LEDs in parallel

I thought he was talking of "life" under the Obama regime :-) ...Jim Thompson

(Ooo, I forgot to follow this thread.)

Yes, I definitely see that.

I saw a thing on PBS(?) a ways back, a psychological leadership experiment. They assembled groups of strangers, posed a fake survival crisis, and studied how the group organized itself. They found the most proficient liar was invariably selected leader, not the best problem solvers. The leaders would identify and marginalize the best problem solvers on the one hand, heading off competition, yet harness them, and get credit for the resulting success.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

ul

But that sounds like socialism, where frightened masses cling to the belief that a government that lives off of them for its sustenance can supply them with more than they have.

That's inherently passive--"my well-being depends on the actions of others beyond my control."

Next, to realize this ambition for security, they, passive, not wanting to act, want someone else (the government) to procure it all for them by controlling others: force. That's passive-aggressive.

Bizarrely, they call this "caring," when in truth it's simply selfish.

The advantage of the faithful, is that they have faith.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

The other trend I see, constantly, is that people elect the candidates with the longest heads.

Our political "leadership" tends to be arrogant, oversexed, power-hungry idiots, rich lawyers mostly, who really don't understand how things work. Well, people get the government they deserve.

Two of the most popular presidents in history, JFK and Clinton, were oversexed idiots. Obama probably is, too, but we know nothing about his past.

And, more generally, empathy and an interest in externalities. This is the opposite of selfishness and neurosis. Of course people with faith are healthier and happier. And, I'd argue, people who design electronics get similar benefits.

That's one cool thing about the "Who Really Cares" book: there's overwhelming statistical proof that, the more people give away, the better off they are.

erful

...

ly

ook

is

Last year there was a great segment on NPR, where a researcher described surveying university students about the starvation and poverty in Africa, and whether the US should do more.

"Oh, most definitely, without a doubt, they deserve it, humans rights" etc. "Would you be willing to go without your cell phone to save children in Africa, or pay a like monthly sum?" "Oh. H3ll no!"

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Giving OPiuM is not "giving".

And prejudice is not "thinking."

More leftist propaganda. "There is but one shepard."

Nor is stuffing a strawman.

Starting from when I was born? 1.5 roughly.

It is called cynicism. I started out idealistic and optimistic, then I opened my eyes. Big mistake, that....

Why didn't you prefer to be happy? It's not as if you are some indentured peasant in medieval europe, without decent food or medical care or high-speed internet.

That sounds like people the world over. All people believe what makes them feel secure (secure - smart, safe, righteous, superior, etc.). That bias is ingrained and universal.

Or in the words of others: "...accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

US Declaration of Independence

Absolutely. If one adopts that mind-set one is accepting defeat before testing the limits.

Yup. I agree.

Passive aggressive, technically is to hint/threaten an action that one would not take, in hoping to force change. Hoping the threat causes change or to be taken seriously themselves.

Yes. Like listening to Pat Robertson preaching..

I have faith. My faith is in things that I trust based on experience and understanding and not "blind" faith, or faith based on the words or writings of others.

I have faith the sun will rise, my wife will always be honest with me, the tides will change, gravity will keep things where I put them, if something can go wrong - it will - eventually, etc..

I have no "faith" in any religion - but I recognize that all religions espouse some excellent philosophy and rules to live by. If there is a god (I see no evidence to believe) no man knows "what god wants." That to be an "almighty" god, as most religions claim, a god must want for nothing. A "god" with wants or needs just doesn't make any sense to me.

I'll choose to live by the philosophy and continue to believe that on balance religion (generally) does more harm than good.

I agree with you.

But then people with lobotomies are happy as clams. Control the drooling and keep them from becoming hood ornaments, and maybe you could make a case for lobotomies.

Do you want to live a long life or do you want a richly fulfilling life, assuming there are compromises to be made?

Or the more they possess the happier they are, and coincidentally the more they give away.

I distrust all "studies" without first picking apart the bias of the study-er, and more importantly how the variables were identified and controlled so as not to skew the results. Then who trusts the conclusions?

"Teen pregnancy is down," (a fact) in the US for instance because of what? Better contraception or access to it, better education, or abstinence?

Often things happen in spite of the commonly accepted reason - not because of it.

Another follower of Baal weighs in.

Why is that a tradeoff? Fact is, the more you do and the more you keep your mind and body active, the heppier you will be and the longer you will live.

Wrong. Read the book.

Then read the introduction to the book.

erful

...

No, that's different. The idea that you can live better off a government that itself lives off of you, is absurd. That violates conservation of energy, and conservation of matter.

That's a plain falsehood, yet widely held, even promoted, e.g. Obama, cutting Social Security's funding.

Indeed. Were it otherwise, we'd be revolting under arms already.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

You didn't have to, though.