all that credit and technology anyway.....I could handle glitter.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 26 (view)

Should schools ban nuts? Posted: 2/16/2009 3:21:24 PM
Please don't misrepresent my position on this...I will afford you the same respect. I didn't misrepresent your position.... you don't feel that we should be accommodating these children. My position was clear...the only ones misrepresenting what I said seem to be the ones who support the ban. I guess some people can't be bothered to think things through before they start banning stuff. I'd say they thought it through pretty good but you didn't think your post through very well. You are arguing to pull all the kids with allergies out of school. Do you have any idea how many children suffer from various allergies? They'd ban shellfish too if kids actually took shellfish to school. It's ridiculous to think that all these parents have the means to home school their children when much higher levels of safety can be accomplished in the schools with a bit of education and a ban on nuts. It's a very small accommodation to make. The current current 'honour system' ban does nothing to teach caution to those afflicted, or guarantee anyones safety for that matter. I disagree. Along with ban usually comes education. While it may not educate those already afflicted, it does educate the other children around them. My 8 year old niece knows she has to be careful when it comes to sharing her food with friends because some have allergies. Her parents are educated about it so that when they have little birthday parties inviting her school friends, they know about the child's allergy and the importance of finding this stuff out. It is just the norm now for parents hosting children parties to ensure none of the products have peanuts due to what a common allergy it is. You're getting the responses you are because enough people now are educated about allergies through children being in schools that your stand on nuts is....nutty.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 24 (view)

Should schools ban nuts? Posted: 2/16/2009 2:57:37 PM
1. It's one of the most common food allergies 2. Kids swap what is in their lunch boxes whether their parents want them to or not 3. Some kids have such a severe allergy that you only need to touch them, having touched peanuts, for them to react. It would require you monitor all those kids who brought PB&J to ensure they washed their hands thoroughly before playing with the other children. Are you going to pay for all those extra staff in our already underfunded school systems? 4. Most schools have gone nut free due to a parents request because there was a child in that school with the allergy. 5. Parents who have children with allergies do educate them and if it's a peanut allergy, already have to avoid processed foods and have a ton of work on their hands. But they are kids!!! They don't always realize how serious their own allergy is. According to your logic, we let a child go into anaphylactic shock just so another kid can have freaking nut.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 27 (view)

Creationism in schools Posted: 2/16/2009 2:35:50 PM
I was actually thinking about something that is neither evolution (in the natural selection sense) or creationist theory the other day and I don't know if there is actually a theory on it. I got the idea after watching Clan of the Cave Bear and the traits Ayla had in relation to memory. For those who haven't seen the movie or read the book (which is fiction but well-researched fiction), Neanderthals were thought to have an existing memory they were born with and Cro-Magnons (early us) had to learn but it gave them more ability to have creative thought which evolved their society allowing them to continue while the Neanderthals died or were bred out. In the book, Ayla was made out to be daft almost because she lacked these memories and it took them awhile to realize she just functioned differently and the new traits she had helped her survival. It got me thinking a lot about ADHD traits. Those with ADHD tend to be highly creative yet have a very poor memory. It is thought that these traits at one time had a survival purpose and most of the reason those with it are considered to have a disability is not because they can't function but because current society just doesn't think the way they think so it is them who have to adapt....it can make life more difficult for them than for others. There are a lot of theories as to why ADHD is on the rise but no one knows for sure. Bad parenting has been ruled out because they have identified the genes that cause it. Parents of children with ADHD are torn about putting their kids on medication because they see their children are unique in a good way. It got me thinking,"what if" we are going through a natural cycle where once again we need to lose more memory and change the way we think in order to ensure survival of the species. Those with ADHD will tell you that most of the things they can't remember are mostly relevant for societal reasons and rules. They can think their way around most of those issues. You are unlikely to even recognize an adult with ADHD unless they tell you because they are so good at hiding it and are no longer like that hyper little kid that wouldn't listen as an adult. Many are very bright having above average IQs. If we are going through some kind of mental evolution requiring a lot of change and a different way of thinking, it would be VERY helpful to have those with ADHD around just because of the traits they have. Because they can function pretty much without a memory, they excel in new situations because they are not bound by the memories previous generations have utilized to solve problems. Following existing rules is not something they all excel at but a clean slate where everything was new...they would. It's hard for other people to understand how they think but it is a functional way of thinking just very different from the way "normal" people think. So "if" this is the case, and I'm not saying it is because it was just something that popped in my head, then natural selection is only part of the process when it comes to evolution. There is some other cycle going on in conjunction with it that may even be driving the process and goes beyond just the immediate environment because ADHD traits are not highly valued by our society ruling out natural selection... yet their numbers are on the rise. It is a genetic disorder so you are not going to get it by watching too much TV, playing too many video games, or having neglectful parents. It is our DNA, nature's building blocks. Anyway, it is something neat to think about and I wanted share... :)

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 25 (view)

Two Satellites Collide! Posted: 2/16/2009 1:48:20 PM
As they state in the article though, this was an inevitability and hardly unexpected. As for people on the ground, there's little to worry about. Any object that doesn't burn up in the atmosphere upon re-entry is probably fairly large but even if it does make it through , there's a %75 chance it'll land in the water anyway. Even if it beats those odds, most of the land surface is far from densely populated. Our biggest concern when two satellites collide is making sure we still have cell phone service. That was just one article Funcuz and there are differing reports from other articles. Your cell phone unlikely runs off a satellite but tower to tower as another poster mentioned unless you are in a rural or developing area with no towers and using a satellite phone. There are far more serious worries than cell phones. Your bank card, credit card authorizations, how you pay for your gas, the way some grocery stores automatically update their inventory by scanning the items so they can ensure proper food supplies, predicting a tornado or hurricane is about to hit you, and any travel that requires GPS navigation (land, sea, and air), just to name a few, is in danger when satellites start to collide. They were issuing warnings to flight traffic over the weekend telling them to watch out for falling debris and video was taken of debris coming down over Texas. If the cascade theory is true, this is the first of many crashes we will see until we have rings of space junk orbiting our planet.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 3 (view)

Creationism in schools Posted: 2/15/2009 5:52:42 PM
Which creationism theory? There are many. If you are speaking to just Christian creationist theory, then no. That's what Christian schools are for. I have no problems with schools mentioning religion in an academic sense, it's an interesting topic. However, if they do it they have to also include other belief systems in order for it to be academic instead of teaching Christian doctrine. I don't think science class is the most appropriate venue for it either. Maybe a course on Religious Study. Perhaps we could teach our kids to be more respectful of differing beliefs than the current generation is and stop a few wars.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 14 (view)

Sea turtles VS us.......................... Posted: 2/15/2009 5:31:15 PM
Well according to at least one aboriginal creation theory, the turtle was an essential part of the creation process and was here before humans and actually saved them so they could prosper. My dad actually has a little tattoo of a turtle relating to that theory. So not sure if you are saying humans think they are more important than animals i.e. turtles but not all humans do.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 9 (view)

SHAPE SHIFTING AIRCRAFT Posted: 2/15/2009 5:22:08 PM
Maybe it's just me but it doesn't seem like $580,000 would get them very far on a project like that.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 22 (view)

How your looks betray your personality Posted: 2/15/2009 5:09:41 PM
TakingItSlow66: I think it's just you have a blurry pic. Anything that distorts or hides your face can be a red flag for a lot of people where the latest statistics say at least 50% of people on the internet are lying about their appearance in some way. As for the sunglasses, probably not good to have as a main pic but not really a problem if it's there among an assortment. People do feel eyes are the windows to the soul but I don't know if I am in that camp. However, if someone is covering their eyes I'll tend to think "they" may have feelings about it . Avoiding eye contact or letting people see in your eyes can sometimes be reflective of paranoia which brings to question, "what are they so paranoid about?". If they are just mixed in with a bunch of pics though I'll just think they are wearing them to protect from the sun or even for people watching purposes. lonelynow+then08: I'd say you are a very creative person with lots of energy. You'd be bored typecast into one role in life. You are a free spirit who won't be nailed down. Aesthetics are important to you. You are very extroverted and like and tend to draw positive attention. You are not just about receiving though. You lavish positive attention on those closest to you. You may sometimes shun those who don't have as much variety and spice in their life as you do but really like being around the strong silent types who are like an onion that you can peel through their layers. Despite the variety in your life you are a very down to earth person. You excel at giving and enriching the world around you.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 21 (view)

Two Satellites Collide! Posted: 2/15/2009 4:34:10 PM
I don't think we should be slamming Russia over this one because it ignores the problem that we just got way too much crap up there. I've been seeing stories for years this was going to happen eventually. The story I read in a Canada paper was that the satellite tracking agency knew there was a "chance" these satellites would crash but were kind of crossing their fingers they wouldn't. I vaguely remember a story years ago that warned of a cascade affect when this started to happen. A small piece of debris in space can cause a great deal of damage. If I recall correctly, the story predicted a ring of debris around the earth being caused due to satellites crashing basically putting a halt to the space program and launching more satellites. I think crashes are inevitable considering there are different agencies putting these satellites up there so it's unfair to put all the blame on Russia when there is potential danger there for all those satellites.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 12 (view)

How your looks betray your personality Posted: 2/15/2009 7:50:19 AM
Pretty good accept I'm actually quite passive until I explode and it takes a lot to get me there. I do keep a great deal bottled up as a survival mechanism. Showing you are smart, creative, or passionate can lead to harassment by insecure people so I "try" to keep low on the radar so they don't think I'm smarter than they are or do anything to provoke jealousy. If I was domineering or aggressive it wouldn't be an issue because I wouldn't be targeted.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 8 (view)

How your looks betray your personality Posted: 2/14/2009 4:16:06 PM
Close!! ....but more like find myself daydreaming about going back in time and taking over the world with a hot guy at my side.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 6 (view)

How your looks betray your personality Posted: 2/13/2009 4:08:49 PM
I wanna play too!!!! Ok...going to not look at your profiles and try to judge you all from your pics. I don't actually think this is very accurate because I know that I tend to look at pic and interests. With those two combined, you can pretty much guess how their profile will read. Ok, here I go! dalecole: Hmm you are kind of a tuffy but that might be part of your personality. You may not say too much even when speaking and keep it to the essentials. You like to keep a part of yourself hidden and not out there for people to judge...this likely because deep down you do judge but just don't express it. You're likely very friendly and even social chap but very much have an introverted side. I'd say you are a thinker more than a feeler. Probably pretty steady and respected by most of those around you. You neither conservative nor liberal. You keep your appearance simple but deep down there is a little funky side to you. You are competent at the things you do and have a curious personality. You are good at technical things. xcentricheart : Warm, giving, and not very judgemental. You feel first and think later. You like ideas and are probably a lot smarter than some realize because you don't promote your intelligence like you do your other traits. You admire creative people. You sometimes think you might have "said too much" or "gone too far" and sometimes you have but you bounce back quick even though you felt it deeply. You can go from frugal to big spender. You don't have the appearance of an opinionated person but you are very opinionated. You are a very sensible and down to earth person who likes to keep things peaceful but there has been conflict. Perhaps the conflict might stem from being too good of a friend to someone who should have been left to their own devices. If someone needs someone to vent to, you are a great person to go to. You excel at being involved with those around you and taking care of people but you have a real fun side that can break up some of the monotony that sometimes comes with the job. People feel comfortable around you and you have a genuine interest in them. Snapington: Intellectual type but you isolate yourself sometimes so not always in step with social norms or care. I'm thinking an interest in culture and academics. You are not a superficial person in the sense of you take pride in your own mind and want to be around people who stimulate that mind but appearances do impact you. You can be accused of being a snob sometimes when you do express your thoughts about other people but are confident enough you let it slide. You walk to the tune of your own drummer and don't follow the crowd. You excel at the conceptual. a8u1t7m0: You're a bit harder with only one pic and not straight on. You don't pay attention to appearances so much as intellect. You follow the rules, well the logical ones anyway. You have a good sense of wit. You will sometimes let your opinions be known through facial expressions. You have the ability to make someone who's behaving badly uncomfortable with a penetrating stare. This is likely to you having very good morals and those around you know it. It's important that you work for someone competent because you work so hard and don't want to be wasted. Creative people are ok but their scatteredness drives you crazy. You excel at things that follow logical sets of rules. Ok someone do me!!!

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 22 (view)

Overestimation of intelligence Posted: 2/13/2009 3:03:25 PM
I don't know Kirk, I've been visiting this forum for a very long time. I have never actually been ganged up on despite being very opinionated and on occasion using technical jargon because I could see no other way to express the concept. I myself though have been tempted to go after a poster because you really can sense that they are not posting because of the idea or the thread, its about posturing. There is a little Loki spirit inside of me that just wants to kick them down a peg or two so they will stop doing it and we can get back on track to discussing ideas without someone disrupting the thread with their need for attention. I think that sometimes this is what is going on rather than people actually getting their undies in a knot over the use of technical jargon. I could be wrong, but that is my sense often when someone is being ganged up on. They usually did something that offended the other posters and they are looking for whatever ammo they can find to undermine their ideas. The best ammo is to actually undermine their ideas but not everyone knows enough about the topic matter here to do that. Is it wrong? Probably. But none of us are perfect.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 95 (view)

If women were in power. Posted: 2/11/2009 6:21:48 PM
@Funcuz Msg 85 Sorry this is long but it's a bit of a history lesson and because of the dispute, I decided to actually write out why people think the Haudenosaunee (commonly referred to as the Iroquois) are matriarchal. I'm half Iroquois (Oneida) and a member of the Iroquois Confederacy. Of course, once again, as I said, if the topic is "What if women ruled the world" it would appear that if your claims are accurate, matriarchies don't look much different from patriarchies. I disagree, I think the Iroquois culture looks much different from your stereotypical patriarchal society. Actually, a lot of cultures tote their traits but didn't and don't have them. When you look at how the politics are all interconnected and the role that gender played, it really looks like a much more unbiased system of government and if still followed today, reduces the chance of things like corruption. It was a society of service as opposed to honouring leadership. If you want a more detailed look, I do believe there are copies of the Iroquois/ Haudenosaunee Traditional Constitution on-line. Historically it is actually disputed as to whether or not the 6 nations were Matriarchal or just Matrilineal. I feel the reason for this discrepancy is the value systems of western culture versus the value systems of the Iroquois. To western society, if those in government are men, then it must be a patriarchal society because those are the ones in power. However, those who feel it was a matriarchal society believe those in government just to be servants and it is those who pull the strings of those in government who define this issue and it would give much more weight to the argument that it was a matriarchal society if viewed that way. Leaders do the following things: 1. They chose those who they feel will make wise choices in leading a department, organization, or a people. 2. They will check on these sub-leaders to ensure they are performing their duties 3. If those leaders are not, then it is up to them to dismiss them from their role. 4. They provide vision and mission for their people and in many cases these are political, social, spiritual and economic norms 5. They have the ultimate control when it comes to assets such as land holdings 6. They are the ones ultimately responsible to their people. If they can't get the subordinates right, it's considered incompetence and they will eventually lose their title. These are all things that women had control over/were responsible for in the Iroquois culture. Just like any leader, if they do not do these things, there are some pretty dire consequences which they have to face. Men were more like senior administrators on an Executive Board of a business that still had someone higher up to report to which was the Clan Mother who had to look out for the people. Chiefs were not considered leaders like a modern Chief would be but more like servants to the people that the Clan Mother was responsible for. Chiefs were nominated and elected by women. In addition to the above, women helped shaped that society in other ways too: 1. They were farmers. (however there is archeological evidence that this was something women had actually created reducing the need for men to hunt. So the displaced men took over farming in many societies and elevated that role why demeaning the roles given to women as less important.... welcome to the male ego). 2. They helped build the longest lasting democracy on the planet earth. The 6 nations democracy actually influenced the model of government the United States government introduced except it got rid of the role of women - Which was considered an essential balancing in Iroquois culture. 3. They determined who could marry who by determining which clan a child belonged to. This also impacted who could run for leadership. This changed quite a bit due to government tracking systems of natives to determine who was "status" versus "non-status". 4. They weren't as role restricted as women in many societies so did things like gamble and practice medicine. 5. Unlike Christian creation theory, man didn't come first...woman did. Without her (Sky Woman), the earth would not have been created. Right there, is a huge difference when you are no longer looking at a woman as an appendage created FOR a man but as an individual who has responsibilities. For women, they were life givers, held all the title to the lands, and due to this, it was believed that they were wiser and instinctively knew the price of war and the damage it did to life and land. If you were damaging or neglecting the land you owned, the Clan Mother would take it away from you and give it to someone else. 6. While the Iroquois were indeed a matrilineal society, you have to take into account what that meant to government and leadership. This wasn't simply an issue of determining whether you belonged to this clan or that one or what religion or nation you belonged to. In western and even other matrilineal societies, that lineage did not guarantee the female clan leader to determine who your replacement would be if you got fired, killed, or lost your leadership role for some other reason. A retiring Chief did not have the right to pick his successor. This was all done in female council. If female council chose unwisely and did nothing about it, there were consequences they had to face like their clan was considered dead and buried and the title would be transferred via election to a "sister clan". In patriarchal societies, you over throw kings and kingdoms. In Iroquois culture, you just eliminated any chance of that genetic line getting access to nobility....forever....but the government itself stayed intact. 7. They were one of the most powerful Indian races and still are way ahead of the pack recovering from post-colonization damage. If you do your research you will see that there are definitely three different camps on the issue as to whether or not the Iroquois were indeed a matriarchal, patriarchal or a society based on equality and balance of the sexes. Many Iroquois themselves believe it to be matriarchal. I've read the Iroquois constitution and I tend to think of it as a more balanced society or matriarchal. I don't think it was patriarchal. There were differing roles but the female role was honoured and valued. While it may have had a patriarchal face to outsiders and to show force, it was very much shaped by the women and their role in that shaping is recognized in a constitution. It wasn't that they were functioning in a male role that made it a matriarchal society, it was the way their role was viewed by their own people that made it matriarchal. Female wisdom was considered essential to it's functioning and leadership. Historically, Iroquois culture was MUCH different than many societies. Even the way they elected their leaders was different. If the women thought they needed a more warring type Chief, they elected one. If the war was over and they needed a smart guy for the job they got rid of the old one and put a new one in with those traits. The traits which determined the leader was very much based on the type of leader they needed at that particular time. They paid a lot of attention to personality and skill identifying potential leaders at young ages. They also weren't so concerned with "term in office" either. If they needed the Chief there longer, he was there longer. If his work was done, they got another one in that was more apt for the new challenges. They didn't become "Powerful Chiefs" like we have "Powerful Leaders" today. They became valued as really good servants if they did their job well. Colonization changed many native societies, including the 6 nations, into patriarchal societies. This is changing back but in a more modern way. 105 of the 633 native Chiefs in Canada are women. Roberta Jamieson, an Iroquois woman, broke through barriers to become the first female native in Canada to get a law degree and was elected as the 1st First Nation female National Chief in Canada. In Canada, when native women look to success stories for womens rights, they look to the Iroquois as an example. They are not fighting for something new, they are fighting to get back what was taken away from them. I just don't see patriarchal societies as giving this amount of power to women. Their fight is much more supported even by native men than the fight for women's rights in North America is supported by non-natives.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 78 (view)

If women were in power. Posted: 2/9/2009 2:52:23 PM
When I think of the women currently in power, I don't think their gender is actually playing a role because they are still having to basically play the role like a man in order to function in the "boys club". If we look back at societies where women did have a more pivotal role, the difference in those societies and ours is that they were valued for being women and their female traits as opposed to being valued because they were like a man. There was a time when female deities were worshiped by men and women. Women weren't "overly emotional" in many of these societies but instead thought to have an intuitive connection with nature. It was that emotional openness that aided and it was not frowned upon and demeaned as it is in our society. Women have always had a pivotal role in society, it's just that all evidence seems to point to that men feel the need to devalue their role to elevate the status of their own role. This is about ego, not about fairness or the true balance. I've only seen this behavior in the scenario where you have a really insecure person who needs to see others as lesser to re-affirm their superiority. To be anything other than superior is to be completely inferior in their minds. They basically shove everyone else around them down. To me, it looks like it's actually the men who are the most emotional and ruled by their feelings. Women are capable of this behavior but you rarely ever see them display it against a man and only other females. It does NOT go over well if a woman behaves this way to another woman but we let men get away with it. It's kind of like forgiving a child who doesn't know any better. We don't want to get them angry or we may risk them ostracizing us due to their emotional reaction or that their ego may be too hurt by the confrontation. We also risk other women attacking us for saying anything against a man because women will try to protect men. So I guess you could say, women let men think they are in control because anything else would be too upsetting to them or you may provoke a female protecting him.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 29 (view)

what are your thoughts on dreams and dreaming.? Posted: 2/9/2009 2:13:09 PM
My thoughts are, dreams and dreaming mean different people depending on who they are. I'm unlikely to put much stock in dream interpretation because we all think differently therefore, what we may use to represent our feelings in a dream could vary from person to person. When it comes to my own dreams, I find they bring forth things I am thinking about or need to think about so my subconscious is sending messages to my conscious brain. Sometimes these are fears that I need to deal with, sometimes I'm working out a problem, and sometimes I think that I'm making subconscious connections in my dreams making it appear that some of my dreams come true but I don't consider this any kind of psychic ability but just my brain making connections without all the conscious thought interfering. My dad was in the navy and used to have this recurring dream that his boat was miniaturized and it was sailing around in a big puddle in the parking lot of the local mall we always went to. In my dream, Orca the Killer Whale appears and starts chasing my dad's vessel around the puddle. I can't do anything or save him because I'm not allowed to get my shoes wet. What this dream meant to me was: 1. I was very unsettled when my father left to go to sea and worried about if he'd come home safely. 2. I saw the movie Orca way too young and no one realized what an impact it would have on me having a father in the navy. It was my first introduction that there were unpredictable dangers in my father's job. 3. I was dealing with a logic problem that related to following rules as a child. Me not stepping in the puddle was representative to me of all the bad things that could happen by following the rules without questioning them or weighing them in the circumstance. This was always on my mind because I was always being told to "just follow the rules" which felt a lot like saying, "don't think". My head was trying to make sense of these contradictory messages I was receiving from adults. It was like on one hand, I was being complemented for problem solving skills and critical thinking but on the other hand, being told not to do it and to question the rules was being defiant.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 328 (view)

Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming Posted: 2/4/2009 2:42:45 PM
@ahoytheredave Msg 339 Although there appears to be no investigation, much less conclusions, into the climate impact of wind turbines, my technical background tells me that not only will they have an impact, that impact will result in drought. There has been research and its come to the opposite conclusions. If anything, there is increased rainfall and it's being researched if wind turbines are a feasible solution to drought due to this. I guess I'm just off key when so many are singing the praises of Al Gore, the inventor of the internet. Many people seem to bow down and submit to the idea "Might as well, it can't do any harm." Sorry if I find that concept flawed. The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. Please don't pave over me! I think for myself, please do the same. Parroting the opinions of others as some proof through shear volume is not thinking. I have never seen Al Gore's movie and am not parotting his opinions, I have no clue what you are speaking about in reference to him being the father of the internet. I have no idea what you are ranting about or who these people are who are paving over you. You don't have to be sorry if you find a concept flawed, it would just be nice to know why and others can question that in case you are spreading false information.....like wind turbines cause drought and there has been no research into their climate impacts. The alcohol mandates and biofuels are a direct result of the efforts to cut CO2 from fossil fuels and they are resulting in destruction of rain forests, old growth forests, native grass lands, and a massive increase in the dead zones around river estuaries from the algae blooms from the fuel crop cycles. Would you please provide the links to the research that says that the measures that are being taken are damaging to rain forests, old growth forests, native grass lands, and a massive increase in the dead zones around river estuaries from the algae blooms from the fuel crop cycles? If there is damage, what is that compared to the damage being done by CO2? The information would be appreciated so I could get a better understanding of what you are talking about so I can actually think for myself. It's just also important to note here I think that many countries are looking at multi-pronged solutions to these problems so there won't be just one source of energy.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 323 (view)

Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming Posted: 2/3/2009 8:42:41 PM
@ RenéMagritte LBP, NSLass, what's happening around you this winter doesn’t mean the world as a whole isn’t warming… 'cause the longer, broader data shows that it is. (Re. post by LBP, 1/27/2009 6:27 :08 PM.) No where in my post did I indicate that what is going on to us this winter has anything to do itself with global warming or cooling. I just mentioned how I stumbled into the research and started looking at the historical winter climate data. I wasn't even looking for information on global cooling when I started to run across it. I tried to get through your posts to see which side you are on but I'm afraid there are just too much attacking method and research as opposed to actually providing any information or opinion on the topic itself to actually get through it all. Attacking source is fine and even who provided the funds for the research, but what is actually wrong with that research would be very helpful. The same arguments for research funds going towards global warming can be said to cause biases but it's just an unfounded accusation unless you spell out what is wrong with the data. I did view one of the links you posted in msg 295 and again in message 300. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20051009&slug=globewarm11 You quoted: 'With the unprecedented study devoted to climate change, the odds that this consensus is wrong are slim,' [science historian Spencer Weart, director of the Center for History of Physics] added. 'The fact that so many scientists think it's likely a truck is heading for us means that the last thing we want to do is close our eyes and lie down in the road.'" From the same article also comes the quote: "These days, Battisti ponders the Eocene, a period 35 million to 50 million years ago when alligators lived near the Arctic Circle and palm trees grew in Wyoming. The world was hot because carbon-dioxide levels were three to five times higher than today — the result of a gradual buildup from volcanic eruptions. But global-climate computer models, which use mathematical formulas to represent complex atmospheric interactions, aren't able to reproduce that warming. When Battisti runs the models under Eocene-like conditions, they come up with much lower temperatures than actually existed — which means something was going on that scientists don't yet understand. Models have improved greatly in the past 30 years but still can't anticipate all the ways the atmosphere will respond as greenhouse gases climb. The dozen models in use today predict average temperature increases of 3 to 11 degrees by the end of the century. Though the numbers sound modest, it took only a 10-degree drop to encase much of North America in mile-deep glaciers during the ice age that ended about 12,000 years ago. Skeptics point to uncertainties in the models and conclude the actual temperature changes will be lower than the predictions. Battisti points to the Eocene and warns that unknown factors could just as easily make things worse. Could the skeptics be right, and the majority of the world's experts wrong? The history of science shows consensus doesn't guarantee success. The collective wisdom of the early 1900s declared continental drift bunk. Some Nobel laureates attacked Einstein's theory of relativity." My point was and has only been that I'm on the fence when it comes to causes of Global Warming still and not because I don't think humans are having an impact but because these unknowns, that we do indeed have, could leave us unprepared for something else. So I say go forward with plans to lower CO2 levels because it certainly doesn't harm us or the environment. But the research should not stop there. We need to find out what these unknowns are because there is a possibility that global warming is going to be followed by global cooling. It is a cycle that has happened in the past. We don't know how long global warming will last or how hot it will get. We don't know what the missing part is that got the temperatures so high during the Eocene according this article. No where in the research I saw did the scientists say: 1. Global Warming did not exist 2. Not one of them said we weren't currently going through it according to their research 3. Not one of them said that CO2 wasn't having an impact What they are saying is that there is a chance that some of these other known and unknown factors could actually put us into a cooling phase. When the earth was warmer before, did it stay that way? No, it eventually cooled. Even the scientists who believe that Global Warming is going to continue much longer before it declines, admit that there are there are indeed gaps in what we know. They qualify with, "can we afford to wait, until we know for sure?". I don't think we have to wait to implement their suggestions because regardless if they are wrong or right, there are other benefits to implementing these measures. My own belief is that we are going through a natural cycle that we are impacting. If CO2 levels are indeed having the impact most scientists believe and we discover that this happened in conjunction with a natural cycle, then it was our ignoring the natural cycles of our planet and how we are connected to it that caused the problem in the first place so I think its really really important that we discover what the other contributors are here. My point in posting an opposing opinion was just that, there are opposing opinions and from scientists so just because someone is opposing it doesn't make them some shut-in who is denial about the world. Some just want those other questions answer before jumping to judgment (not action).

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 463 (view)

Myers-Briggs Personality type...if you know it? Posted: 1/29/2009 8:24:47 AM
mine when done once said that : "I like recognition for special extra efforts" , etc. um, yes. because so many people do NOT like to be recognized for going above & beyond the call of duty? Some people don't see it that way. They feel it is their duty to put in that extra effort and they don't need recognition for it. In fact, it may annoy them to see that others feel they require this and see it is high maintenance. Rather than being recognized for that special effort, they would rather be recognized for their character as a whole. Lots of different ways to see things. Some people want lots of compliments on their appearance, status, or belongings etc. While others could care less about those types of compliments and want to be recognized for their actions or work they do. While neither is likely offended (although they might be) with compliments of their other side, it's not want motivates them and is meaningful to them in a deeper way.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 12 (view)

Emotions in the function Posted: 1/28/2009 4:19:45 PM
Good point Sophie but I do think there is some criteria that is available for various groups to measure this. If you take Aboriginals in Canada for example, they have a higher suicide rate, higher rate of diabetes along with other diseases that relate to nutrition and stress, higher rate of prescription drug abuse, lower employment rate, housing and infrastructure issues, higher birthrate, and larger gaps in both income, education and training. We know enough about these things now that you can put work plans in place to try to address those issues and improve the overall well being and happiness of group and measure the impacts of your initiatives. If you couldn't measure, you'd never get funding for those initiatives. I often think that we should be paying a lot more attention to these groups we can measure because through that, we learn how to close the income gap between levels of society which current research says is really important to improving the lives of people within a region.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 3 (view)

Emotions in the function Posted: 1/27/2009 7:01:36 PM
I know there is no science behind it, this is just a philosophical question. Actually, there is a science behind it and a lot of growing research. Much of it is still subjective though. If you look up "Gross National Happiness", "Happy Planet Index", or "Subjective Well being" you'll see some research on the topic. It would appear that the rich man is more happy because their over all satisfaction with life is better than the poor man. However, there is some research indicating that some developing countries have some very happy people too but under closer scrutiny when you examine their satisfaction with the various aspects of life that we know improve your well being such as health, education, opportunity, smaller wage gaps etc. you see there are deficiencies and also many of these people don't have a comparison to even see how their life can be improved so they are as happy as they know how to be and really have no comparison to see how much happier they could be. Take these things away from a rich man, he knows what he is missing and feels the impact of the difference. That is why it's so hard to study happiness factors in developing countries because they are still developing and are simply not aware of the ways they are being put under duress because they know no different. Are they as happy as those in well to do countries because of that ignorance? I don't think so when you take into consideration what we know about mental health and the things that impact it. So op, I'd say that you may have been really happy in your developing country but if you were to go back and had to deal with lack of opportunity, health care, education, etc. etc. when you had got used to it, I think you would recognize the minuses more that contribute now that you know difference. Forget the car, forget the ipod...those things don't really bring happiness. They are not the things contributing to a healthier mental state that allows you to be more positive and aware. Now if you are an immigrant to another country with those things though your happiness could still be impacted if you are feeling like an outsider or being disconnected from family etc. so that those things may actually be bringing down your happiness levels so I think you need to take that into consideration when you are thinking about emotions and comparisons between the higher satisfaction levels you might have if you had all those opportunities in your home country.

LBP

Joined: 7/4/2007

Msg: 288 (view)

Recent report on climate disruption, re. The Science of Posted: 1/27/2009 6:27:08 PM
This winter has felt like a really bad one and I know it's colder than usual so I was doing a search on historical climate data to see just how much colder it was. Turns out, this is the coldest winter in over a decade for us. Then I ran across all these articles coming from reputable scientists on global cooling. Here is just one: http://www.almanac.com/timeline/coolclimate.php "Doug Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA, believes that solar activity has diminished and will continue to do so for decades. In 2006, he predicted, based on observations of the slowing of the plasma flow on the Sun, that cycle 25 could be the quietest—thus, the coolest—in centuries. Also in that year, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of research for the Russian Academy of Sciences, issued an imminent mini-ice age warning based on expectations of a quieter Sun over the next 50 years. Our long-range forecasts also point toward cooling conditions." I think there are enough scientists out there suggesting different opinions regarding global warming and global cooling that it's obvious no one really knows for sure. But if you listen to the media, it's a fact. So before you predict an Apocalypse due to global warming, I think you should do a little research on Global Cooling just to see what other theories are out there. The thing is that pollution is bad for our environment so for environmentalists to promote CO2 reduction is a good thing and you can't help but wonder if well meaning environmental scientists are erring on the side of caution because the reduction has a positive outcome regardless of its actual impacts on Global Warming. Having Global Warming as an extra fear to tag on to the promotion of their beliefs certainly isn't harming their cause when it does have an impact (its the significance of the impact that I think is still in debate). I am for the reduction of CO2 but my vote is still out on weather Global warming is due to us or we are going through a natural cycle and entering a cooling phase.

Show ALL Forums