Samui Bodoh

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

If you was a frequent flyer and you were informed that one in ten flights crash, would you stop flying? Or would you seek alternative transport?  The risks of contracting a serious disease  - heart, lung, stroke - for every time you light up, is one in ten, the same risk - USA morbidity statistics. 

 

IMO, the simplest way to kick a habit is to change the lifestyle circumstances, so that it isn't a habit. And cold turkey is far easier to manage than a reduction regime - because it's (potentially) a changed habit (of not smoking). 

 

I gave up alcohol on the 1st October 2019 after a health scare and a determination to change my habits (lifestyle). Now, three months later no alcohol is an entrenched habit that I can maintain - because it's a habit!!! 

 

Best wishes for a new New Year, peeps. 

 

 

You might find this article (link below) interesting; it deals with how people's personalities affect their ability and method of quitting.

Cheers

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/acquainted-the-night/201912/how-quit-smoking-based-your-personality

I am always interested in space exploration, even if this article seems to be a 'Hey! We are still here!' piece rather than a detailed announcement of import and consequence.

That said, there is one part that intrigues me...

"...The findings of the Mars 2020 research will be crucial to future human missions to the red planet, including the ability to make oxygen on the surface of Mars, Wallace said. The Mars 2020 Rover is carrying equipment that can turn carbon dioxide, which is pervasive on Mars, into oxygen for breathing and as a propellant..."

I am pleased to read that NASA is seriously thinking about sending people there, to the extent of shipping, in advance, key cargo that would be required for any lengthy stay. And, it bears a reminder that at the moment and for the foreseeable future, any trip there by a human would be one way. If there are means to turn carbon dioxide to oxygen, then one of several keys initial hurdles for long-term visits and/or permanent settlements will be reached.

A question to my fellow "Space Junkies" (if you are reading this, then there is a high probability that you are a "Space Junkie")...

If you were selected for a one-way mission to Mars where the basics required for life (food, water, power) are already on-site, would you go?

My initial thoughts would be "Yes!". Human kind, should it wish to survive, will need to one day reach for the stars, and the people who lead that initial step will be lionized; perhaps one day people would live in Samui Bodoh city, Bodohnia province on the continent of Samuitious 

Seriously, would you go on a one-way trip? And be the first to really see a new planet?

Something to ponder over this New Year break...

1 hour ago, JAG said:

First, I was not defending, or excusing abuse and worse by members of the Catholic Church. I made it quite clear what my views on the matter were, and my distress at the Church's inadequate response to it. Yjr purpose of my post was first to correct a basic misunderstanding which had been repeated through the thread (the role of the Sacrament of Confession and the principal of absolution for sin) and second to lay out my views, feelings if you like, on the subject. You entirely failed to understand that.

 

Second, all those institutions and companies which you list are commercial undertakings governed by the corporate laws of the countries in which they operate. The Church is not, The individuals who belong to the church, and use it as a cloak for these activities are subject to these laws, and i have made quite clear that I believe that they should face trial and penalties. Nor do I accept that the Church should shelter them - I have made that clear as well. You seem to have entirely failed to understand that.

 

Third, legal actions to "disband" the Church, even if they were, by some amazing feat of global consensus, to be achieved, would not work, There are some 1.2 billion Catholics in the world - they are the Church. You simply can not tell 1.2 billion people to change their beliefs. It has been tried numerous times in many countries, including in the past in mine. It doesn't work. You seem to fail to understand that.

 

As for your final point - what do my views say about me - they are utterly contemptible, and were I in a position to do so  would tell you to your face, without mincing my words, why. Once again, apart from it's sheer unprovoked offensiveness, the comment reveals a basic lack of understanding - I do not worship the Church, I worship Almighty God.

 

You may find my post "a steaming pile of <deleted>.", yours is in places deeply offensive, and mostly so flawed in its basic understanding of my post, and the realities of the institution on which you comment, as to amount to utter <deleted>!

Hi JAG

I seem to have (unfortunately) crossed the line and insulted both you and your faith; that was not my intent and please accept my sincere apologies. 

I think that you have read many of my posts on religion over the years, and know that while I have spent a great deal of time with religious people, I am not religious myself. Further, I think you know that I believe deeply in Freedom of Religion and have argued that case here on numerous occasions. Finally, again I think you know, I have said many times here that religion is good for some people, some times (let's studiously avoid an argument on how that gets decided) but not for others at other times.

It is just that we profoundly disagree on some things.

I do understand your point(s) regarding the Absolution of Sin and the Sanctity of Confession, and yes some of the previous posters had it wrong. However, despite the theological guidance, the De Facto response of the Church to this sort of crime has been to hide it and keep it away from non-church/secular people and law. And, in my view, this is wrong. Deeply, deeply wrong. Officers of the Church should face secular law as much as anyone else, but historically they have not done so. If we agree on this, then great.

Yes, many/most of the institutions that I listed are commercial and/or public organizations. And yes, laws should apply to them as they should apply to the Church. The point that I was making is that the Church was hiding individuals from those laws, and that was wrong. Either of us can simply Google stuff and find recent cases where the Church sheltered people who should not have been sheltered; the links below are examples from CNN this year and there are many more in past years. To sum up, while the Church is officially in compliance with relevant laws, it has De Facto not been following them properly and this is a pattern that needs to change; I think we both agree on this.

I have no desire to 'disband' the Catholic Church and agree that it would be impossible to do so even if I wanted it. However, I very strongly feel that the Catholic Church really, really needs some public accountability, and needs to demonstrate very clearly that it is reforming itself. It needs to show that it is serious about, through both word and deed, stopping the crimes against children, or at very least utterly determined to get there; It has not done this in my view (again, see links below as examples of many possible stories). And, I would add, there is a middle ground that could be started today; lift the veil of secrecy around cases of suspected child abuse globally and let the chips fall where they may. Provide immediate compensation (in one form or another) to all identified victims. Open investigations into all allegations globally and even though the reputation of the Church would likely take a hit due to some bad information, take the hit anyway. Above all else, this issue needs to be dealt with, and dealt with in a manner that satisfies outsiders as well as Church-goers. I recall reading about pedophiles and child molesters in the Catholic Church decades ago, and I am seeing the same or similar stories still; the names and places change while the basic story does not. It needs to, and I am glad we agree on that.

Finally, when I say 'You', I am referring to Catholics in general, not you in particular. But, I do think Catholics need to be speaking out, and speaking out loudly, but I do not hear them much. I want to see the Catholic Church reformed to stop, once and for all, these odious crimes, but Catholics need to do it, not outsiders. So, yes, I am critical of Church-goers because I do not see the effort needed being made. We will just have to agree to disagree.

I get that you have your belief in your God, and while I do not share it I am a bit envious of it; I can't imagine what having faith like that is like. I suspect that it is both very nice and very comforting.

Finally, it is Christmas day, so let us put an end to this fight. If you promise not to punch me in the face if we ever meet, I'll promise to make greater effort in my choice of words.

Deal?

Merry Christmas to you and yours

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/26/europe/luk-delft-update-whereabouts-intl/index.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/23/us/catholic-priests-sex-abuse-colorado/index.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/14/us/new-mexico-former-catholic-priest-sentence/index.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/07/europe/ireland-mother-and-baby-homes-intl/index.html

11 hours ago, JAG said:

This is for me, and I am sure for many others, a very difficult matter. 

 

I am a Roman Catholic, was raised as a Catholic and have held to the faith throughout my life. I am a "practising Catholic" - heaven knows I have to practise, I am not very good at it! Now in my 60s my faith is central to my life. 

 

These people, and the despicable acts which they have committed, and the terrible harm which they have done to their victims are appalling sins. There is no defence to them, and I believe that the church has been wrong, terribly wrong, in attempting to hide, excuse or dismiss them. 

 

THere are two points which I would like to make. First, the teaching on confession and absolution. The Sacrament of Confession (Reconciliation), whilst if the confession is properly and sincerely made offers spiritual absolution, conditional on a specific penance, it does not absolve the sinner from ANY of the worldly consequences or sanctions of his acts. Nor does it remove the requirement for trial, punishment or restitution. So whether it is pedophilia or stealing sweets, it still has to be paid for in an earthly sense. Moreover if the confession is made with the intention of continuing to sin, then the absolution is not valid. So it is not a matter of an act of contrition and half a dozen Hail Marys, and off we go!

 

Secondly, I have over the years known many clerics and religious, priests, monks and nuns. Many of them have been very good people. These vile creature we hear and talk about, whilst there seem many of them, and many are in powerful positions within the church, are not representative of the Roman Catholic Church. They are a aberration, and one which the church is struggling - perhaps failing - to deal with. That is a source of great sadness and concern to many like me.

 

I leave you with a thought - The Devil. He works in many ways, and it has been said that his greatest victory, is in persuading so many people that he does not exist!

What a steaming pile of <deleted>.

"...it does not absolve the sinner from ANY of the worldly consequences or sanctions of his acts..."

Yes, it does when you cover up evidence, silence the most vulnerable victims, use (abuse) your influence to keep things out of the public eye, and merely transfer the criminal to another spot where he can do it again. The Catholic Church has, over and over and over and over again protected its priests and other staff by hiding their crimes. To see one example, Google 'Mount Cashel Orphanage, Newfoundland, Canada' for one of thousands and thousands of genuine horror stories.

"...Secondly, I have over the years known many clerics and religious, priests, monks and nuns...'

For what its worth, I have as well. However, I have also read about literally tens of thousands (and the real number is certainly much, much higher) of cases of child molestation and abuse by Catholic Church staff. And virtually every time I read about it, I also read about how the Church ignored the problem, usually for years and years. I read about how the Church tried to silence the victims. I read about how the Church either knew or suspected, but didn't act. I read about how the Church used its influence with the powerful and connected to shove it under the carpet. 

I am tired of hearing excuses and rationalizations on why the Catholic Church shouldn't be held accountable.

If Microsoft had a history of massive, wide-spread, international child abuse and molestation, it would be disbanded (and rightly so).

If Sony had a history of massive, wide-spread, international child abuse and molestation, it would be disbanded (and rightly so).

If British Petroleum had a history of massive, wide-spread, international child abuse and molestation, it would be disbanded (and rightly so).

If Carrefour had a history of massive, wide-spread, international child abuse and molestation, it would be disbanded (and rightly so).

If CP All had a history of massive, wide-spread, international child abuse and molestation, it would be disbanded (and rightly so).

If the World Bank had a history of massive, wide-spread, international child abuse and molestation, it would be disbanded (and rightly so).

If IOC had a history of massive, wide-spread, international child abuse and molestation, it would be disbanded (and rightly so).

If Manchester United FC had a history of massive, wide-spread, international child abuse and molestation, it would be disbanded (and rightly so).

Finally, one last point.

I hear Catholics defend their Church a lot, and each time I get more and more disheartened. Knowing what we already know (and leaving out all the new information on global child molestation and abuse that is coming; there are hundreds of on-going investigations globally and we know what they will say), I ask why aren't Catholics marching full force into the Vatican and demanding (not asking for, meekly) change?

What would Jesus do? (Hint; take that book you like to waive and read about Jesus in the temple with the money-lenders).

As above, I will leave you with a thought - if you are a member of a Church that has a record of child abuse and child molestation like the Catholic Church and you are still worshiping and donating money, what does that say about you?

Romani ite Domum!!!

PS Gentlemen; it is Christmas...

I would love to hear from other members about those days; any thoughts, recollections, photos, memories that you'd be willing to share?

I will add one final... comment (?!).

The event took place on Boxing day 2004 in the post-Christmas, pre- New Year holiday period and thus received widespread global publicity when people were available to hear about it, which in turn led to huge numbers of donations. The simple fact, which every international aid worker knows, is that had it occurred on March 26th instead, then the donations would have been... Half of that? A third? a quarter? A tenth?

Was this, to use the word obscenely, lucky? Pure random chance? Serendipity? Irrelevant? A coincidence? I am not a religious person, but I do tend to believe that the universe has (at minimum) a sense of humour...

What does one make of this?

Was it merely an example of the worst kind of tragedy bringing out the best of human responses? 

Any thoughts?

This is a fascinating story.

49 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

Many individual managers have been convicted of harassment - and often fired as a result - but not companies themselves.

The fact that the company itself, not just individual, isolated people inside the company, is what is significant, and I will be curious as to the global scope of this ruling. Before someone says it, yes, I know that the legal decision applies only in France, but new, significant legal doctrines have a way of spreading about.

I will be most interested in what, if any, effect will be felt in the US, especially after the court decision of Citizens United (Citizens United is the shorthand way to describe the US Supreme court decision that companies have certain free speech and other rights, and thus are allowed to make unlimited financial contributions to political speech; yes, this does oversimplify, but...).

More specifically, if a company has the right to free speech and other rights protections, then it should really follow that the same company has the responsibility to follow the law (as the old saying goes 'With every right comes a responsibility') and that the company (represented by its legal officers; CEO, CFO, COO, Board members, etc) not just isolated individuals must also be forced to pay a price by going to jail, being fined, etc.

For instance, if a company has the right to free speech and advertises regarding its safety record, then an environmental disaster occurs, should the company officers themselves be held personally responsible for the actions of the company? At the moment, the usual response is to declare bankruptcy and walk away; if this new legal doctrine spreads, would that option be removed or limited?

if this spreads, and I think it might, it may open whole new areas of legal responsibilities for companies, and that would be a good thing in my view.

1 hour ago, Odysseus123 said:

We must have been fairly close to one another.Medical team.

 

I remember the little signs...and the bodies in the trees..and the mass graves.

 

Those damn signs; I can still see them.

It sounds like you were part of the very first wave of help; I came along a short time after for reconstruction and rehabilitation.

My first day there, I was taken down to the shore by the Mosque to see the devastation and that was when I first saw those signs. It was never the death toll or the destruction for me; they were simply too huge to ever understand properly. It was those damn little signs. 

I remember it like it was yesterday. There was something so inexplicable, so human about them that it shook me to my core. They were, to me, tiny little voices of the survivors that were, in the most vulnerable fashion possible, saying "I am alive". They were an expression of survival, an expression of terrible hurt and pain, an expression of the most basic part of humanity that just wanted people to know that they made it, and an expression of the tiniest, tiniest hope that somehow things might return to normal, sometime. Yet, at the same time, they were an acknowledgement that all had been destroyed.

I stood at that spot for about half an hour with tears streaming down my face. And now, 15 years later, it is like it was yesterday.

Oddy- if you haven't already, look at the link to the NYT story I posted near the bottom of page 2 of this thread. 

The link below is from a New York Times magazine article of 2005, and one of the best articles that I ever saw on the subject. I actually know several of the people mentioned...

If you are interested in the tsunami and the human toll, I highly recommend it; it is a long read but well worth your time.

Cheers

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/magazine/the-day-the-sea-came.html?searchResultPosition=2

37 minutes ago, stevenl said:

" But what was even worse, were the many people who got away unharmed or were just arriving in Thailand the day after the disaster, trying to benefit of the situation! "

 

As someone who was in the tourism business on Phuket that day, and still is, one of the problems we had in the aftermath was a lack of tourists. We were really, really welcoming all who arrived or stayed during those days.

An extremely valid observation.

I saw a photo in a newspaper a few days after the event where some Thai official was walking on the beach in uniform and there were some tourists in Speedos talking with him among the ruble; there was a great deal of (very misplaced!) ridicule at the contrast in that photo. It would have been a greater crime to stay away after that disaster and take away people's livelihood at the time they needed it most.

Disaster relief is a tricky, complicated thing at the best of times, but the best thing that a person can do is be able to continue to make a living, try to return to normal as much as possible, and not become a secondary victim.

Good for you in encouraging tourism after the tsunami; you likely restored some people's income and, perhaps even more importantly, some people's sense of self-worth and dignity.

Cheers to you!