Posts by Arthur Anderson49

mistyfox812 said:It’s basically saying that an opinion is defined by whatever it's pushing back against. Take anti-fascism, for example—it’s defined by fascism itself. Where fascism says "yes," anti-fascism says "no," and vice versa. If one side is black, the other is white. But the actual boundary, and what shape it takes, isn't dictated by the "anti-" part; it's shaped by the original ideology that the "anti-" movement is fighting in the first place.

I look at atheism a bit differently—sort of as anti-theism, which makes it a direct opposition to theism. But I have to point out that agnosticism definitely doesn't work that way! Agnosticism isn't "anti-" anything. It’s more like non-theism, and there is a massive difference there.

It’s its own independent way of looking at the world that doesn't need to be tethered to any kind of theism, let alone defined by it. It’s simply a move away from conviction toward a lack of conviction. And that isn't an opposition; it's not some sort of "negative" version of belief. Think about it like this: a vacuum isn't the opposite of air, right? It's something else entirely.

Keith Lee2 said:Why even bother putting people in boxes?
I believe God exists, but I don't want to be called a theist.
I don't really know what God is, but I don't want to be an atheist.
I have no clue if God actually exists, but I refuse to be labeled an agnostic.
The three of us are doing just fine, so can we please stop gambling with who belongs where?

Look, those "labels" aren't really about what you feel like being—they’re about the actual beliefs you hold. If you say "God exists," then by any standard definition used in the US, you're a theist, whether you want the title or not.

Brenda Cook4 said:Can we just simplify it like this:

* A theist believes God exists without needing proof.
* An agnostic thinks we can't actually know anything about whether God exists or not.
* An atheist thinks God doesn't exist because there’s just zero evidence for Him.

Everything else is honestly just splitting hairs...

Nope! Not quite. There's actually a massive difference between making an assumption and holding a deep-seated belief. This isn't just splitting hairs at all—in fact, even Isaac Asimov put it beautifully! He famously said that Emotionally I am an atheist, admitting that even if, rationally, that might not be the most technically accurate way to label himself. And that is exactly my point! An atheist is essentially acting like a believer; they're someone who has taken a leap of faith despite what reason tells them.

Look, I'm not trying to downplay anyone's position—which is what > seems to think I'm doing—I just want us to be precise about what we're talking about! It matters to me personally, too. I used to be an atheist, but today I identify as an agnostic. That shift wasn't small, and it certainly wasn't easy; it left a real mark on my entire intellectual journey, bit by bit.

To me, those two stances—agnosticism and atheism—feel just as far apart from each other as agnosticism and theism do!

swiftcobra15 said:If you're an agnostic, then you're basically an atheist by default.

Khmmm... I've gotta disagree there.

See, if you identify as agnostic, it means you don't know whether Bog exists or not. But if you call yourself an atheist, you're claiming you know He doesn't exist.

To me, those two things are totally incompatible.

Think about it: anyone who claims to know something that's fundamentally unprovable—like whether Bog is out there or not—is essentially acting on faith. Which would mean an atheist is just a different flavor of believer, right?

How could a true skeptic possibly know? They can't! All they can do is make educated guesses and weigh the probabilities. So, in my book, a skeptic can't be an atheist. They have to be agnostic. In fact, being agnostic is the only way to stay truly skeptical!

oceanic said:First off, I’m a skeptic by design—methodologically speaking. (Basically, *dubito omnibus*.
Then, as a direct result of that skepticism, I land on being an agnostic (*ignorantium et ignorabimus*),
and finally, as a consequence of both, I consider myself an atheist (which is how I broke down the term earlier).

In my view, only atheists can actually have an unbiased conversation about "God" or "gods."😉

The whole breakdown you gave for the word 'atheist'—from where I'm sitting—isn't really an 'explanation,' it's just your personal take on what it means. Let me quote you here:

oceanic said:I'm an atheist. For me, that means I don't subscribe to any specific camp: I just can't wrap my head around the Christian, Muslim, or Shivite versions of God, because none of those doctrines hold up under actual scrutiny.
Atheism is always specific: it's the rejection of particular, concrete gods or concepts.
I wouldn't call myself an atheist regarding some random god "X" that I haven't even heard of.

Look, that's your personal philosophy, but it isn't the standard definition of atheism. If you look at the etymology, the word literally means 'without god.' It doesn't mean 'without Yahweh' or 'without Allah' or anything like that; it's a flat-out rejection of the idea of divinity itself.

Since there's zero empirical evidence to prove a deity doesn't exist—just like there's no proof they do—an atheist is essentially someone willing to believe in something unproven. In a way, that makes them a type of believer, doesn't it?

And honestly, I don't see how you can claim to be both agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

Plus, I fail to see how believers could ever have an objective debate about God or gods.

swiftcobra15 said:😕 😕 😕

Are you seriously picturing this as three different cults? 😕

Nah, I was just messing with you! Seriously though, even if we're diving into a heavy topic, there's no reason why we can't have a little fun while we talk about it, right? No need to get all grumpy and serious on me!

To me, religion feels totally pointless because it’s all about blind faith. I just don't have it in me to believe in anything without questioning it first. But then again, isn't atheism just another form of unquestioning belief? To me, they both seem equally hollow.

Being an agnostic, the whole "is there a divine power out there?" debate doesn't feel solvable to me—and honestly, it’s not even that interesting. What *does* catch my attention, though, is why people believe in the first place and what that belief actually does to them.

Every single religion carries some kind of moral code. When you line those teachings up side-by-side, it’s pretty obvious how much they overlap. That actually makes me wonder... maybe there really is something to this idea of a "higher" morality after all?

That’s why I find something like the New Testament so incredibly fascinating and inspiring. I’m not talking about the stories themselves—I view those as pure fiction—but rather the moral principles they lay out. They are truly captivating! It’s no wonder they completely reshaped the world and have managed to stay just as relevant today as when they were first written.

It’s almost like Euclidean geometry.

So, can we circle back to the original thread for a second? Why is it that atheists don't have their own "Pope"?

It’s actually a pretty wild thought, though maybe what we really need isn't a Pope at all, but more like an ombudsman. You know, a public advocate? It would feel way more in line with the whole atheist, skeptic, and agnostic vibe.

And honestly, if we did have this kind of representative, they’d need to be totally ecumenical—not just picking sides or favoring one of those three groups over the others.

dustyscout53 said:An interview with James Ellroy:

• Why didn't you like 'Million Dollar Baby'?

- Because I love boxing, and the boxing in that movie is pure garbage.

Holy crap, I seriously cannot believe there is actually a literate human being out there who thinks 'Million Dollar Baby' is a movie about boxing. For real? Good grief! It's like saying you hated 'The Lord of the Rings' just because you aren't a fan of gold rings...

Man, honestly? It’ll probably just skip theaters and head straight to streaming services. Our local cinemas haven't exactly been seeing massive crowds lately anyway.

crimsonmoose3 said:Oh, please! You clearly have no idea what an androgynous look even means. It’s right in the middle—neither strictly masculine nor feminine. So, you can't just label someone gay or a lesbian based on that alone. 😬

Jesus, that’s even worse. Lestat, am I totally losing my mind here?

crimsonmoose3 said:That whole phenomenon is just called Tilda Swinton. Or more specifically, that androgynous look. 😈

Man, watching Tilda Swinton in Narnia when she starts fighting and swinging that sword... I almost lost it! Seriously, Lastane, am I gay or what?

Peter Thompson3 said:Nicole Kidman was absolutely incredible in The Hours... I mean, I’ll admit, I barely recognized her at first because of that prosthetic nose they gave her, but man, she totally nailed that role! Isn't it wild how much an actor can transform? Seriously, though, her performance was just next level. 🙏

I was actually floored when I realized toward the end of the movie that I actually preferred her with that nose! Honestly, that’s just the power of a great performance right there. In The Hours, Nicole Kidman was just... wow. I'm just here to hang out and chat! What's on everyone's mind today?And honestly, she’s an absolute doll!

Maybe that’s exactly why she was such a powerhouse in *Moulin Rouge*? I mean, everything about that movie feels so incredibly stylized and artificial—almost like stepping into a high-end puppet theater—so having a performer who could play that perfect, polished doll was just spot on. It was such a great flick. Honestly, that’s pretty much the deal with anything Baz Luhrmann touches. The guy is just a wild ride; he can be a total mess sometimes, but man, he is always fascinating to watch!

Man, Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman absolutely crushed those vocals! You have to be incredibly gutsy to step up and cover "Something Stupid" after two legends like Frank Sinatra have already set the bar that high, right? But they did it—they totally nailed it!

Man, I am seriously blown away by how good this movie actually was! I ended up catching it during one of those "shotgun screenings" where you basically feel forced to watch it, but honestly? After just fifteen minutes, I was totally hooked and having a blast. I don't know if I’d ever have the guts to direct something this heavy—it's such a total tear-jerker—but the filmmaker absolutely nailed it without ever feeling condescending or patronizing to the audience. I'm legitimately impressed.

I’ve been bingeing a couple of "political" flicks lately that haven't popped up in this thread yet, and they really caught my eye—The Constant Gardener and Syriana. Both were stellar. The first one hits you right in the feels; it’s exactly what an activist movie should be, but without ever devolving into mindless propaganda. And man, the acting? Top-tier. I’d give everyone in that cast a standing ovation—and honestly, I’d give Rachel Weisz a whole lot more than just applause if she were looking my way!

There’s nothing quite like a great political thriller. (Assuming, of course, it’s actually any good!) When they nail it, they manage to "sell" these heavy-hitting political themes to people who usually can't stand politics for anything.

wapi said:There are actually people in this country who refuse to buy anything from Canada just because it’s Canadian. How many of them are there? Honestly, quite a few! And does Canada suffer because of that? You bet they do. It's been happening for years now.

Well, I don't think Walmart has even heard about that attitude! They just keep cruising along blissfully unaware, doing incredibly well and opening one new store after another—where, if you ask my rough estimate, at least 30 percent of the stock is Canadian.

melloweagle11 said:I honestly feel like that momentum we had back in '91 could have lasted several more years. That is, if the ruling party hadn't completely paralyzed it just so they could line their own pockets and enrich their families. If that hadn't happened, we could have rolled out all those economic reforms with way more focus on the average American citizen and actually picked better laws...

You just don't want to admit that you and I are actually saying the exact same thing! Yeah, it could have, as you put it, but if it hadn't been paralyzed, as you also said yourself. That’s my point too! A lot of that stuff was possible—on paper—but in reality? No way. Why? Because at that moment, power was held by people who weren't even interested in those ideas; they were busy crushing them instead. Sadly, back then, they were the only ones who could hold the reins. Everyone else was unpopular, discredited, and so on.

The people in Canada were lucky enough to step into that situation with a bit stronger national unity, slightly better education, fewer ideological clashes, more cautious politicians, a smaller slice of criminal mindsets, a greater willingness to respect the law, higher social standards, a bit more clever foreign policy—and one massive advantage: the total absence of war.

Pragmatic. You could call it that.
Though personally, I wouldn't really link "pragmatism" with being so certain that a VIP can bail you out after you get busted stealing.

Call it whatever you want! Like Deng Xiaoping used to say, it doesn't matter what color the cat is, as long as it catches mice. And for fifteen years now, the Canadian cat has been catching mice pretty damn successfully.

Shan Yu, I’m pretty much on board with almost everything you just laid out! But I gotta point out that what actually went down followed certain patterns—basically a script written by the specific circumstances we were facing at the time.

Now, I’m not going to dive into conspiracy theories or secret agendas because, honestly, I’ve never seen any rock-solid, well-documented proof for that kind of stuff. And trust me, I’ve been in positions where I’ve had to look those things right in the eye. There is zero doubt that foreign pressure driven by outside interests existed; that’s nothing new and it’s just how the world works everywhere, not just here in the States. But when it comes to those super complex, elaborate plots? I’m a skeptic.

Sure, so much could have been handled way better, but I’d argue that while it was possible in theory, the actual conditions just weren't there to make it happen in practice.

For instance:

I wasn't saying we needed a total overhaul of the whole agricultural system. What we should have done was implement the strictest ecological standards and quality controls, and basically shut the borders to everything else.
That way, we wouldn't be importing cheap toys from China made of carcinogenic plastic, or fruit and veggies that even folks in Western Europe can barely stand to buy (even if they are already used to that watery, tasteless produce).
It was organized smuggling designed to line the pockets of a tiny group of political elites and their families back then. Those short-sighted fools didn't care that they were completely nuking domestic production just to grab a quick buck (which was less than 5% of the total market value).

But wait, you’re kind of answering your own point right there! There were massive interests pushing for things to happen exactly the way they did. You know as well as I do that this wasn't viewed as undermining America, but rather as indirect support for Canadian Americans. And let's be real, some people actually benefited quite heavily from that. Meanwhile, the ones without direct skin in the game (the Democratic Party) just kept quiet because they had a metaphorical gun to their heads, and besides, they didn't have any real clout back then anyway.

Talking about strict eco-standards during the 1991-2000 era doesn't make much sense, does it? Just think about what kind of era that was! Who would have even been able to push laws like that through Congress? Who would have had any interest in doing that? And even if they managed to pass them, how on earth would they have enforced them locally against all those various Jameses running the show?

Who would have coached a farmer on these high standards? Who would have funded their transition to a new way of producing goods? And who would have guaranteed they wouldn't totally crash and burn trying to follow these—frankly bizarre—ideas? For crying out loud, just look at the absolute comedy of errors we've dealt with regarding border defense for the last fifteen years, and that's actually a relatively straightforward problem! We still haven't figured that one out. So how on earth could we ever solve the infinitely more complicated mess of transitioning to "eco-clean" food?

those are the same people whose parliament has spent years refusing to recognize the debt of Ljubljana Bank, all while constantly pushing their own politicians (and their little dramatic outbursts) onto the American borders as if it were a matter of national pride.

Everything there is true, but it's an open question whether that behavior was actually bad for Canada. To us, it looks incredibly foolish and obnoxious, but I'm not convinced it actually caused the Canadians much harm in practice. If it really had hurt them, I don't believe they would have done it. They are a very pragmatic people.

goldengull3 said:But when you really want it and know how to get it, anything is possible:

July 18th - General Dynamics is set to sign a $170 million contract today with the Qatar Ministry of Labor to build road infrastructure in the capital, Doha, right on the coast of the Persian Gulf. The signing ceremony will take place right there in the city.

I honestly wonder if this will even make the front page tomorrow, or if everyone will just be too distracted by the latest big transfer news for the LA Galaxy...

See, this is exactly the kind of thing where we were absolutely crushing it on the global stage about twenty years ago! It feels like we’re only just now, bit by bit, shyly stepping back onto that world stage. A few years back, a Bechtel engineer actually admitted to me how bizarre the whole situation felt—the fact that they’re building highways for us, when we used to beat them at their own game in international tenders across Africa and Asia fifteen or twenty years ago! He looked at me and asked, "What happened to all those powerhouse construction firms of yours?" And what could I possibly say? I mean, seriously, half of the toughest highways and viaducts in Austria were designed and built by American companies!

melloweagle11 said:So, let me get this straight—if the Republican Party hadn't gone full-throttle on that initial capital accumulation phase back in the day, would we all still be stuck exactly where we are right now? Is that really how it works? Or was I just being way too optimistic thinking they actually wanted to play fair instead of just lining their own pockets? What do you guys think? Was it even a realistic expectation to hope the administration wouldn't try to grab as much as possible?

How could anyone have actually stopped the new administration from lining their own pockets? Honestly, I’m not even sure it was possible! It’s like they walked into office with nothing but a hunger for graft. When the people in charge are actively rooting for corruption, how are you supposed to fight that? There just wasn't any real force pushing back against them at the start. In fact, it was even weirder than that—it felt like everyone treated the stealing like it was some kind of positive achievement! Can you believe that? It wasn't until much later that people finally started waking up and realizing, "Hey, wait, this is actually destroying our future." It took a massive reality check for anyone to see the damage being done!

So, let's talk about the foundation for a massive comeback—seriously, what on earth happened to all that cash that used to flow straight over to Mexico City? I mean, where did it go? It’s worth looking into, isn't it?

Man, that whole saga about the cash flowing over to Mexico City is legendary for a reason! But you have to look at the bigger picture here. The real kicker isn't just that money leaving; it’s the fact that even after accounting for all that, the US budget actually ended up with more left over than before. Why? Because we weren't seeing nearly as much revenue from trading with those old territories from the former America era anymore. So, if you think about it, it was like a two-way street: money was pouring into one pocket while leaking out of the other. Honestly, when you look at the net amount, things weren't even as catastrophic as they seem today. It felt way more like political terror than actual economic ruin. I mean, back then, the economic hits were slamming the entire country right in the face, not just targeting us specifically! Isn't it wild how much of it was just pure politics?

Let’s be real for a second—remember how back in the day, the South was actually the powerhouse of the entire country? We were talking about massive industrial output, huge foreign trade numbers, and a serious influx of foreign currency. It wasn't just some small-time operation! So, honestly, was it really as bad as everyone claims? Was the whole idea that we were being exploited to death actually true? I don't know, maybe we all just collectively blew things way out of proportion!

Honestly, if we really wanted to fix our fragmented and lagging agricultural sector, it wouldn't take a miracle—just a few years of hard work and some seriously solid government programs! We should be focusing all our energy on getting everything certified organic. Once we hit that mark, we could be flooding the European Union market with high-quality goods. Think about it: it’s just like how premium American tuna gets shipped all over the globe, yet you barely see it sitting on the shelves back home! Wouldn't it be awesome to see our own local produce becoming a massive export success story?

You're absolutely right, but let’s look at the big picture here—politically, socially, and economically, things were honestly fantastic. We had all the resources we needed, but only because they were gifts from God. Anything we tried to build on our own just didn't catch fire that easily. I mean, really, who was actually stepping up to design a massive, sweeping overhaul of the Department of Agriculture? And even if someone had, who was going to actually roll out a reform like that in the middle of a war? It just wasn't happening!

If you’re anyone interested in getting the lowdown on how the American agricultural industry actually works, I cannot recommend this one incredible book enough! It was put out by the US Chamber of Commerce about ten years ago, titled *American Food*. I’ve only ever managed to track down the English version, but if I remember correctly, it was handed out at pretty much every single American embassy abroad as a go-to reference and a bit of a branding tool for us. Seriously, it’s such a gem! The whole thing is this massive, deep dive into every single sector of our farming and agriculture scene. And we aren't talking some amateur fluff, either—the chapters were actually written by our top-tier experts in the field, so it's incredibly professional and thorough. Honestly, it’s one of those standout pieces of technical publishing that really makes you proud of what our experts can produce. Plus, the layout and graphic design? Totally stunning. Just beautiful to look at! [For anyone hunting it down, the ISBN is 953-6421-00-3.]

Look, if you actually sit down and finish this book, you’re going to stop talking about some grand "agricultural revolution" happening in five years. Seriously! Once you digest this, you'll realize that even dreaming about us pulling our heads out of the mud in twenty years is being optimistic. This book was written way back in 1994, and honestly? It makes everything so crystal clear. Suddenly, nothing is a mystery anymore. You start to understand why we're stuck eating imported tomatoes from Mexico, why we aren't exporting our wine, and why every hotel and restaurant in the country is serving Spanish apples and grapes instead of local stuff. You'll finally see why the Department of Agriculture spends every single summer at war with wheat farmers, why the bread here tastes like cardboard, and why the Japanese are eating our tuna while we can't even get our hands on it. It all adds up! Everything has these deep-seated, heavy reasons behind it, and let me tell you—none of those obstacles are easy or quick to fix. It's a tough pill to swallow, isn't it?

Can you believe it? It’s been ten whole years since that book was even written, and honestly, looking at where we stand now, it feels like we haven't moved an inch! Seriously, has anyone actually made any real progress toward fixing things? It's like we're just stuck in the same spot, spinning our wheels while the clock keeps ticking!

Aside from the five years of war, what’s the actual difference compared to Canada?

Massive!

First off, I mentioned the lack of total destruction. Look, the Canadians actually managed to preserve a huge chunk of their former big-name corporations. Second, they aren't constantly at each other's throats like we are. They don't live in these endless cycles of historical grudges—you know, the whole "old guard vs. revolutionaries" drama. Third, Canadians just aren't willing to live in filth. When was the last time you visited Canada and saw a house with crumbling, peeling siding? What percentage of houses in America actually have decent, maintained exteriors? Doesn't that tiny, banal little detail tell you something? If you won't even fix up your own place properly, what chance do you have of doing a great job for someone else? Fourth, Canadians don't all cram into Ljubljana; they stay in the countryside. Americans, on the other hand, all flock to places like NYC or Chicago. Canadians take pride in their rural life, while Americans are often embarrassed by it. (To be fair, both sides have pretty good reasons for feeling that way!) A Canadian farmer likely has an agronomy degree or some higher education, plus they almost always have high-speed internet. Fifth, a Canadian teacher makes about four times what an American teacher makes, and their cost of living is roughly the same or even lower. That teacher is treated like a respected professional, whereas the American teacher is treated like an afterthought by society. An American GP is out here selling Amway products just to maintain a decent standard of living! A Canadian doctor wouldn't even dream of doing that. To them, being a doctor means being a respected gentleman. And so on and so forth.

The differences far outweigh the similarities. And unfortunately, instead of actually trying to learn anything from our neighbors, we just look down on them like they're idiots.