drawing the line

[The Child]

I would like to be more specific but I'm afraid my attempt would be useless. I feel that in every topic there are good arguments for each side. Each end of the spectrum shines its own light. But, there is an issue that I cant get past right now. That is, that there seems to be many factors that keep these perspectives in an opposing position. To be clear I feel that we need to find where to draw the line. I know it sounds stupid now but let me explain. For example this thread is open for any topic, but I would like to pic one right now that I have talked about recently. Tazers. The argument was about the point at which this level of force is necessary. The state says its okay if the person is out of control, or being violent..etc etc. Although, it does not go on to describe what violent behavior is. So in this case, if judged by the officer, this could mean that raising your voice is an act of violence, and is often described as nutty, erratic behavior, or out of control. Like I said before, I would like to be more specific, but I just dont think it would help. If you dont understand what I'm saying by now then I dont think I could type enough words to put this straight. So for the rest of you its time to move foward.

I feel that there are many topics that this same perspective should be applied to. Such as religion. Personally I think its rediculous, but that shouldnt determine the way that it is measured and interpreted. Basically because that is an opinion, and while I am entitled to it, it should not constitute any organized influence. Which is why I dont believe in religion. Which brings me to my next point. Religion influences the actions, life choices, financial descisions and character foundation of anyone who believes it or follows it. So I believe that it should be interpreted according to fact, as opposed to faith. Not to knock the concept of faith it self, but in todays context of the word its seems to mean ignorant, in that people take beliefs they dont understand, and cant explain and ignore the fact that they dont KNOW what really happened, or what is really true. So to conclude my point, I think we should examine the cold hard facts alone, and then find where to draw the line and define our influence before we base our way of life from it. Especially when it comes to matters of humanity.


I would like to remind you that any topic is open for discussion here so feel free to bring to light new examples to help explain this point so that those who dont may be enlightened. But please remember the point here.

[lillies1978]

the issue with "facts", unless they are "scientifically" proven, there is not really a way to make it a fact! ... and even then perspective has a great influence on it.... on top of that everything always changes, change is the only true constant is what they say! so a fact you have today, may not be true tomorrow! what then?

I don't have it with religion either though i think, if they had to stay with the "facts" there wouldn't be much to stay with ... as much as i don't choose religion for myself, i see how much "good" it can do to others, mainly to those who do NOT question...cause while they don't question, they surrender, and surrender can work the magick


so, is there a line to draw? to a degree i guess you can, but everything is so individual, drawing a line couldn't live up to the "truth" either .... if we want to draw a line, imo, we can only do it to ourselves personal, we cannot account for anybody else, nor expect them to follow "our" line

[The Child]

Thats exactly my point. Unless you can prove something you shouldnt base the laws and rules of humanity according to it. So I think that you agree with me, but just in a very different way. and I like that. I agree with you that religion can do good in peoples lives, but I also think that adding structure and spirituality to someones life will almost always help them find their path no matter if its religion, or just finding the right job, or a good woman. These things are good for people, which is also why I think we should not teach religion as fact since it so strongly changes lives. Like you said "unless they are "scientifically" proven, there is not really a way to make it a fact!" I think we should better examine droctrin before proclaiming it. For the most part I completely appreciate your reply, but there is one word here that is a red flag. "surrender" I'm sorry but I dont use the word surrender when I'm describing enlightenment. The word is most often used to describe defeat, failure, capture, giving up etc.... Basically you have to be defeated to surrender. I know that you may not interpret the word that way, but again I think we should examine a few issues here. I think that in religion lifes duties have been interpreted into words that describe slavery, death, pain/suffering, and blind servitude without question. I personally belive those aspects were not meant to be in the original doctrin. Its a way to skew the truth to look like something else. I do like what you said about everything changing. Although I dont think things have changed enough. It seems we have always lived by rediculous rules that follow some religion that no one can explain without saying, "you just have to believe without question." When is that going to change? I like what you said here, "everything is so individual," I believe matters of humanity should deal with things more "individually" and less "generally". Which also supports my point that we need to closely examine something before we generalize it.

So my point is that if we cant figure out what where to draw the line on excessive force then we shouldnt use it. If we cant draw the line on fact from fiction then we shouldnt live our lives by it, and especially not blindly.