Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
EliPage

Why people believe?

352 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Stubbly_Dooright
48 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

it s simple. YOUR mind makes choices and decisions for you not mine 

No ****!!! Seriously, why state the obvious? Do not be under the assumption, that I don't know that. 

50 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Thus it is YOUR responsibility for you to inform yourself about any claim I make if you wish to DISPUTE it . I just put the claim out there and will defend it But i dont have to prove it to you and indeed no one can prove anything to a person who chooses not to believe 

I think you are totally not getting the point. It's the claim you make, that you need to do the research to back it up, if you wish to be believed and taken seriously. Yes, I will do the research to back what I claim that does dispute it. And frankly, if I have the source and back up to be able to successfully dispute it, then you're left to be responsible to make sure it is true so I don't have the option to be able to refute it. 

Are you saying, I have to research to make sure you're right? Or, are you saying, I have to do the research to make sure I'm right? Big difference there, don't you think? 

Do you understand what I am trying to point out to you there? <----- This is a serious question I'm posing to you, that I hope you would answer honestly and with thought to your intentions. 

56 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I AM a teacher  have been since my younger brother was born and will be until the day i die  but as i already said how you perceive me is your choice not mine.  I chose the right to see myself as a teacher NOT you. You only have the right to chose how YOU see me.

So, I can chose to see you as a fraud then? Ok. ;) I'm not saying, I'm claiming you're one. I'm just saying if I have that choice, then I will see you as one. I think, it all boils down to how you behave and act as what you want to be seen as. 

Sooooo, if we look at it that way, and based on what you said that I bolded, then you will have to understand that I don't wish to be taught by you, because I chose to see you as only a fellow poster and not as a teacher. And the reasons being, one: that it's my way of seeing that logically, and two: I perceive you, by your actions, you don't seem to act as one to me. 

So hence, it could be seen as understandable, that you would agree that you are not a teacher in my eyes. From what I am getting from you, you should be fine with that. ;) 

By the way, what is my responsibility, is not your position to state. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

wont tell you anything which will hurt you and a lot which will benefit you. But again, only you can accept this or act on it, so there s no way i can hurt you anyway. You are a free willed individual and YOU are responsible for checking anything i say before acting on it  Not me.

Again, no ****. And from what I have seen you write about in the past, there were certain things that you advise against, that would kill me. So, yes, I feel that you would be hurting me, even if it's unintentional. 

Here's the thing that gets me though, it's not that one is responsible to act on someone else's claims or not. It's the fact, when it's disputed, then they are insulted for doing so. I'm not saying, this is a complaint, ( ok, maybe it is :w00t: per say ) and it has offended me ( but I'm not, because I don't see it as relevant ;) ) I'm just saying, it is a hard time being convince of you as a reliable source. No one can be forced to see someone else as a reliable source of any claims, if they don't back it up. 

So, are you then comfortable with me viewing you as an unreliable source? :tu: 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

You should not act on subjective opinion but upon objective factually ascertained truth i absolutely agree

Yeah, exactly. But what makes it more a convincing objective factually ascertained truth, is it being backed up by those who make the claim. I sincerely do not understand why you can't see that. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Eating burnt meat (charcoaled)  increases your risk of cancer enough to be measurable That is an objective truth  Look it up for yourself then decide how seriously you want to take it.  I have responsibility to you (as a teacher of things ) to inform you of this But oyu have a responsibility to check it before acting on it.

Ohhhh, Mr. Walker, this is going to be a killer for you in my eyes here. ;) 

Yes, I am researching it, but here's the thing, I found something different. 

Quote

The evidence relating to cancer risk is less clear cut though.

"There is no evidence from human studies to link acrylamide exposure to increased cancer incidence but there is some evidence in animals to suggest such a link. So the possibility cannot be eliminated," says Brent

From here.  and And this site.  both seem to not have very conclusive findings to back up your claim. So, it doesn't seem to show how your claim on burnt food is definitely a cancer risk. Yes, there are risks involve, but it's not saying it as a definitely truth as you are stating. So, this should be an example of what I'm pointing out to you. If you want me to take you seriously, it's your responsibility to prove you are to be taken seriously. If you don't, then it's not my responsibility to see you as credible. I don't have to. In fact, it would be understandable for me to just ignore you, because I can't see you being responsible enough to back up your claims. You would understand that, right? 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

to church every week (any church will do) OR have a belief in a  higher power you are statistically likely to live longer and healthier than if you do not. Get the combination right ad this can be a DECADE of longer life and a LOT better health  You are also likely to live longer if you have a dog are married or have children.    What puzzles me are the people who accept that owning a dog increases longevity but  believe that simply  going to church regularly  could not possibly have the same effect.

One of my grandmothers lived to the age of 100. We all know, that's long lived. I have never seen her go to church in my lifetime, or behave in a way, that shows a belief in anything. Yet, she lived to 100. I know quite a few people, who were married, had kids, have a dog, ( What is your thing about not including cats?!?!? ) and believed and went to church, but they passed away at a younger age anyways. 

I may have all three, married, kids, and a dog, (AND CATS!!!), but I could be consistently exposed to something at where I work, and it could be killing me right now! :o 

It's all circumstantial within the circumstances to each and everyone's way of living and how they die. You just can't pin point it. George Burns smoked cigars right up to the day he died. AT 100! (Well, based on what I remember of his life. :yes: ) 

You just can't simply pin point one thing, and then hence, it will happen. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Scientifically despite what you  BELIEVE you are wrong about the nature of human emotions  It is now known that emotions are intellectual constructs which we learn from  birth not simple biological responses over which we have no control.  Thus the y can be unlearned.

No, I believe very strongly, that I am right. And that is a subjective feeling for me in my life. And I know this for me to live in what I feel is right, because of my experience of it. And again, I will not see you are right, until you show the correct information from an unbias source. You read that, MW, I think you are wrong, and I'm right. I will always feel, that feelings and emotions are instincts, and not actions, like I think you are making them out as. You can keep trying to say I'm wrong, but you will never change my mind on how I feel about it. I'm not forcing you to believe it, just won't be convinced in thinking it is for me. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

we are now learning that even pain is not a physical thing but a conceptual constructed  "state of mind"   and can be largely eliminated by mental discipline and some mental practices   You can live wihtout any extreme of emotion  (and could if you wanted to learn to live without even minor fear or anger or hate or envy or loneliness)   However it is best to retain some small part of these as warning systems,  but not to let them EVER control how you think or behave.  Your mind should be in control of itself at all times 

We are? Show me where you learned that. If I research it, I'm sure I will find, objectively, that you probably will be wrong. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I am not responsible for you. I am responsible for Me.

I don't know if it's me, but I would recommend that you stop acting that you think you are. Because, to me, that seems to come across to me very strongly. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

i have to act to do what is right as a responsible human being That includes warning you and everyone else i communicate with (In a place like this)  about potential dangers, or ways to improve themselves   YOU have the responsibility of responding a s a responsible human being. You are not a child and  i only have a duty not to hurt you. Because you are an adult i don't have a duty to protect you from yourself, beyond informing  you of dangers.   I appreciate that many humans do not recognise their responsibilities towards other human beings  I appreciate that some might even resent the idea. That doesn't negate my responsibility  to them. .  . 

Being a responsible adult doesn't mean you have to meddle.  ( <------ Seriously, check this out. ) 

Do you feel, you are the only person who has all the answers? Can you feel, that there are others who feel the same way, and more than likely have the assumption to push information onto others, because they feel they have to? Would you accept someone else 'inform' you of what you should know according to them? Will you be informed by them? 

A responsible adult considers what is best, yes, and that means acting on ignoring those who could possible harm them. Shutting them out, is probably best. :yes: 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
54 minutes ago, Just_Seeking said:

Better question why redicule believers if the belief doesn't harm anyone? Maybe the thought of a infectious idea that doesn't conform to your reality is illogical?  Maybe this will turn into a back and forth of what if's or even better a bold thought out statement.

Your first question, I find that well, yeah, why ridicule them? Yes, I think one shouldn't, if it doesn't harm them. I personally think it is no one else's business to do so, no matter on what one believes and doesn't believe. If it's part of their own lives, they have every right to it. 

I'm still trying to understand your point in the other sentences in this post. I think I can see how one could look at the other and come to a point about them. But, what are you trying to say, I still don't understand. It could be me. ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just_Seeking

Sorry been on a rant about people telling people to seek mental help. The second question should have been a statement. The other part was me calling the next move.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
9 hours ago, eight bits said:

It is a fact that typical search spaces for both truth and usefulness are often vast, while resources, including search time, are limited. Therefore, a rational manager of uncertain reasoning will use heurisitics. By definition, heuristics are principles of search that experience shows to be effective guides to reduce the size of search spaces.

It is irrelevant that a heuristic doesn't necessarily work, and doesn't "always" work. That's what heuristic means.

Sure, but it seems somewhat limited to discuss heuristics without mention of how reliable those heuristics actually are objectively; I guess it depends on what is specifically meant by 'principles of search that experience shows'; whose experience?  If it's just an individual's, then all the more important that the heuristic's reliability is evaluated. (ha, I guess I don't know if I'm using a heuristic right there in my implicit assertion that 'relying too much on only your own experience increases the odds that one will make errors of fact', or if that is logical given the evidence, or if logic and empiricism are themselves heuristics).

Quote

So, what is beautiful might not be true, and might not be useful, either. That last sentence is true. It is also no rational reason to avoid aesthetic considerations while trying to reduce search spaces.

Accepting my standard disclaimer that I don't know much about this, it seems talking about heuristics in such a general way outside of what search space we are trying to reduce is too high level and non-specific at some point.  I'm not quite sure why 'useful and 'truth' would be discussed together as what the 'rational' person will search for, it seems to lead to some tension in definitions at least.  To some extent there's a lot of overlap between truth and usefulness, but it seems like a rational person could restrict themselves to just the truth; usefulness seems to technically be optional.  And the issue with 'usefulness' is that it can be a largely subjective evaluation which means there's nothing restricting (nor should there always be) the heuristic to itself being rational.

Every morning, I want to determine what the mood of my coworkers are on a daily basis so that if I end up chatting with them I'm better informed; this would be useful.  I choose to use horoscopes to reduce the "coworkers' moods" search space, and respond to my coworkers as if their particular horoscope applies to them that day.  Depending on the definition, objectively, there is no 'rational' reason to think that what zodiac sign one is allows anyone to determine what is going on in your life on a given day.  So as a rational person looking for usefulness I use a heuristic based on something I at least would call 'irrational', horoscopes, that definitely achieves the purpose of reducing my sample size.  Even if I personally stamp this method as 'useful', it still sure seems weird to say, 'a rational person may find it useful to consult horoscopes to increase the potency of their conversations with others'.

It just seems odd to base rational decisions on the irrational, or maybe it's that leaving up to the individual to evaluate what is 'useful' is fraught with opportunities for error.  To be honest I don't know if I've fully thought this idea through though.  Changing my scenario, I can see the argument that it is 'rational' for everyone to think they are of above average physical attractiveness when trying to find dates (accepting that confidence is more attractive to others typically than the alternative) even though that is by definition not true and thus irrational.  But on the other hand if I change 'horoscopes' and 'moods' to 'prayer' and 'sickness' it goes completely the other way; I'm not sure I can say that someone using prayer to combat diseases is rational even though they are using heuristics to reduce their search spaces, even if they find it true and useful.

Anyhoo, to your last sentence, that the beautiful may not be true or useful is no rational reason to avoid it while trying to reduce search spaces related in some way to aesthetics.  It is rational to utilize a beauty heuristic when reducing your search space for things like potential mates and wallpaper patterns, but there are lots of rational reasons to avoid it when reducing your search space for things like medicine (or almost all of science, all of history, math), which is more along the lines of what I thought Frank was referring to with the word 'truth'.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Uh no.  Both those things came well AFTER the first human speech and language of mind  Not sure again what you are getting at. Language of mind and physical speech are both evolved properties which  co evolve along  with self aware consciousness.

You cant form an idea without language of the mind and you cant express it to another without  spoken language  Without language no concepts abstract thoughts or symbolic representations are possible.

 Before language only imitation could be used to learn or teach . Of course a dog can learn 400 words and even understand quite complex commands, but it still has no language of its own. It is TRAINED to recognise and respond to sounds, Not words. .    Thus i can tell a dog to jump up on the green couch, get the red ball and put it in the small bucket, But it cant tell me to do the same thing.   

After you read these links see if you feel the same way.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/13/5209.full

http://www.cog.brown.edu/people/lieberman/pdfFiles/Lieberman P. 2007. The evolution of human speech, Its anatom.pdf

You have a very limited view and should think about taking in more of what's going on around you.To make comparisons between dogs and human intelligence is quite telling of your limitations.

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 

 

 

 

We are? Show me where you learned that. If I research it, I'm sure I will find, objectively, that you probably will be wrong. 

I don't know if it's me, but I would recommend that you stop acting that you think you are. Because, to me, that seems to come across to me very strongly. 

Being a responsible adult doesn't mean you have to meddle.  ( <------ Seriously, check this out. ) 

Do you feel, you are the only person who has all the answers? Can you feel, that there are others who feel the same way, and more than likely have the assumption to push information onto others, because they feel they have to? Would you accept someone else 'inform' you of what you should know according to them? Will you be informed by them? 

A responsible adult considers what is best, yes, and that means acting on ignoring those who could possible harm them. Shutting them out, is probably best. :yes: 

 

Quote

No ****!!! Seriously, why state the obvious? Do not be under the assumption, that I don't know that. 

I think you are totally not getting the point. It's the claim you make, that you need to do the research to back it up, if you wish to be believed and taken seriously. Yes, I will do the research to back what I claim that does dispute it. And frankly, if I have the source and back up to be able to successfully dispute it, then you're left to be responsible to make sure it is true so I don't have the option to be able to refute it. 

Are you saying, I have to research to make sure you're right? Or, are you saying, I have to do the research to make sure I'm right? Big difference there, don't you think? 

Do you understand what I am trying to point out to you there? <----- This is a serious question I'm posing to you, that I hope you would answer honestly and with thought to your intentions. 

I had to state it because you didn't seem to get it. It goes to the rest o this paragraph It is not my job to convince you. You have ot convince yourself; but it is my job to publish certain fa acts and  strong probabilities. You only have to research if you want to make sure i am right.  It is'nt necessary to check things you already factually kow but you do need to check things which challenge that knowledge or your beliefs. If you dont want to challenge the you are under NO obligation to check them. .

 

Quote

So, I can chose to see you as a fraud then? Ok. ;) I'm not saying, I'm claiming you're one. I'm just saying if I have that choice, then I will see you as one. I think, it all boils down to how you behave and act as what you want to be seen as. 

Sooooo, if we look at it that way, and based on what you said that I bolded, then you will have to understand that I don't wish to be taught by you, because I chose to see you as only a fellow poster and not as a teacher. And the reasons being, one: that it's my way of seeing that logically, and two: I perceive you, by your actions, you don't seem to act as one to me. 

So hence, it could be seen as understandable, that you would agree that you are not a teacher in my eyes. From what I am getting from you, you should be fine with that. ;) 

By the way, what is my responsibility, is not your position to state. 

 You  got it . 

BUT, it is my position to state what is your responsibility   You just don't have to accept this.  eg I can state that  you have a responsibility to your children. I am sure you would agree.

I might state  that you have a responsibility to drive safely.  You would probably agree  (although some humans do not accept this as an absolute responsibility, because they chose to drink and drive or to break road laws.)

I might state you have a responsibility not to deliberately be a burden on society  I don't now how you  would feel about that one. 

 

Quote

Again, no ****. And from what I have seen you write about in the past, there were certain things that you advise against, that would kill me. So, yes, I feel that you would be hurting me, even if it's unintentional. 

Here's the thing that gets me though, it's not that one is responsible to act on someone else's claims or not. It's the fact, when it's disputed, then they are insulted for doing so. I'm not saying, this is a complaint, ( ok, maybe it is :w00t: per say ) and it has offended me ( but I'm not, because I don't see it as relevant ;) ) I'm just saying, it is a hard time being convince of you as a reliable source. No one can be forced to see someone else as a reliable source of any claims, if they don't back it up. 

So, are you then comfortable with me viewing you as an unreliable source? :tu: 

Yeah, exactly. But what makes it more a convincing objective factually ascertained truth, is it being backed up by those who make the claim. I sincerely do not understand why you can't see that. 

Ohhhh, Mr. Walker, this is going to be a killer for you in my eyes here. ;) 

Yes, I am researching it, but here's the thing, I found something different. 

Quote

The evidence relating to cancer risk is less clear cut though.

"There is no evidence from human studies to link acrylamide exposure to increased cancer incidence but there is some evidence in animals to suggest such a link. So the possibility cannot be eliminated," says Brent

From here.  and And this site.  both seem to not have very conclusive findings to back up your claim. So, it doesn't seem to show how your claim on burnt food is definitely a cancer risk. Yes, there are risks involve, but it's not saying it as a definitely truth as you are stating. So, this should be an example of what I'm pointing out to you. If you want me to take you seriously, it's your responsibility to prove you are to be taken seriously. If you don't, then it's not my responsibility to see you as credible. I don't have to. In fact, it would be understandable for me to just ignore you, because I can't see you being responsible enough to back up your claims. You would understand that, right? 

Could kill you? you mean physically?

Heck i dont want or expect you to take me as a reliable source That is WHY you must check my claims. Some of the research i read last year indicated a proven link between charred meat and cancer in humans but i admit many articles only indicate this a potential risk because the y were published before mid 2016 (This makes us like the early days of the anti smoking lobby A definitive link was  proven but the  specific risks were not proven Would you rather know of the risks or not know of them ?

Really its safer not to eat some meats at all

There is now a clear body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among those who eat the most red and processed meat. Processed meat consumption has also been strongly linked to a higher risk of stomach cancer.

The World Health Organization has classified processed meats – including ham, salami, sausages and hot dogs – as a Group 1 carcinogen which means that there is strong evidence that processed meats cause cancer. Red meat, such as beef, lamb and pork has been classified as a ‘probable’ cause of cancer. These classifications do not indicate the risk of getting cancer, rather how certain we are that these things are likely to cause cancer.


Read more at https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/21639/cancer-information/cancer-risk-and-prevention/healthy-weight-diet-and-exercise/meat-and-cancer/#L0hHvLaOiitj2fj4.99

 

Objective factual truths exist .ONly you can come to a subjective acceptance of them  .

 

You see i read a couple of articles lst yea r which showed a definite link between burned meat and cancer in humans  I dont have them on me so it is up to you to research if it worries you  .  So far you haven't found the articles  ( from Australian scientists i think)

Quote

One of my grandmothers lived to the age of 100. We all know, that's long lived. I have never seen her go to church in my lifetime, or behave in a way, that shows a belief in anything. Yet, she lived to 100. I know quite a few people, who were married, had kids, have a dog, ( What is your thing about not including cats?!?!? ) and believed and went to church, but they passed away at a younger age anyways. 

I may have all three, married, kids, and a dog, (AND CATS!!!), but I could be consistently exposed to something at where I work, and it could be killing me right now! :o 

It's all circumstantial within the circumstances to each and everyone's way of living and how they die. You just can't pin point it. George Burns smoked cigars right up to the day he died. AT 100! (Well, based on what I remember of his life. :yes: ) 

You just can't simply pin point one thing, and then hence, it will happen. 

 There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown  unknowns. In other words we must use all the knowns to act upon and not worry about the unknowns Are you serioulsy saying you would be happy smoking or using a solarium given what we know about the candcer risks from them?   You are right about multiple risks, but this just makes it more sensible to eliminate ALL the risk we can (Then we could STILL get run over by a bus tomoorow but we are considerably less likely to die from cancer stroke or heart disease if we live by certain guidelines

 

Quote

No, I believe very strongly, that I am right. And that is a subjective feeling for me in my life. And I know this for me to live in what I feel is right, because of my experience of it. And again, I will not see you are right, until you show the correct information from an unbias source. You read that, MW, I think you are wrong, and I'm right. I will always feel, that feelings and emotions are instincts, and not actions, like I think you are making them out as. You can keep trying to say I'm wrong, but you will never change my mind on how I feel about it. I'm not forcing you to believe it, just won't be convinced in thinking it is for me. 

Of course you believe it. Is all you know and have experienced . How could you believe anything else? I am not sure what might convince you otherwise.  Yet  what you believe id  not factually correct. We now KNOW that humans learn and construct their emotional responses and thus can shape them any way they want, from tearing your hair out to  not feeling much at all.  You (anyone) can learn how to alter your emotional responses into more useful and productive ones  You NEVER have to be petrified by fear or a phobia,  or reduced to a trembling wreck by grief. .

Quote

We are? Show me where you learned that. If I research it, I'm sure I will find, objectively, that you probably will be wrong. 

I got this info from a scientist who works a the pain centre a t the royal adelaide hosoital, on the radio,  but you can also read it online.

It began with scientists asking why peole feel what we cal phantom pain Eg pain in a leg which no longer exists. Rrecently the y discovered tha t pain originates in the mind particularity n the back of the brain and in the connection between spine and brain.

 http://www.learning-mind.com/is-pain-real-or-is-it-all-in-your-head-neuroscience-explains/

 

Quote

I don't know if it's me, but I would recommend that you stop acting that you think you are. Because, to me, that seems to come across to me very strongly. 

Being a responsible adult doesn't mean you have to meddle.  ( <------ Seriously, check this out. ) 

Do you feel, you are the only person who has all the answers? Can you feel, that there are others who feel the same way, and more than likely have the assumption to push information onto others, because they feel they have to? Would you accept someone else 'inform' you of what you should know according to them? Will you be informed by them? 

A responsible adult considers what is best, yes, and that means acting on ignoring those who could possible harm them. Shutting them out, is probably best. :yes: 

I act knowing i am responsible to provide information. I dont believe i am responsible for you acting on that info. 

Actually we ALL have a duty and responsibility to meddle in the lives of others in many many ways. We live in a society not as individuals. 

LOL of course not. My answers are limited and personal  Don't ask me to coach baseball. 

If you can explain how any of my advice could, even potentially, cause you harm, i will reconsider it. 

And yes of course ive spent my whole life leaning form others. I know nothing and can do nothing excpet what i have learned from others and tested via experince..  But as you get more knowdge there is less to learn

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

After you read these links see if you feel the same way.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/13/5209.full

http://www.cog.brown.edu/people/lieberman/pdfFiles/Lieberman P. 2007. The evolution of human speech, Its anatom.pdf

You have a very limited view and should think about taking in more of what's going on around you.To make comparisons between dogs and human intelligence is quite telling of your limitations.

jmccr8

 I know the argument that neanderthal couldn't speak  There are other academic points of view The anthropological evidence of their sophistication  in  tool and shelter construction and burial customs,  indicates that  they had to be able to speak in order to construct the inner concepts required for these skills/

 Fire is a little more problematic depending on whether you judge simple use of fire or the abilty to start or maintain a fire eg while travelling   No other animal even those with relatively advanced "language" skills uses fire, suggesting  that there is a direct link between human level consciousness speech and fire use.   However it is indisputable that sophistication into abstract  and symbolic thoughts and speech  marks the distinguishing characteristic of humanity and the dividing line between humans and their primate ancestors ( a few moddrn monkeys use primitive tools But have no langauge ofthe mind) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
10 hours ago, Just_Seeking said:

Sorry been on a rant about people telling people to seek mental help. The second question should have been a statement. The other part was me calling the next move.

Ahhh, gotcha!!! I'm with you. No one should demean others for what they believe or don't believe in. I think agree with what you said in the last two sentences of your last post. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I had to state it because you didn't seem to get it. It goes to the rest o this paragraph It is not my job to convince you. You have ot convince yourself; but it is my job to publish certain fa acts and  strong probabilities. You only have to research if you want to make sure i am right.  It is'nt necessary to check things you already factually kow but you do need to check things which challenge that knowledge or your beliefs. If you dont want to challenge the you are under NO obligation to check them. .

I don't know if it's me, but I really think it's you who doesn't seem to get it. I'm not worried about me and being convinced. It should be you who should be worried about convincing others ( including me ) if you want to be believed. I mean, I have been trying to put this out to you in many ways, and seem to run out how many ways I can get this message across to you. I'm challenging you and if you want to accept it, then do the work. So simply, if you don't accept the challenge, then you are ignored. Just like that. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

You  got it . 

BUT, it is my position to state what is your responsibility   You just don't have to accept this.  eg I can state that  you have a responsibility to your children. I am sure you would agree.

I might state  that you have a responsibility to drive safely.  You would probably agree  (although some humans do not accept this as an absolute responsibility, because they chose to drink and drive or to break road laws.)

You're position to state my responsibility is ignored. I do not agree that you can state what is my responsibility to my children. If you do, it doesn't look favoring on you, because you are meddling and it's none of your business. Again, you'll be ignored. 

Quote

I might state you have a responsibility not to deliberately be a burden on society  I don't now how you  would feel about that one. 

Well, that depends, what if I was wheelchaired bound? Or somewhat that I cannot work? What about those who are on assistence, because they can't function? Do you consider them a burden on society? And what would you do to them, if they are? I think you are crossing the line with that one. :angry: 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

dont want or expect you to take me as a reliable source That is WHY you must check my claims.

Or ignore you. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Really its safer not to eat some meats at all

There is now a clear body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among those who eat the most red and processed meat. Processed meat consumption has also been strongly linked to a higher risk of stomach cancer.

The World Health Organization has classified processed meats – including ham, salami, sausages and hot dogs – as a Group 1 carcinogen which means that there is strong evidence that processed meats cause cancer. Red meat, such as beef, lamb and pork has been classified as a ‘probable’ cause of cancer. These classifications do not indicate the risk of getting cancer, rather how certain we are that these things are likely to cause cancer.


Read more at https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/21639/cancer-information/cancer-risk-and-prevention/healthy-weight-diet-and-exercise/meat-and-cancer/#L0hHvLaOiitj2fj4.99

 

Objective factual truths exist .ONly you can come to a subjective acceptance of them  .

 

You see i read a couple of articles lst yea r which showed a definite link between burned meat and cancer in humans  I dont have them on me so it is up to you to research if it worries you  .  So far you haven't found the articles  ( from Australian scientists i think)

Wow! First off, I'm not going through the work, to make you right, if you can't find them yourself. Did you figure that they probably don't exist? So, I don't believe you. 

Plus, your statement on the red meats being definite cause of cancer, like you said, doesn't match your link in saying it's a possibility, but not definitely. So, it's not on me to find sources that your right. It's on me, to think, that there isn't any that exist. So, on that, I have found you to be wrong. Nice link on the redmeats though. Too bad, it didn't match your points exactly. :no: 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown  unknowns. In other words we must use all the knowns to act upon and not worry about the unknowns

WHAT?!?!? Seriously!! You expect me to take this seriously?! 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

In other words we must use all the knowns to act upon and not worry about the unknowns Are you serioulsy saying you would be happy smoking or using a solarium given what we know about the candcer risks from them?

NO! THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING!! I'm saying, that you can't definitely state that something will kill everyone. That's my point. You can't say that believing in God and going to church will lengthen your life. It's different variables. 

Way to misdirect with a shocking question there. :no:  :rolleyes: 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Of course you believe it. Is all you know and have experienced . How could you believe anything else? I am not sure what might convince you otherwise.  Yet  what you believe id  not factually correct. We now KNOW that humans learn and construct their emotional responses and thus can shape them any way they want, from tearing your hair out to  not feeling much at all.  You (anyone) can learn how to alter your emotional responses into more useful and productive ones  You NEVER have to be petrified by fear or a phobia,  or reduced to a trembling wreck by grief. .

Uh, I do know that. How would you know that I haven't? You know, just stop with your claims about knowing me, when you come across to me, as the exact opposite. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I got this info from a scientist who works a the pain centre a t the royal adelaide hosoital, on the radio,  but you can also read it online.

It began with scientists asking why peole feel what we cal phantom pain Eg pain in a leg which no longer exists. Rrecently the y discovered tha t pain originates in the mind particularity n the back of the brain and in the connection between spine and brain.

 http://www.learning-mind.com/is-pain-real-or-is-it-all-in-your-head-neuroscience-explains/

So, you did show me, from what I asked you from this post of your's. 

Quote
urs ago, Mr Walker said:

we are now learning that even pain is not a physical thing but a conceptual constructed  "state of mind"   and can be largely eliminated by mental discipline and some mental practices   You can live wihtout any extreme of emotion  (and could if you wanted to learn to live without even minor fear or anger or hate or envy or loneliness)   However it is best to retain some small part of these as warning systems,  but not to let them EVER control how you think or behave.  Your mind should be in control of itself at all times 

but, here's the thing. Did you fully understand what that link says. It's labeling the different types of senses from physical pain. It's not talking about ignoring your senses. The link says, ( which I have always have felt ) that the sense are responses from physical things, like the types of pain mentioned in the link. 

Oh boy! :no: 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I act knowing i am responsible to provide information. I dont believe i am responsible for you acting on that info. 

Actually we ALL have a duty and responsibility to meddle in the lives of others in many many ways. We live in a society not as individuals. 

LOL of course not. My answers are limited and personal  Don't ask me to coach baseball. 

If you can explain how any of my advice could, even potentially, cause you harm, i will reconsider it. 

And yes of course ive spent my whole life leaning form others. I know nothing and can do nothing excpet what i have learned from others and tested via experince..  But as you get more knowdge there is less to learn

I believe I have explained how your advice could cause harm, ( like stating blood pressure medicine should best not be taken, if I'm getting this correctly, ) but you seem to ignore it or refuse to accept it. 

Yeah, well, ...................................... I don't know what else to say to you Mr. Walker. No one, can be right all of the time. 

I just find you, so....................... ah forget it. I don't care. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

fter you read these links see if you feel the same way.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/13/5209.full

http://www.cog.brown.edu/people/lieberman/pdfFiles/Lieberman P. 2007. The evolution of human speech, Its anatom.pdf

You have a very limited view and should think about taking in more of what's going on around you.To make comparisons between dogs and human intelligence is quite telling of your limitations.

jmccr8

I often wonder, how there are so many ways to communicate. Are there not societies and cultures today, that have sounds and clicks, within their language? Sign language, is something I often think about that when it came about. 

Haven't scientists and others taught chimps, monkeys, and such a language that allows them to communicate to and from? I often wonder, if we are going to talk about communicating with dogs, how my own dog seems to understand me, and then I have come to understand what he is communicating, by being around him for years. And I wasn't a dog person to begin with. 

I think so many languages, when translated to other languages, something gets lost in translation because of how each culture sees things and how to communicate it. 

Sometimes, I wonder if we just stand in the woods and clear all thought, how much the woods communicate with us. :) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
39 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 I know the argument that neanderthal couldn't speak  There are other academic points of view The anthropological evidence of their sophistication  in  tool and shelter construction and burial customs,  indicates that  they had to be able to speak in order to construct the inner concepts required for these skills/

 Fire is a little more problematic depending on whether you judge simple use of fire or the abilty to start or maintain a fire eg while travelling   No other animal even those with relatively advanced "language" skills uses fire, suggesting  that there is a direct link between human level consciousness speech and fire use.   However it is indisputable that sophistication into abstract  and symbolic thoughts and speech  marks the distinguishing characteristic of humanity and the dividing line between humans and their primate ancestors ( a few moddrn monkeys use primitive tools But have no langauge ofthe mind) 

Walker,

 Language didn't exist before the ability to speak the ability to communicate did H. Erectus made it to Java near a million years ago and the didn't talk their way there but were intelligent enough to have understood their intent and achieve it. You can blather on about the language of the mind like most of the things you do and not be able to show that this claim is true either.

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
3 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I often wonder, how there are so many ways to communicate. Are there not societies and cultures today, that have sounds and clicks, within their language? Sign language, is something I often think about that when it came about. 

I would expect that there has always been a way for intelligent species (homo) to express concepts in some form, for some reason Walker thinks that there was a complete descriptive language of the mind that has always existed and it is the language that gives intelligence to man.:rolleyes:

8 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Haven't scientists and others taught chimps, monkeys, and such a language that allows them to communicate to and from? I often wonder, if we are going to talk about communicating with dogs, how my own dog seems to understand me, and then I have come to understand what he is communicating, by being around him for years. And I wasn't a dog person to begin with. 

Yes that is true, but animals understand to a degree because we give them the interaction, I wouldn't be surprised that in part it is a part of several experiences,the intonation of words, the smell of the speaker when they speak, as well as the way the speaker's body moves. They are trained to respond to the words by reward and as understanding and sympathetic as their little faces appear they do not understand the woes of the speaker.:)

jmccr8

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I had to state it because you didn't seem to get it. It goes to the rest o this paragraph It is not my job to convince you. You have ot convince yourself; but it is my job to publish certain fa acts and  strong probabilities. You only have to research if you want to make sure i am right.  It is'nt necessary to check things you already factually kow but you do need to check things which challenge that knowledge or your beliefs. If you dont want to challenge the you are under NO obligation to check them. .

 

 You  got it . 

BUT, it is my position to state what is your responsibility   You just don't have to accept this.  eg I can state that  you have a responsibility to your children. I am sure you would agree.

I might state  that you have a responsibility to drive safely.  You would probably agree  (although some humans do not accept this as an absolute responsibility, because they chose to drink and drive or to break road laws.)

I might state you have a responsibility not to deliberately be a burden on society  I don't now how you  would feel about that one. 

 

Could kill you? you mean physically?

Heck i dont want or expect you to take me as a reliable source That is WHY you must check my claims. Some of the research i read last year indicated a proven link between charred meat and cancer in humans but i admit many articles only indicate this a potential risk because the y were published before mid 2016 (This makes us like the early days of the anti smoking lobby A definitive link was  proven but the  specific risks were not proven Would you rather know of the risks or not know of them ?

Really its safer not to eat some meats at all

There is now a clear body of evidence that bowel cancer is more common among those who eat the most red and processed meat. Processed meat consumption has also been strongly linked to a higher risk of stomach cancer.

The World Health Organization has classified processed meats – including ham, salami, sausages and hot dogs – as a Group 1 carcinogen which means that there is strong evidence that processed meats cause cancer. Red meat, such as beef, lamb and pork has been classified as a ‘probable’ cause of cancer. These classifications do not indicate the risk of getting cancer, rather how certain we are that these things are likely to cause cancer.


Read more at https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/21639/cancer-information/cancer-risk-and-prevention/healthy-weight-diet-and-exercise/meat-and-cancer/#L0hHvLaOiitj2fj4.99

 

Objective factual truths exist .ONly you can come to a subjective acceptance of them  .

 

You see i read a couple of articles lst yea r which showed a definite link between burned meat and cancer in humans  I dont have them on me so it is up to you to research if it worries you  .  So far you haven't found the articles  ( from Australian scientists i think)

 There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown  unknowns. In other words we must use all the knowns to act upon and not worry about the unknowns Are you serioulsy saying you would be happy smoking or using a solarium given what we know about the candcer risks from them?   You are right about multiple risks, but this just makes it more sensible to eliminate ALL the risk we can (Then we could STILL get run over by a bus tomoorow but we are considerably less likely to die from cancer stroke or heart disease if we live by certain guidelines

 

Of course you believe it. Is all you know and have experienced . How could you believe anything else? I am not sure what might convince you otherwise.  Yet  what you believe id  not factually correct. We now KNOW that humans learn and construct their emotional responses and thus can shape them any way they want, from tearing your hair out to  not feeling much at all.  You (anyone) can learn how to alter your emotional responses into more useful and productive ones  You NEVER have to be petrified by fear or a phobia,  or reduced to a trembling wreck by grief. .

I got this info from a scientist who works a the pain centre a t the royal adelaide hosoital, on the radio,  but you can also read it online.

It began with scientists asking why peole feel what we cal phantom pain Eg pain in a leg which no longer exists. Rrecently the y discovered tha t pain originates in the mind particularity n the back of the brain and in the connection between spine and brain.

 http://www.learning-mind.com/is-pain-real-or-is-it-all-in-your-head-neuroscience-explains/

 

I act knowing i am responsible to provide information. I dont believe i am responsible for you acting on that info. 

Actually we ALL have a duty and responsibility to meddle in the lives of others in many many ways. We live in a society not as individuals. 

LOL of course not. My answers are limited and personal  Don't ask me to coach baseball. 

If you can explain how any of my advice could, even potentially, cause you harm, i will reconsider it. 

And yes of course ive spent my whole life leaning form others. I know nothing and can do nothing excpet what i have learned from others and tested via experince..  But as you get more knowdge there is less to learn

MW, it seems you needed this information not Stubbs. She didn't smoke, she didn't have open heart surgery like you.

Perhaps you wish someone would have given you this info earlier, before you had health issues. 

For ex: you post  that going to church will "add years" to your life, if you have COPD, or dementia, or cirrosus of the liver (a terminal illness) you are not going to live longer going to church, you might have added quality of life with the time you have left, but you might not. 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
18 hours ago, eight bits said:

Frank

Yes, and among the premises in the most effective systems of rational thought is to  accept that in order to be rational, one will have to search actively for the true and the useful. Nobody is going to reveal what's true or what's useful to you; you have to go out and look for it.

It is a fact that typical search spaces for both truth and usefulness are often vast, while resources, including search time, are limited. Therefore, a rational manager of uncertain reasoning will use heurisitics. By definition, heuristics are principles of search that experience shows to be effective guides to reduce the size of search spaces.

It is irrelevant that a heuristic doesn't necessarily work, and doesn't "always" work. That's what heuristic means.

So, what is beautiful might not be true, and might not be useful, either. That last sentence is true. It is also no rational reason to avoid aesthetic considerations while trying to reduce search spaces. The threshhold question is whether aesthetic assessment ever identifies truth-rich or usefulness-rich subspaces in which to search.

Apparently so for some people's aesthetic sense; you mentioned Einstein, so I take the point to be settled between us. If so, then the question then changes to when and how to use beauty as a guide to search, not whether ever to use it.

Speaking of Einstein, however

Those are two different ideas, and each has its own distinctive set of associated heuristics. More generally, Einstein strikes me as a fairly bright guy. I'd be reluctant to take one of his maxims and rewrite it, and even more reluctant to call my redaction a "translation." Maybe that's just me.

As are the sense of finding contingent truth and of finding usefulness. Your point?

I don't think beautiful and simple are separate things when it comes to logic and science.  Every example of something, like a logical proof, that I know of that has been called beautiful has been simple, and often this is given as the reason it is beautiful.

I am not asserting that beauty and simplicity are the same -- obviously in art they are not (usually).  

My reference to Einstein cannot be taken as my agreeing with him -- I referred to his view as an illusion.  

No -- in fact my attitude would be to be immediately suspicious of any idea that I found beautiful or appealing or simple -- one must first of all be skeptical of oneself and one's reactions and desires.  Einstein was special -- most of us don't have access to such insights.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
6 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

MW, it seems you needed this information not Stubbs. She didn't smoke, she didn't have open heart surgery like you.

Perhaps you wish someone would have given you this info earlier, before you had health issues. 

For ex: you post  that going to church will "add years" to your life, if you have COPD, or dementia, or cirrosus of the liver (a terminal illness) you are not going to live longer going to church, you might have added quality of life with the time you have left, but you might not. 

 

 

Of course and on the other hand, any practice or behavior that causes one to abstain from that which might shorten one's life can only have a positive effect if adopted before irreversible damage is done.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Of course and on the other hand, any practice or behavior that causes one to abstain from that which might shorten one's life can only have a positive effect if adopted before irreversible damage is done.

Mormons discourage smoking and drinking; hence they tend to live longer and this is good.  It is not evidence for most of the Mormon system though.  They also discourage coffee and tea (at least without sugar), that have the opposite effect and are good for you, a fact they generally admit but think they should avoid anyway because that is God's wish on the subject.  That's a problem -- basing what we do on a religion is less effective than basing what we do on science.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Frank Merton said:

Mormons discourage smoking and drinking; hence they tend to live longer and this is good.  It is not evidence for most of the Mormon system though.  They also discourage coffee and tea (at least without sugar), that have the opposite effect and are good for you, a fact they generally admit but think they should avoid anyway because that is God's wish on the subject.  That's a problem -- basing what we do on a religion is less effective than basing what we do on science.

Perhaps, but it is the human way. When we consider human life in all it permutations, in the end the cause is irrelevant, if the result is positive. After all, we are not dealing with a rational species, but a rationalizing one. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
37 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Of course and on the other hand, any practice or behavior that causes one to abstain from that which might shorten one's life can only have a positive effect if adopted before irreversible damage is done.

Yes, before you have the issue. But, as you said we are beings who often rationalize irrational behaviors. For me, taking family medical history serious is a good place to start.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I don't know if it's me, but I really think it's you who doesn't seem to get it. I'm not worried about me and being convinced. It should be you who should be worried about convincing others ( including me ) if you want to be believed. I mean, I have been trying to put this out to you in many ways, and seem to run out how many ways I can get this message across to you. I'm challenging you and if you want to accept it, then do the work. So simply, if you don't accept the challenge, then you are ignored. Just like that. 

You're position to state my responsibility is ignored. I do not agree that you can state what is my responsibility to my children. If you do, it doesn't look favoring on you, because you are meddling and it's none of your business. Again, you'll be ignored. 

Well, that depends, what if I was wheelchaired bound? Or somewhat that I cannot work? What about those who are on assistence, because they can't function? Do you consider them a burden on society? And what would you do to them, if they are? I think you are crossing the line with that one. :angry: 

Or ignore you. 

Wow! First off, I'm not going through the work, to make you right, if you can't find them yourself. Did you figure that they probably don't exist? So, I don't believe you. 

Plus, your statement on the red meats being definite cause of cancer, like you said, doesn't match your link in saying it's a possibility, but not definitely. So, it's not on me to find sources that your right. It's on me, to think, that there isn't any that exist. So, on that, I have found you to be wrong. Nice link on the redmeats though. Too bad, it didn't match your points exactly. :no: 

WHAT?!?!? Seriously!! You expect me to take this seriously?! 

NO! THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING!! I'm saying, that you can't definitely state that something will kill everyone. That's my point. You can't say that believing in God and going to church will lengthen your life. It's different variables. 

Way to misdirect with a shocking question there. :no:  :rolleyes: 

Uh, I do know that. How would you know that I haven't? You know, just stop with your claims about knowing me, when you come across to me, as the exact opposite. 

So, you did show me, from what I asked you from this post of your's. 

but, here's the thing. Did you fully understand what that link says. It's labeling the different types of senses from physical pain. It's not talking about ignoring your senses. The link says, ( which I have always have felt ) that the sense are responses from physical things, like the types of pain mentioned in the link. 

Oh boy! :no: 

I believe I have explained how your advice could cause harm, ( like stating blood pressure medicine should best not be taken, if I'm getting this correctly, ) but you seem to ignore it or refuse to accept it. 

Yeah, well, ...................................... I don't know what else to say to you Mr. Walker. No one, can be right all of the time. 

I just find you, so....................... ah forget it. I don't care. 

 

No wonder we cant communicate I would NEVER suggest you not take blood pressure tablets. I mean  I take them

 My point was that, if you  can control your blood pressure through meditation or mental discipline you  wont need to take them because your   blood pressure will be low.

I have to maintain very low blood pressure cholesterol etc due to a family history of heart disease so i use both.

 See i cant understand where you get tha t idea from.

 I have ALWAYS advised  people tp get comprehensive medical checks and to follow their doctors advice.

My doctor suggests i stay on the tablets even though for years now my blood pressure has been 110 to 120 over 70  My doctor has twice reduced the dose of the tablets a s i manage the blood pressure thorough relaxation techniques. 

wheelchair bound is not deliberately  acting to make yourself a public burden

You miss my point about personal responsibilities and oyu totally miss my point about lifestyle Once a person KNOWS certain risk factors it is up to the to chose which to act upon But if they don't know , then they have no choice   I assume you dont mind me publicly stating that smoking cigaretes kills one in 3 of all those peole who smoke, because that is a known statistical fact.    So i have a responsibility to tell peole what might harm them. They have a responsibility to choose what to to with that information.

 It is that will ful ignorance thing   again? Are you saying i shouldn't tell you or anyone else that smoking and drinking are dangerous to human health?  is it meddling to tell as many peole as i can what the risk factors for health and long life truly are?  Given that peer reviewed studies from all over the world show that people who go to church every week live longer and happier lives than COMPARABLE people who do not, don't i have an obligation to tell people that? .  SO don't I have an obligation to make that  public?  (or should I selfishly keep this knowledge to myself so that only I benefit from it?  As it happens I DO NOT go to church at all,  but a t least i know i could live longer and healthier if i chose to. 

The link says a lot more than that. The mind actually GENERATES or constructs real and powerful pain indistinguishable from physical  pain and with NO physical cause   increasingly it is thought that  such pain is not a physical  effect a t all but a mental one, and so using mental techniques and understandings one can reduce and almost eliminate ANY perception of pain  No its not about ignoring your senses. It is saying  that pain is often not actually a physical thing transferred from a wound broken leg  or a burn etc to the brain,  but a mental response/construct  of the mind, to bodily trauma. Thus, two people with identical wounds can experience totally different degrees of pain. 

http://www.spine-health.com/blog/how-stop-your-pain-your-mind

http://theconversation.com/pain-really-is-in-the-mind-but-not-in-the-way-you-think-1151

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3176485/Is-pain-mind-Physical-pain-psychological-root-required-different-kind-treatment.html

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I don't know if it's me, but I really think it's you who doesn't seem to get it. I'm not worried about me and being convinced. It should be you who should be worried about convincing others ( including me ) if you want to be believed. I mean, I have been trying to put this out to you in many ways, and seem to run out how many ways I can get this message across to you. I'm challenging you and if you want to accept it, then do the work. So simply, if you don't accept the challenge, then you are ignored. Just like that. 

You're position to state my responsibility is ignored. I do not agree that you can state what is my responsibility to my children. If you do, it doesn't look favoring on you, because you are meddling and it's none of your business. Again, you'll be ignored. 

Well, that depends, what if I was wheelchaired bound? Or somewhat that I cannot work? What about those who are on assistence, because they can't function? Do you consider them a burden on society? And what would you do to them, if they are? I think you are crossing the line with that one. :angry: 

Or ignore you. 

Wow! First off, I'm not going through the work, to make you right, if you can't find them yourself. Did you figure that they probably don't exist? So, I don't believe you. 

Plus, your statement on the red meats being definite cause of cancer, like you said, doesn't match your link in saying it's a possibility, but not definitely. So, it's not on me to find sources that your right. It's on me, to think, that there isn't any that exist. So, on that, I have found you to be wrong. Nice link on the redmeats though. Too bad, it didn't match your points exactly. :no: 

WHAT?!?!? Seriously!! You expect me to take this seriously?! 

NO! THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING!! I'm saying, that you can't definitely state that something will kill everyone. That's my point. You can't say that believing in God and going to church will lengthen your life. It's different variables. 

Way to misdirect with a shocking question there. :no:  :rolleyes: 

Uh, I do know that. How would you know that I haven't? You know, just stop with your claims about knowing me, when you come across to me, as the exact opposite. 

So, you did show me, from what I asked you from this post of your's. 

but, here's the thing. Did you fully understand what that link says. It's labeling the different types of senses from physical pain. It's not talking about ignoring your senses. The link says, ( which I have always have felt ) that the sense are responses from physical things, like the types of pain mentioned in the link. 

Oh boy! :no: 

I believe I have explained how your advice could cause harm, ( like stating blood pressure medicine should best not be taken, if I'm getting this correctly, ) but you seem to ignore it or refuse to accept it. 

Yeah, well, ...................................... I don't know what else to say to you Mr. Walker. No one, can be right all of the time. 

I just find you, so....................... ah forget it. I don't care. 

 

See. ..... he is doing to you now ,  

He just goes around doing this people and then claims all this fake innonsense  ( inadvertent spelling mistake , but I leave that one as is :) )   about it, and when he is called out for it  ...

he bawls like a baby ! 

P f f f f t ! 

and .... its not you Stubbs , dont let him get to you , we can see whats going on  here .

Yay Stubbs !     :wub:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, Frank Merton said:

Mormons discourage smoking and drinking; hence they tend to live longer and this is good.  It is not evidence for most of the Mormon system though.  They also discourage coffee and tea (at least without sugar), that have the opposite effect and are good for you, a fact they generally admit but think they should avoid anyway because that is God's wish on the subject.  That's a problem -- basing what we do on a religion is less effective than basing what we do on science.

LOL both coffee and tea have MANY health dangers  Caffeine especially is quite a dangerous and addictive drug I love my coke zero but i know the danger of caffeine Tannin is less powerful but similar    Adventists and mormons do follow biblical injunctions on diet BUT the y can back them up with the most modern medical science  They tend to live 10 years longer with far better health than others who live in the same communities. 

https://www.caffeineinformer.com/harmful-effects-of-caffeine

https://www.healthambition.com/negative-effects-of-coffee/

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/271707.php

There have been some modern findings that coffee might help certain people eg with parkinsons disease  just as alcohol or cannabis might help some medical conditions, but in general the health risks of caffeine far out weigh the  benefits for the average person   and this is reflected in the studies of  mormons and Adventists compared with people from similar cohorts. who do drink it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I often wonder, how there are so many ways to communicate. Are there not societies and cultures today, that have sounds and clicks, within their language? Sign language, is something I often think about that when it came about. 

Haven't scientists and others taught chimps, monkeys, and such a language that allows them to communicate to and from? I often wonder, if we are going to talk about communicating with dogs, how my own dog seems to understand me, ....

Image result for cartoon what we think dogs hear . what dogs hear

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 minute ago, back to earth said:

See. ..... he is doing to you now ,  

He just goes around doing this people and then claims all this fake innonsense  ( inadvertent spelling mistake , but I leave that one as is :) )   about it, and when he is called out for it  ...

he bawls like a baby ! 

P f f f f t ! 

and .... its not you Stubbs , dont let him get to you , we can see whats going on  here .

Yay Stubbs !     :wub:

I am not bawling at stubbs. We are having a civilised conversation.  She is polite if assertive (which s a positive trait)   and addresses the issue. This is unlike yourself who is both rude and fails to argue your case. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I don't know if it's me, but I really think it's you who doesn't seem to get it. ...

I mean, I have been trying to put this out to you in many ways, and seem to run out how many ways I can get this message across to you....

You're position to state my responsibility is ignored. I do not agree that you can state what is my responsibility to my children. If you do, it doesn't look favoring on you, because you are meddling and it's none of your business. ......

 I think you are crossing the line with that one. :angry:  ....

...I don't believe you. 

..., it's not on me to find sources that your right. It's on me, to think, that there isn't any that exist. So, on that, I have found you to be wrong. Nice link on the redmeats though. Too bad, it didn't match your points exactly. :no: 

WHAT?!?!? Seriously!! You expect me to take this seriously?! 

NO! THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING!!

Way to misdirect with a shocking question there. :no:  :rolleyes: 

... You know, just stop with your claims about knowing me, when you come across to me, as the exact opposite. 

.... Did you fully understand what that link says. It's labeling the different types of senses from physical pain. It's not talking about ignoring your senses. The link says, ( which I have always have felt ) that the sense are responses from physical things, like the types of pain mentioned in the link. 

Oh boy! :no: 

I believe I have explained how your advice could cause harm, ( like stating blood pressure medicine should best not be taken, if Walker. No one, can be right all of the time. 

I just find you, so....................... ah forget it. I don't care. 

 

 

sums it all up for me    I dont even have to see what was said ... its all VERY familar , no matter how nice or rude one is too 

THE   WALKER   !          

 

Image result for wheelbarrow fail gif

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

MW, it seems you needed this information not Stubbs. She didn't smoke, she didn't have open heart surgery like you.

Perhaps you wish someone would have given you this info earlier, before you had health issues. 

For ex: you post  that going to church will "add years" to your life, if you have COPD, or dementia, or cirrosus of the liver (a terminal illness) you are not going to live longer going to church, you might have added quality of life with the time you have left, but you might not. 

 

 

ROFLMAO Still at it "Therapy"?  You are putting yourself in my place and responding to my life as YOU might respond to it I cant believe you are as dumb as oyu pretend on this  Statistics compare like with like and come up with overall results  You might smoke for 100 years and never get cancer but one in three people who smoke die as a result of smoking related illnesses

My health issues are genetic and indeed i have not smoked or drank alcohol or eaten much meat for 40 years.  If i HAD done those things  i would liley have already been dead by now, like some of my friends.

 If you go to church regularly it is possible that you will not get dementia so ealry   or cirrhosis of the liver at all,  because associated lifestyle factors also come into play. Dementia is delayed by an active involved lifestyle such as that enjoyed by church goers and  statistically church goers drink less alcohol than non church goers, and believe in a healthy mind in a healthy body.

 And it is not just going to church. A spiritual belief or dimension in a human's life confers exactly the SAME benefits, including less cardio vascular diseases and less depression. because such peole have significantly less stress and anxiety in their life and better coping mechanisms to deal with what the y do experience (that famous old crutch of religion )  As part of a group the y are less likely to be lonely or lack purpose, both prime causes of depression. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.