Scottish Independence Referendum 2

[Ke1t]

2 hours ago, Sooper-hanz said:

Or that the universe is constantly expanding...., into what?  Some stuff if you think about it too much just fries your brain. 

Why does there have to be something for the Universe to expand into? 

 

 

[dervish]

2 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

... tackle the subject without prejudgements (prejudices)

Yep, something to entirely strict on.

 

Suspension of judgement is the religion that doesn't have any Churches yet.

[Henry]

10 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

I think you would like the work of Professor Carol Dweck of Stanford University - one of the best seats of learning on the planet - who came up with the concept of fixed mindsets v. growth mindsets.

On 12/2/2020 at 11:24 AM, rocket_scientist said:

When you eventually learn the power of measurement and reflection, you will discover introspection. If you are capable of learning, if you discover the essential quality that is humility, once you understand the wisdom coming out of Stanford University and from Professor Carol Dweck in particular.

On 11/23/2020 at 10:42 PM, rocket_scientist said:

Do you understand the difference between fixed mindsets and growth mindsets (Dweck)?

On 11/23/2020 at 8:05 PM, rocket_scientist said:

I didn't say that they were morons. You're not reading properly. Perhaps because you're too fucking stupid to understand what I was saying? If you read again, you will see the distinction between certainty and questioning. This is the whole ethos of the work behind Professor Carol Dweck's work and because I can safely assume you don't know her work nor have the mental capacity nor the curious mindset to want to know, I'll take no fucking lectures from a thick cunt like you who had decided unilaterally to use insults gratuitously EXACTLY as you've done twice before. She's at Stanford University by the way, the best seat of learning on the planet arguably

On 10/13/2020 at 9:52 AM, rocket_scientist said:

Optimists v. Pessimists is a distinction almost nobody has any problem with. It's like the whole world population can be categorised as either or, which is absurd to me. Of much greater value is the work of Professor Carol Dweck who makes the distinction between growth mindsets and fixed mindsets, the latter being the majority. 

 

[url=https://postimg.cc/hzL5nJDk][/url]

[daytripping]

13 hours ago, Sooper-hanz said:

Or that the universe is constantly expanding...., into what?  Some stuff if you think about it too much just fries your brain. 

I know a guy who went mental overthinking it all, proper schizophrenia. He's ok with meds and appears in the pub on the odd occasion but is in a residential home, can't work, just exists thinking about how it all started and where it all comes from. 

[daytripping]

Religion is a comfort to a lot of people, don't see the problem with it. 

[daytripping]

Looking more and more likely that Salmond was fitted up by Sturgeon and co, what a story this could be if it's proved they conspired to get him convicted. The coaching for the trial witnesses really needs looked at, who came up with the idea, who funded it. She's up to her eyes in it.

[daytripping]

4 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

You believe schizophrenia can be brought on by thinking too much?
 

Tired cliche. 
 

Fuck all compared to the whoppers told on the hat. 

The guy I know was really smart at school, went mental when he left. He even describes himself as mad as a hatter. Good guy, dons season ticket holder. He says it was thinking about the universe that drove him mad, who am I to say he's wrong. 

The tired cliche comes from my mother, was never really religious, church one or twice a year. Now since my dad passed she's never away from the place, is on various committees and volunteers for coffee afternoons and stuff, gives her comfort and something to do. 

[dervish]

2 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

No idea what the first line means but I love the second.

First was basically quoting you on prejudgement. 

[Ke1t]

6 hours ago, daytripping said:

Religion is a comfort to a lot of people, don't see the problem with it. 

So are Beanie Babies and Fidget Spinners... the problem arises when religion decides its morals and ethics need to be MY morals and ethics. 

If religion stayed in its own lane, worshipping whatever laughable super-being it chooses, murdering its own acolytes with the poisony juice boxes, and banging drums at airports, then fine. That's all smashing. 

Churches and mosques look quite nice, and the singing is fairly relaxing. 

No problem with any of that. 

Unfortunately religion routinely decides that the rest of us need to die for our lack of faith, whether that's by crashing planes into buildings, releasing nerve gas in the subway, or tooling up and committing genocide against the unworthy. 

Huge fucking problem with all that. 

[dervish]

9 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

 

What does it mean though?

 

 

 

Remembering to be disciplined. It's easy to accidentally fall into judgement (easy option) especially after the first few phases of trying to understand.

Maintaining chronic unease about where your view has come from is imperative. It is, however, a fucker as constant 180s trying to understand septic views can let shards of their damage into yourself.

There is a point where your considered view should be imposed.

[dervish]

13 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

I have a theory. Well, it's not really a theory at all and should be properly framed as a question.

That first sentence I didn't understand. Did you mean "something to BE entirely strict on"? If so, and it was forgetting one word then yes, I can understand.

Your second sentence - suspended judgements, no churches- was pure genius, one of the best I've read on here, ever, in 21+ years.

In your lucid moments, you post some tremendous words and thoughts, constructed in your own inimitable style. Other times, I've no idea what you're on about. That post was therefore a perfect example of what I'm talking about. My question is this; I consider that you have a heightened state of awareness that far exceeds 99.99% of men, including me. Have you achieved this enlightenment through sustained use of the opiates?

No opiates.

 

Probably easier to just have a pint at some point. I'm sure I didn't telepath some point that I thought I did. I'm pretty bad for not understanding why people don't understand.

 

You might want to have a glance over the start of the ellipsis manual. Chase Hughes is well Chase Hughes.

 

[dervish]

The internet made me sad, so I went on the internet to cheer me up.

[dervish]

1 hour ago, rocket_scientist said:

I have heard of him but not read that book. Thanks for recommendation. 

Have a look at The Newyorker cartoons there's more truth in them than any bible. That sounds pious, seriously have a look though.

[dervish]

 Was a Sunday school teacher once.

I'm just not sure. I'll be rigid on I'll never mock anyone's faith or fate.

Anyone who is entirely convinced they are 100% correct on this is statistically wrong.

[dervish]

Very interesting point on having the questions.

[Henry]

3 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

I thought I was an atheist when I was 14/15 so I read the Bible. Enjoyed it. It was a good read. Some great truths.

I preferred Nuts magazine when I was that age. 

[alscotoz]

30 minutes ago, Henry said:

I preferred Nuts magazine when I was that age. 

You're some cunt

[NEM]

24 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

You find that funny?

It's the easiest thing in the world to take some words from a post and just focus on that, ignoring all context of an ongoing discussion. It's as puerile and vapid as quoting someone and changing the words.

Why he does it is the more interesting angle. Coming from someone who never gets involved in any conversations, a sniper sitting on the sidelines, I find more tragedy than comedy in how he "contributes" to the threads. 

Or he maybe doesn’t take the internet too seriously? 

[The Boofon]

NRT^^

[For Fecks Sake]

2 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

 

A side benefit of these forums is an insight into human nature

Aye and it's clear to all that you are a utter cunt of a man ?

[Jocky Balboa]

Common sense has prevailed in the Mark Hirst case this week, we'll see what happens with Craig Murray at the end of the month. Either way, it looks like the FM and her patriarch are toast. Good riddance.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

On 1/14/2021 at 5:39 PM, maryhilldon said:

Nobody is born with an innate belief in God,

I would disagree with that actually.

A cursory review of human history indicates, very clearly, that faith is a natural condition - a desire to know God appears among all people, in all epochs, in all cultures.

Atheism is a modern phenomenon, produced within cossetted, materialistic cultures where most people are conditioned (via political correctness, celebrity culture etc), to have no capacity to think. 

Atheism is a cop-out, in both logical and philosophical terms and even on the most basic level of thought.  It denies the obvious, inescapable reality that the universe and its contents had some origin, and is satisfied with replacing faith with "nothing" (thanks to materialism again).

And speaking of mental illness, a society which denies the obvious, which is intellectually satisfied with the concept of "nothing" and which demands (for example) the "right" of people to kill themselves is a very sick and warped society.

I think it was Chesterton who said  that, if men don't believe in God, they will believe in anything.  And its true: look, in the post-Christian UK, the great enthusiasm for absolute bollocks like "trans issues" as well as the obvious substitute religiosity invested in questionable areas like climate panic etc.  FFS.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

On 1/16/2021 at 4:09 AM, rocket_scientist said:

I thought I was an atheist when I was 14/15 so I read the Bible. Enjoyed it. It was a good read. Some great truths. I was an even more confirmed atheist thereafter but at least more qualified to reject Christianity than I was before.

What version?

On what grounds do you consider yourself qualified to reject Christianity?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

On 1/14/2021 at 5:57 PM, Ke1t said:

Concise and accurate assessment. 

There speaks the man so confident in his position that he has me blocked ?

[Simply Red]

I thinks its commonly accepted that the christian bible as we know it is largely a rewrite of a far more ancient collection of pagan/religious books. 

eg.The Egyptians had their own Holy Trinity a thousand years before the one we recognise as Christian, or Catholic specifically.

 

[frankie_mac's_4]

30 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I would disagree with that actually.

A cursory review of human history indicates, very clearly, that faith is a natural condition - a desire to know God appears among all people, in all epochs, in all cultures.

Crock of shite

[Clydeside_Sheep]

On 1/14/2021 at 6:19 PM, Jocky Balboa said:

While we're on opposing sides of the constitutional question, I do enjoy engaging with you on many issues. You are correct that there is a moral dilemma which needs to be addressed now, in light of recent developments. I've been slated many a time from other independence supporters, including on here, for going against the "SNP until independence" mantra. It is my staunch view that it is this very thinking which has created a generation of hangers-on and careerists within the SNP. People who have little priority for such a battle as independence, or indeed any difficult issues of the day, instead being content to collect easy and lucrative paychecks, safe in the knowledge many happy clappers will forgive them pretty much anything.

Now that the truth many of us have openly suspected for some time - that the Sturrell mafia are both lukewarm on independence and corrupt to their core - has come to light, the question the wider independence movement must ask itself, is just how far they're willing to go to achieve their goal. Would they be content to be led by a pair of Poundshop Ceaucescus, who conspired to throw an innocent man in jail for the rest of his life (thus damaging things for genuine sexual assault victims) and if so, are they any better than the corrupt system they wish to escape from?

If independence means transgender nutters rewrite biology and erase women's rights, see people imprisoned for "hate speech" and political opponents silenced of worse, then that's not something I wish to pursue, for it would be a pyrrhic victory at best and rank hypocrisy at worst. The grassroots movement must purge these nutters or it's off the table for a generation, just when momentum is there and they face (in typical Scottish form) snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Hi there - absolutely there is a moral dimension.  Did you read this article, another very good one from rival separatist factions:  (interesting how they can skewer sturgeon much more effectively than can the unionists).

https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine-nicola-sturgeon-this-is-a-matter-of-the-integrity-of-scotland-as-a-nation/

"seeking to jail someone for political expediency is something I did not believe I would see in Scotland in my lifetime. Pause must be taken here to take in the enormity of this."

There, succinctly, is the failure of Scottish devolution and an indicator of how utterly unfit for office the SNP are.

While Sturgeon and co are not crashing around in jackboots - and present a polished face to the electorate - their regime is utterly despicable; easily the most corrupt and malign in europe and no doubt one of the most poor globally. 

What is the next step up after politically motivated imprisonment? Murders?

Anyone who would vote for these characters now really does need to take stock of things.  As you say, Its not good enough for people to simply excuse themselves from any moral consideration - that defence didn't work in Nuremberg.

Look at Sturgeons face in the picture in this article, when asked about the Salmond stuff on live tv.  is that the face of an honest woman, who has nothing to hide and is comfortable talking about the subject?  Or the face of a rat in a trap?

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19002158.nicola-sturgeons-says-not-consider-misled-parliament-salmond-affair/

This scandal, on top of their dismal record and the  fact they have made monkeys out of their supporters for years now. 

Another task force being set up.  They must have more than the US Navy, by now.  Still no coherent plan for separation anyway.  Leave the Union, but still let the Bank of England control our interest rates. The EU will rush to accept this crazed situation within their own, different currency zone - because obviously we will walk right in, with no delay, even though we don't meet their stringent economic joining requirements.  And, of course, they will only be too glad to grant us a maastrict treaty era (1992) exemption from joining the euro too ? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

15 minutes ago, Simply Red said:

I thinks its commonly accepted that the christian bible as we know it is largely a rewrite of a far more ancient collection of pagan/religious books. 

eg.The Egyptians had their own Holy Trinity a thousand years before the one we recognise as Christian, or Catholic specifically.

 

Ive never encountered anyone (of any stance) giving that angle any credence. 

There's a lot of nonsense out there.  For example, the Christian "IHS" (a monogram meaning "Jesus") is linked to the Egyptian "IHS" seemingly meaning Horus: yet the monogram is demonstrably of Christian Greek, not pagan egyptian origin.

I dont know much about an egyptian trinity, but I wouldnt rush to conclude they were copies simply because 2 peoples each have a group of 3 things. 

If a religion already existed, why would it need to be "re done"?  Surely the people of the time would object and have said "wait, you just copied that off the egyptians".

[Clydeside_Sheep]

18 minutes ago, frankie_mac's_4 said:

Crock of shite

A historical fact.  Look at:

- the aztecs with their panoply of Gods (even openly copying other peoples Gods) which they would try to please with human sacrifices

- various native American religions

- pagan beliefs: norse mythology, roman and greek gods

- hinduism / eastern mantras

- arbrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Thats a good few 1000 years worth anyway.  Just with those few examples, it shows religion - an effort to know God - occurs among all people, across the globe, in all times.

If it is not innate then that is remarkable set of coincidences.

 

[maryhilldon]

54 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

I would disagree with that actually.

A cursory review of human history indicates, very clearly, that faith is a natural condition - a desire to know God appears among all people, in all epochs, in all cultures.

That doesn't mean you're born with an innate belief in god.  That just means as far back as we can evidence it people have been born into a world where religion already existed. If you weren't indoctrinated as a child,  you wouldn't even consider the concept I don't think.