Lemming

What's the difference between historical fiction, and history. When writers believe that they're merely making notes, or when writers are politically or otherwise biased?

Degrees I suppose. Though degrees do matter.

Couldn't one see it as allegory,

Or as a far more limited event, such as flooding in a particular region, and some guy oversees the construction of a boat, and puts some domesticated animals on it.

Though I'm more for the allegory interpretation, well that or myths/legends/folklore/story of a fictional event, or inspired by a real event.

Even just a large area of a region flooding 'without an ark, and people telling stories about it.

Or a family of fisherman surviving a regional flood.

I 'think we could find ways to do without oil and coal, though I'm not certain.

And true enough, we can destroy the climate of localized areas 'certainly, world at large as well I suppose.

Personally, I think the way to solve the problems, is to build communities where the needed solutions are set in place, and try to expand them, by showing that they can work.

Though I doubt it'll happen.

I'm not sure that non-renewable resources, are a worry quite.

Only resources a human 'needs, I think is

Food, water, air, and shelter, and not currently at a threat to run out I'd say.

Though 'eventually they would be.

Employment, could be changed by policy.

Communism for example can have a low unemployment rate.

Or even a country such as America could pass laws making unemployment illegal.

(Though unethical)

And deforestation, while unpleasant, and capable of causing negative effects, can again be solved by policy, say if the first world bullied people in the third world to stop modernizing, and use the land as preserves. (Completely unethical)

Not that I'd want such solutions myself, just pointing out options other than decreasing the current population.

Joke link, bit related to conversation.

What art thee declaring sir,

thee not knoweth the value of w'rds spoken in the fusty tongue.

Or yond c'rtain w'rds approximate bett'r meaning than oth'rs?

Do you have a particular list of items in mind for the problems caused by an abundance of population?

I think so myself,

But I think population equals labor force, military strength, cultural control.

Why would countries weaken themselves, and allow others to grow stronger.

There's also the issue of what the individual thinks he has the right to do.

Not saying it's impossible, but not easy problem to solve, I'm thinking.

. . .

Besides, perhaps it's not even as much of a problem as I think.

I over react, by 'under reacting, as well as devaluing the concept of love and attraction.

Not really 'looking for a relationship with other people, but hard to prevent oneself from liking others, at times.

I think it's likely malarkey,

But that placebos, culture, and how a concept can cause you to consider something,

Can be enjoyable.

A coworker of mine gave me a smoky black quartz once,

Claimed it helped keep away bad luck.

I found a thought amusing, and a bit reassuring, despite being false.

That by keeping the smoky black quartz on my person, I could ward off an bad luck from outside sources, and thus any bad luck I would encounter, would be formed purely of my own action and volition.

Which 'is true in a sense,

I view my thoughts, reactions, and actions,

As all due to my own will,

Should I spill a glass of milk, I have the option to rage and make the situation worse, or I can shrug and mop up the mess.

Figure that it should serve as a cautionary warning for next time, and to pay better attention when having cups containing liquid about me.

Certainly something within my control.

To your question though, I'd imagine it depends on context.

Different people/societies/situations, arrive at different answers.

I disagree with open borders, though it's a bit hard to put it into words.

Greece once had city-states for example, rather than a country.

Open borders between cities 'were achieved, but only once significant cultural cohesion was achieved,

As well as understandings of where people's loyalties lie,

And an understanding that the people in your community agreed upon similar laws.

Tribalism exists, whether primitive, or modern,

And that's not 'bad, so much as a reality, I see it.

Groups have an interest in safeguarding their property and persons.

People 'can have a sense of community without religion.

People cheering for High School football team.

Online guilds in video games.

Debate site groupings.

Not that such removes community being one of the reasons Christianity was valued/successful for many people.

I'd think for most people habit.

For other people such as converts, I'd imagine the truths/practicalities/winsome appeal of it's ideals.

All the moreso in times when knowledge and learning was scarce, I'd think.

The modern first world era is not like that of old, where people received public education, public libraries, literacy, internet, Wikipedia, and DebateArt.

Maybe wisdom and common sense of a refined type was less common.

And religion could oft open people's eyes.

I think yes, But I'll try answering no first, before why I think deeply about yes.

Though you may not need the encouragement,

I find you a reasonable person, who can often speak of some aspect of their religion in an easy to understand, insightful way.

Eh, I'll likely ask them at some point for my own curiosity.

I do discuss religion with them at 'times, but it's usually for the practicality of a concept.

Such as Proverbs 28:1 – “The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.”

Though of course not 'all wicked people are bothered by their deeds, and not all righteous are bold.

As a rule of thumb and practical thought it makes sense to me though.

Or the 'slight similarity of,

Jesus's Parable of the Sower

and

Mencius 's Ox Mountain.

Some films are iconic.

My three siblings and I, all have Biblical names.

When I 'was a Christian, yes and no.

Later on as an atheist, believing not in the supernatural, no.

But referring to Biblical Satan,

I think he's different than Hollywood Satan,

Bible has the problem of being a frequently translated and ancient book of another era.

There's the problems of Google translate,

Over 2000 years,

And context of culture, ethics, history, geography, and so on.

Makes me unsure of many conclusions I might garner from it,

Unless I were to spend a lifetime being a scholar, learning multiple languages, taking history classes,

I 'really don't care 'that much.

But back to topic,

Only point I'm going to make is that the Hebrew word 'saṭan.

Google, The History and Origins of SatanA study by Lucas Sweeney,

If curious, it's rather short.

I'm not certain how reliable it is though.

I haven't given the Satan question much research or thought,

I'm lazy, and for some questions I check just long enough to think I'm on the correct direction, then give up except for flights of whimsey and light reading.

Don't read much on the Bible though.

Thriving you call it,

'I say that the efforts by some factions in China to do away with culture and religion lead to the marring and crippling of China for a time.

It really doesn't matter if it's Juche, Confucianism, of Humanism in my mind.

There's a sense of the sacred about it in my mind,

A sense of regulated behavior justified to most by objective assumptions,

And much like South Park, in that one episode where Cartman goes to the future, Go God Go, I don't expect humans to ever lose religion.

Just cloak it in other guises.

And whether Russia or China,

After the murderous regime cools it's jets for a bit,

One see's how more traditional religions returns.

Per Wikipidia

"Irreligion (adjective form: non-religious or irreligious) is the absence, indifference to, or rejection of religion.[1] According to the Pew Research Center's 2012 global study of 230 countries and territories, 16% of the world's population is not affiliated with a religion, while 84% are affiliated.[2]"

Some Christians supported the Taiping Rebellion, as it encouraged a 'form of Christianity.

Though I'm doubtful myself that such is the answer,

Doesn't seem worth it to spread a distorted message of one's religion.

Similar problem in my eyes is just giving people free Bibles, what with there being context needing explanation and what.

Can't say I disagree with Intelligence_06 on Religion should prepare us for a mentality, not faith to God.

But eh, I'm an atheist.

Living or trying to live a righteous life, seems to me a decent way to cover all of the bases.

All one has to believe in is 'some sort of reckoning, based upon their actions on Earth.

And perhaps some people would only live a decent life, by dint of believing there was 'something more after death.

Wouldn't 'have to be a specific religion, I'd think.

Oh I don't think you or Intelligence_06 is straw manning religion.

As I said, just a bit of tunnel vision on my part.

Devils Advocate though, I don't see why Pascal's wager would have to 'only refer to the Christian religion.

Plenty of folk who aren't religious, but instead spiritual, that might believe in some afterlife, and what karma might await them there.

Human's 'do often fear/respect karma.

As evidenced by the many different beliefs that 'have humans after death's effected by it.

It's me Leaning from DDO, I'm not religious, Merlin.

I just dislike religious fellows being propped up as strawmen, or stereotyped all together into unfeeling Hell threaten'ers.

I'm fond of my family members who are religious, and a number of the religious people I grew up knowing in life.

Well, I suppose I had a bit of tunnel vision, and focused on the non-Christians going to Hell part, rather than the Pascal's wager part.

My family, as I take it view Christianity as the best path to living a 'good life, to being closer to God.

But I don't think they see it as a requirement to entering Heaven.

They have faith in a kind, loving, understanding, God, who possesses knowledge beyond their ken

That will in some manner answer for all that has occurred bad in the world,

That in some manner even the lost or fallen of humanity will be brought back into the light.,

Not dammed to some eternity of fire, smoke, darkness, and suffering.

Afterlife being a vague and mysterious thing, what.

I think they have faith that good people, even without faith in God, will be brought into the fold,

Even people who deny Gods existence.

They also don't profess to judge people's fate after,

Let God sort them out so to speak, I think.

Not all religious people believe that you have to believe in their faith to go to heaven.

So, what's your impression now, having read all of it?

Video link?

Just a passing thought of mine, a 'bit related to the topic, I 'think.

You define Utopia as

"Conflict=loss. Less conflicts=less losses. The closest we can come to a utopia is if there is as little conflicts as possibly can."

It sounds a bit like a political stance.

Maybe it's sleep deprivation, but somehow utopia seems to me, whatever one desires.

And people desire many different ideals.

Supposedly an ancient Norseman might view Valhalla as utopia, bloodshed, violence, feasting, and what else I forget.

Looked rather grisly in that Vinland Saga (manga) though.

I have mixed feelings.

I don't 'disagree strongly with boarding houses, so long as there are numerous conditions, such as Greyparrot mentioned in post #27.

Perhaps I'm not a very humane human being, I certainly don't do any volunteer work, and frankly I hate seeing the homeless, makes me feel terrible about their circumstances, but not terrible enough to help them really.

City feels less trashy, less dangerous when they 'aren't about.

. . . .

I feel worse about my view on account my second brother is homeless.

Solution to 'my problem would be more gated communities I suppose,

Seems to me like he should win, my reasoning is vague, but my reasoning is that ever since his election, the Democrats have fumbled at the track in which they operated.

Though,

I'd say it seems to me like the media expects him to overwhelmingly lose, So I am unsure.

Personally,

I flip flop between Trump and a third party candidate.

I think that the daily zodiac readings in the newspaper are bunk, but they're fun to read, and like a fortune cookie can be worthwhile to consider your life from a certain perspective, or think on a piece of generic wisdom.

'Maybe when and where you're born can have a long term effect on a person.

The state of a mother, effects the state of a kid, to a 'degree I think.

And 'maybe a child's body adapts to the circumstance he is born into.

Grown dogs have winter coats.

I don't know any science about it though.

Other posts make me think of comic books a bit, which reboot of Spiderman truly expresses the Hero and his philosophy best? (Joke)

I respect Kyle Rittenhouse's foolish idealism, more than I respect the rioters foolish idealism.

Seems like self defense to me, though I don't think he should have been there in the first place,

I think his real hurdles are going to be related to the state laws he broke in carrying that gun not registered to him as a 17 year old.

Maybe I'm just not patriotic enough, but these mixed bags militia groups seem pretty darn stupid to me.

Still, what are you going to get if you defund the police.

I suppose I can understand a militia if it was a community where everyone agreed, but that doesn't seem likely in a city. Gated community would have better luck, and only 'in the gated community.

I also think he got lucky with the histories of the people he shot.

Seems likely to turn some of the public opinion towards him positively.

Warning shots seem a bad idea to me.

Warning Shots Are A Terrible Idea - Active Self Protection

Hm, I don't think I have it together enough in any topics to make decent spur of the moment arguments on them.

Though I suppose that's what preparation is for, before debates.

Hm, then I'm not sure I 'feel strongly enough about any topics, to want to make a case for them, 'forcefully against another.

Well, if you find it a cesspool, for the better I suppose.

Do people on 'this site live debate much, DDO had that Google+ Hangouts link as I recall,

So I make the assumption this site did something similar.

Did you take part in online nationals tournaments yet, or still upcoming?

What's different in a live debate, other than the vocalization of one's written argument?

I suppose a live debate could show a persons quality, rather than that of his argument.

But what's the necessity of it I mean, unless the 'person, is what one is debating on.

Eh, I think he did.

But you know how it goes,

Been plenty of people history, but we can't always see them clearly, like statues in the rain, their refined features blur.

Yet are famed enough, that reproductions abound, and what they may have been, 'is.

Or is what exists an idealization?

I think it's too bad when I glance at some older philosophies whether ancient China, or ancient Greece.

Philosopher we only know the nubs and gists of their ways.

Still, some histories and words seem reasonably enough preserved.

Well, I'd say more people are on board with it 'now, but I think there were a number of mixed messages early on.

People who claimed wearing a mask would 'prevent you from becoming infected, when the truth is it 'helps prevents the infected from infecting others.

And even 'after that misunderstanding was cleared up, some people figured that if they weren't sick, why bother wearing a mask to protect others from nothing,

'Then information came out arguing that some people can be carriers but not sick.

Leadership in America was also on the backfoot in leading by example, and even when the Democrats got on board with it, the 'way they did it, seemed more like political grandstanding and sneaking politics in a time of crisis, than an actual attempt to work with and convince their political counterparts.

Nor have the people who go about the argument to wear masks in a confrontational manner helped, throwing their weight around, jamming their fingers into people's chests and saying OBEY.

I wear a mask in public.

I think other people 'should wear masks,

I think that the law supports it,

Not sure I think people not on board yet are Absolute Morons, maybe just need to be convinced in the right manner, and need our government leading correctly.

I wouldn't say it's the 'only reason Americas done worse,  us being slow on the uptake hasn't helped.

Not like it hasn't happened before,

And I can't say I'm 'fully convinced that masks help much, but I'm convinced most of society acts like they think that.

And I don't have any breathing condition, so, eh.

"Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it! If you had to like it, it'd be called the Museum of Acceptance! [the audience looks on] "Tolerate" means you're just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off! Jesus Tapdancing Christ!" - Mr. Garrison

I find a 911 conspiracy more reasonable than a Chupacabra, all a person has to do is reign back the 'scope of the 911 conspiracy for it to be reasonable, but even with that I don't believe the American government caused 911.

I'd imagine the humans noticed the asteroids before they hit, they just must not have had Bruce Willis around to blow it up Armageddon (1998).

But sure, could go with the belter theory as well.

Well, makes the asteroid part a suspension of disbelief I suppose.

That or it really was the human government, who launched asteroids that were closer to Earth, and blamed the Bugs.

A man can lift a rock easily, but what about a mountain.

There's also the case that maybe the asteroid tossing blasting method, needed something massive to be built in a fixed location to throws the asteroids. For instance a gigantic rail gun in space, I assume wouldn't have to be a literal giant gun, but a bunch of accelerators placed at different distances from one another, in the direction of their target.

What, you mean nudge the Earth?

Might have been the book Armor by John Steakley, but I think it's just an idea that pops into people's heads a lot in science fiction.

Pretty sure the Terrans in StarCraft has the same plan to use the Zerg as a threat that way, until the Zerg started killing everyone.

I mean with no technology ever shown being used, easy to view them as something easy to take advantage of, as little threat on a galactic scale.

I remember in the book though, that the path to citizenship was open to 'anybody though, Did seem in the movie like an intentional attempt to weed out the people mentally unfit/unprepared for the infantry though.

I forget if there was such a scene in the book or not.

"The Federation makes the opportunity of Federal Service open to everyone, able-bodied or not. A doctor giving a medical examination says "if you came in here in a wheelchair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find you something silly to match. Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe." The only impediment that can render one ineligible for federal service is if a psychiatrist determines that one cannot understand the oath of service." - Wikipedia, Terran Federation (Starship Troopers)

I'd be scared of fighting in the movie, following those strategies and tactics.

A lot of people have the theory the movie Bugs are a fake threat, and are used by the government as a means of controlling the population and giving everyone an enemy to rally against.