- Feb 10, 2013
- 37,640
- 21,688
- 29
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
No. 1st amendmentShould the government be forcing religion onto children?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No. 1st amendmentShould the government be forcing religion onto children?
What I see being filmed all over the place, is the same as what I experience firsthand but it's all marketing. And that goes for everyone else that sees what they themselves are experiencing happening all over the the country. You can even go to google street views and see how bad it is. But that's all supposed to be bogus. It seems like it would be a lot harder to stage all that, than to put out graph based on who knows what. It's easy to skew data like that by being selective about what's entered. That's where data is factual, but not thorough enough.
So does that apply to what we know about Jan 6th? And every other event? From what I'm being told all the time, even if you were there in person while it was happening, that's just anecdotal rather than factual.Its not manipulation at all. Its just a natural combination of corporations chasing revenue plus the way humans tend to reward shocking news with elevated clicks and attention.
Plus people tend to give alarming things more space in their own heads than good or stable things.
Not entirely because what you're saying isn't particularly sensable. For example how do you know what happened Jan 6th? Do you disbelieve it really took place the way you saw, heard and read about it?I don't know how you can sit there and argue that peer-reviewed data is being entered selectively while simultaneously denying that your media diet and personal experiences, by their very nature, do just that.
Again, it's not being "staged". Do you really not understand what I'm saying?
Can you name the year Mount Rainer was built? No? I guess Mount Rainer is a myth-not reality.If you cant name a year, then you are talking about a myth - not reality.
If youre right, it should be easy.
This church murder / arson in MI is absolutely as bad as it looks in my opinion. Its horrific.So does that apply to what we know about Jan 6th? And every other event? From what I'm being told all the time, even if you were there in person while it was happening, that's just anecdotal rather than factual.
I can name a year when Mount Rainier was a thing... therefore its not a myth.Can you name the year Mount Rainer was built? No? I guess Mount Rainer is a myth-not reality.
I agree. And that goes onto my tally of the bad trends. And, big picture, I do see some real negative trends at play, mainly around social media, cost of living for the median and below, and the destruction of the natural environment. The latter is more closely linked to human affairs and our state of mind than we appreciate, I think.But the bad stuff still does exist. For example why is so much merchandise in stores locked up when it never was before? There's whole isles where everything is behind locked glass doors or in cages. I literally can't even buy underwear in the middle of the day, unless I find someone with a key.
That was not the question. What year was Mount Rainer built? How about when the Mississippi River was created? Can you name the exact date the first humans walked the Earth? Can you even name the date the earth was created. No? Then they all must be myths according to your standards.I can name a year when Mount Rainier was a thing... therefore its not a myth.
Tell us any year when a clearly more moral America was a thing.
If the data is carefully measured, then yes its more indicative of actual trends than what your chosen media might select or what you see in your specific neighborhood......But ignore that. It's not really happening because this says otherwise:
Ecclesiastes 7:10 means it's unwise to sulk over how carefree childhood seemed compared to being an adult. Or to sulk over how much more energetic and vigorous I was in my 30s compared to my 60s.I agree. And that goes onto my tally of the bad trends. And, big picture, I do see some real negative trends at play, mainly around social media, cost of living for the median and below, and the destruction of the natural environment. The latter is more closely linked to human affairs and our state of mind than we appreciate, I think.
What do you make of Ecclesiastes 7:10?
Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?”
For it is not wise to ask such questions.
(my underline)
I'm not sure that is an actual pattern....Why does that matter? Can you name a single mass school shooting prior to Columbine? Obviously, the pattern shows that the further a nation becomes more secular, human life has less value.
My standard: I can name a year when Mount Rainier was a thing.That was not the question. What year was Mount Rainer built? How about when the Mississippi River was created? Can you name the exact date the first humans walked the Earth. Can you even name the date the earth was created. No? Then they all must be myths according to your standards.
Same here, even in the neighborhoods that are a little more dicey.Where I live hardly anything is behind lock and key at the stores - for example.
It's all across the country.If the data is carefully measured, then yes its more indicative of actual trends than what your chosen media might select or what you see in your specific neighborhood.
I used to be able to say the same a few years ago. It just hasn't caught up to where you are yet.Where I live hardly anything is behind lock and key at the stores - for example.
If things keep going the way they are, you won't be able to say that a few years from now.Same here, even in the neighborhoods that are a little more dicey.