Fat is a type of crazy

15 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The official stance of science is that "spirituality" has no place in science, so yeah, one might be critical of scientists claiming anything about spirituality.

You complain about repetition, but I repeat science has no opinion about spirituality, atoms, dolphins or anything else in the universe. It simply says that a thing needs evidence to be acceptable as credible. Credible can sound emotional but this is simply in terms of if evidence indicates it is likely to be correct. 

Seth could -

say something others couldn't know that is a real thing

come up with a theory that could be tested 

Seth followers could show, based on his theories, that they have a different statistical success in turning dreams into action due to what Seth taught them. Or that because they dream more they have more actual success than the average person. Or better health - longevity - whatever

If nothing to show that's fine - Science lets you do your thing. 

Same in Australia. Economy too weak. No wage increase. Economy too strong causing inflation. Limit wage increases to curb inflation. The worker cops it both ways. 

I saw it in the paper but in fact online. Don’t say it much now. 

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

One can think of nature at it's most microscopic and realise that it was created or one can be of the opinion that it is all just an accident. I believe it was created, but do you think it is all just an accident, and if so we are just an accidental species, of no more importance than an ant or a cockroach?

Likely we are the same. Maybe humans are significantly different to other life forms through evolution rather than god anointing us in some way. We can have man made rules that killing a cockroach is less significant because we perceive them as less alive in a sense based on awareness, consciousness, and the way they live. Not sure justified or not. Keep in mind the sunset you find beautiful is in the environment in which humans evolved. Warm weather, beautiful things etc feel good for us, in my opinion, as an adaption by humans to the world not a god made world created to be beautiful to humans. 

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently you think that science knows everything 5555555555555555555

Science doesn’t know anything for sure. I am saying that unless there is somewhere in the universe where thought and questions are impossible you can consider what is going on where you are and if you don’t simply rely on your feelings, but feelings can be a factor, but look at what is going on and attempt objectivity that is all science is. If you see the sunset you mentioned it makes you believe in god. You could stop there and have faith that it is god. Or you can ask yourself why you think it is a sign of god ie what is the feeling that suggests god, could there be other explanations, what might god be that makes me feel this way. Those questions are the beginnings of science. The alternative of faith might work better for you and that’s fine. 

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, at least we know the name of your God.

I would say, however, that your god is a human construct, and it's totally insignificant in the spiritual world.

When you dream, you are in a spiritual world, and you cannot measure anything there.

I have said this before but even in the world of god, dreams, spirituality, the 10th dimension, things may work differently but that difference can be described and is science. Even if no rules apply that is  a thing that can be described and science can attempt to work it out to make the dream world consistent with the known world. If there is a different so far unknown world.

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The relativity of simultaneity seems to be a condition unique to the physical/material universe or 3D (4D if you count time). The timelessness Tippaporn is talking about(Ithink), becomes plausible when talking about higher dimensions (5D+). 

In essence, the relativity of simultaneity is bound to 3D and doesn't apply to 5D+.

 

In that sense, you may be both right.

No. Elad  is correct unless you can show how the rules are different in the 5th dimension and why the rules he discusses don’t apply. Science is everywhere by definition including heaven and the 5th dimension and in everyone’s head and spiritual world. Nowhere to hide. 

I will say Tippaporn's argument seems extremely weak on this linkage between beliefs and actuality. There are people who believe they are poor, and in their mind their capacity to make money is limited, and it makes them save and invest, and they die with millions. Others believe they are rich or can become rich but don't because they are not smart or too much of a dreamer or whatever. 

But somehow in this theory there is this point where a belief is no longer considered a belief about reality but a condition, or fact, about reality and then somehow beliefs therefore create one's reality. 

All told by a lady with an apparent spirit giving her words. 

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

The fact that you have never seen/heard a spirit is not evidence that some other people cannot see/hear.

If you think that all the people who have seen/heard a spirit are mentally ill, perhaps you have a prejudice. 

Perhaps, removing that prejudice just for a short while could give you another perspective. 

We are not talking about blind faith here, and you would admit that having a strong prejudice is not the right attitude to understand what Seth , or anybody says.

Btw, we are looking at the finger here, and not at the moon, so to speak.

J.Roberts and Seth are just the messengers of a cosmic vision; i have no intention, at the moment, to study Seth's message intensively, but what I've read so far makes enough sense to me.

 

2 alternatives I suppose. You could think the words have some wisdom but consider the source being the spirit unlikely. Or you could take the whole package and say they are either both worthwhile or not worthwhile as the truth crumbles if part of it is false.  On the theory that it is simply her it could be that in separating from herself she opens up something else within herself like an unconscious voice that might show a different point of view to the norm. 

I look for interesting aspects of human nature here. I think that's all we have is human nature and feelings. It is my opinion that if a person feels they are speaking on behalf of a different person the most likely explanation is that parts of themselves have become separate and they are communicating with themselves. Maybe they find it hard to talk of metaphysical things and create an 'other' to do it for them while they tend to daily life. The possibility of an actual spirit seems very 19th century and needs incredibly strong evidence to be deemed likely or correct. So someone who doesn't take it on or give it detailed analysis has a reasonable and rational basis to do so. 

I thought Jimmy Kimmel's opening was OK. It's getting that balance of being respectful to the achievements of film makers and their craft, which is what the night is for, but having some fun and taking a dig where appropriate. Couldn't watch beyond that as too long and drawn out which I guess makes your point as to the show as a whole.

Only movie I've seen of the main nominees was Banshees of Inisheran, which was entertaining and I have a lot of time for the acting, though the point of the actions by the main character didn't totally make sense or resonate with me and seemed a bit art house for art house sake. Watching All Quiet on the Western front now and it is grim. 

3 minutes ago, Credo said:

I tend to agree with much of what you are saying, but I think the definition of a man/woman becomes legal and political.  People's gender identity is something that is highly personal.  I don't worry about it because I don't think it's a common situation or one that is going to be somehow disruptive.  So a trans person with intact female reproductive organs decides she is a man, then that's up to her.  They shouldn't be mistreated or discriminated against.  Whether you or I decide they will be in our social circle is up to us.   We don't individually have to accept these things that we don't like, but we can't stop people from being and feeling the way they do and wanting to be able to express it.  

 

 

I agree it is up to them if they call themselves a man, that they shouldn't be discriminated against, and I'd have no problem having them as a friend. I have a close gay couple as friends who I think take it further and identify as this and that and I let them define away. The difference though is where, say, political parties or governments or other people in positions of authority say that, as a matter of course, we all should, and it is right to, abide by the new definitions established by the minority. I work in a  govt department - no letters can have Mr or Ms or she or he - fair enough - but some of the emails that come from up high on inclusiveness and acceptance and behaviour I think go beyond their authority. Let people be but don't <deleted> with my brain. 

My comments above too were not talking about posters here but some things I see in Australia and the states. 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

well, it's mostly a hunch on my part. 

but I re-read the quotes and maybe they're all "out of context". 

so this exercise is a failed attempt on my part.

technically, i would have to read the entire books.

which i will not do.

hey guys, i'm taking a break from this thread.

take care!

You and I have had more farewells on this thread than Dame Nellie Melba. That's an Australian reference.

I get where you are coming from, in that Tippaporn is clearly genuine in his belief about Seth, but his posts over time can seem to become a bit too assured in their perceived correctness, and in turn his opinions of others become problematic, based on the Seth theory. 

The Seth thing does not resonate with me - I always wonder why a disembodied spirit cannot provide more proof and concrete practical stuff to prove their knowledge and other worldliness - but I accept that many others feel differently and I haven't looked at it enough to build a complete basis for an opinion. 

2 hours ago, Credo said:

I don't understand why people get so worked up over things that don't affect them.  I remember when everyone was sure that gay marriage was going to cause the collapse of western civilization.  It didn't.  It hasn't.  It hasn't affected anyone, except gay people.  

 

I totally can't get my head around trans people, but it is real, they do exist and they have zero affect on my life.  None.  I can't imagine anyone wanting to undergo surgery unless they felt it was necessary.   I've known one translady, but she had transitioned long before I met and worked with her.  She was a fantastic person.  I also knew one young man who I knew as a man who I later met with her boyfriend.  I didn't recognize her, and it was later in the evening when she said, "You don't remember me, do you?"  I didn't.  I was surprised.  He was a nice looking young man and now she was a nice looking lady.  But again, no effect on me or my life.  I am glad they are both happy.

 

Drag Queens are entertainers.  If you enjoy their entertainment.  Go.  If not, don't.  I've never seen a drag queen walking around the grocery store all glammed up -- that's a lot of time to get ready.   Again, nothing to do with me or my life.   

 

Everybody who lives should be treated with respect and be allowed to live their life as they wish.  If they aren't hurting anyone, let them be.   And none of them are hurting you.   

 

 

 

Your experience is the same as mine. I think most of the concerns are silly.

I think though, that certain definitions or norms, including the definition of man and woman, are deep in our psyches. To play with them, to suit one or other minority, is a reasonable concern for people to have.

Saying a trans person is a higher risk to the public is in my opinion cobblers - but saying a man can get pregnant because of a new dictionary definition is going too far.

I feel people have the right to call that out as woke - I think definitions do matter - but at the same time let people do their thing based on their preferences and feelings.

I am not suggesting being trans is not a real thing, but that if, say, you have a biological female who likes living how men tend to live, that it makes it appropriate and necessary to call them a man. And this is important as, though change is good sometimes, not all social norms are bad and redefining words based on feelings and personal preferences is problematic.  

Some democrats, in attempting to be fair, can be seen to stray into self righteousness superiority, as though the opposing opinion does not get the points made, and smugness. Sometimes such a reaction can seem to be justified, with the extreme right, but politically it doesn't help the cause.  This post involves politics so I feel people have to be smart about what they know and what they don't know and to be careful about changes to definitions on what can seem like a whim or to allow people to feel good about themselves. 

As an aside I think many Republicans are overplaying the woke hand, and are using it to describe situations that clearly don't apply to, and that some on the right might start to tire of the nonsense use of the word. 

11 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

This may explain it for him:

 

Is it possible?

Yes, it’s possible for men to become pregnant and give birth to children of their own. In fact, it’s probably a lot more common than you might think. In order to explain, we’ll need to break down some common misconceptions about how we understand the term “man.” Not all people who were assigned male at birth (AMAB) identify as men. Those who do are “cisgender” men. Conversely, some people who were assigned female at birth (AFAB) identify as men. These folks may be “transgender” men or transmasculine people.

https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/can-men-get-pregnant

Saying 'it’s possible for men to become pregnant', and coming up with a new definition of man,  is in my mind deliberately provocative and shows why people regale against what they consider wokeness. Let's not muck around - it is not clear that genetic women, who consider themselves 'cisgender men' are any different to other woman except they have a preference to live their life a certain way and identify as men. Science may show different in the future.

So can we please use terminology that doesn't alienate people. Democrats have enough problem as it is. How about we say that people can live how they like, and should be allowed to dress how they like and should not be harrassed or have to experience prejudice. Other people do not have to feel like they are wrong if they do not necessarily accept that a biological woman is a man and that therefore by definition men can be pregnant and have babies.  

People on both sides of the debate should be sensible and respectful when it comes to particular situations like the use of toilets. 

If you consider I have simplified things too much that's on you for quoting the article as you did. 

I think one good thing is on this site, you can do what you cannot do in real life, and that is pick and choose topics and discussion with people and log off.

We all know that there are certain topics that appear with regularity, with a lot of horrendously boring and predictable replies that get 20 likes each, and so I avoid them, which is easy as I don't live in Thailand, but come from time to time, and though I may retire in the future, I don't feel invested in the minutiae of life here like others. 

I like some of the stuff in the Pub section. There are discussions in the Pub about life on the streets, if you will, but they involve issues of temptation, morality, honesty and fairness that could be discussed here. Same with some of the news stories. Then there are some that are simply lighthearted. I like stories too about potential retirement destinations. 

So it's not too hard to avoid negativity. But negativity can be good as we all feel that way on some topics and best not to pretend our thoughts and ideas are all sweetness and light. 

I want a date who could care less about stuff. I want someone who cares. I am cynical enough for both of us. I think that's why older westerners like thai girls. Big open smile and eyes. They think it's because of the tits and ass which it is a bit of the reason but western men and women too easily see each others flaws and it seems thai ladies are more like a blank canvass. Too blank sometimes. 

Fashions change and I think people are getting over the reliance by politicians on the whole anti woke thing rather than serious policies. So often Republicans are a bit weird. He seems weird and horrid. 

If something makes me lose a bit of faith in human nature it's this. That people put up with their health being put at risk like frogs in boiling water and not holding the govt to account makes you wonder what it takes to get people to stand up.