If you don't have anything nice to say, your just like everyone else

In our nature or maybe how we are nurtured there is something embedded within us to be negative. When we listen to the weather its what's the chance of rain? When it comes to grading its this is the grade you get because I took off points for... in a court case we need to prove the individual guilty, and when it comes to taking sides it's easier to tare apart the other side than support your own. 

Examples of groups going after there opponents are the Red sox  having a Yankee hater club,the yankees having a Red sox haters club, the Obama campaign targeting everything Bush did wrong,The McCain campaign calling Obama a communist, The atheist targeting contradictions in the Bible, the Christian pointing out science against evolution, the liberal calling conservatives war mongers, and the conservatives calling the liberals baby killers. 

The mentality I believe is "If the opposing side is an injustice than my side is a justice." So by demonizing or making the other side look stupid your side feels better and like they are superior. This bully tactic is used by almost every human being on the planet in some way. 

Alternatively since it is within every human being the capacity to not use this tactic in a debate, politics, or religion you almost say that the other side is just as if not more valid than you because now they appear flawless. It isn't exactly true and the logic isn't there but for some reason there is something programmed in the subconscious mind of most of us that in the above situations that logic takes place.

One quote by Jason Pitz-Waters that is so true is "If I could outlaw one rhetorical and stylistic device I think it would be comparing your ideological opponent to Hitler, Nazis, and fascists. It cheapens the true horrors of WWII and the Holocaust, and instantly destroys any chance for a civilized debate. The political left and right both employs this "scorched earth" tactic of demonizing the other side, and some religious leaders aren't much better."

There are also rhetoric fallacies such as The Genetic fallacy ,which points out that sometimes when an individual tries to show there side as valid they make a claim that may or may not be true and support it with something that actually doesn't support the original claim.

A book titled Journal for The Theory of Social Behavior points out that this behavioral process has practically remained untouched in the psychological community yet it plays a great role in the U.S. Intellectual debates try to avoid this tactic but I don't know how avoidable it is. 

Is there a way for society to stop verbally bullying each other? Can you find places in your life that you disagree strongly with the opposing side and quietly think of it as inferior? Is there a hope for these problems to be resolved? The first question is probably is a no, the third question is more or less for the second question which is the part you can decide on. 

So the differences in viewpoints is valid but the demonizing and bullying is not. I find myself having a hard time trying not to mentally look down upon the opposing side regardless of what the issue is. It is impossible not to chose a side, but to defend your side without attacking the other side is an obstacle.

creation vs evolution

Imagine being a born again Christian and being told born again people are feeble minded and need to believe the past can be forgiven to cope with a bad childhood or just follow what there parents teach them. Now imagine being an atheist and hearing from a born again believer that you would have to be so ignorant to not believe in a God, just look at the Earth and you know there has to be a creator with how systematic everything is. 

If you were in either one of those positions you would feel personally attacked because they just bluntly called you stupid for believing what you believe. This is one of the many reasons why Christians and atheists have one of the greatest divides in the United States. Since both sides view each other as dumb or incapable of using truth they are both close minded and prejudice. Now neither side is this true for all since I know plenty of atheists and Christians that get along but it should be pretty prevalent that a Darwin fish or a Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish isn't portraying a positive message to the opposing view.

Evolution verse Creationism is a concept that is still being battled in the school system. Since public schools are owned by the government and the first Amendment to the Constitution says "Congress will pass no law establishing religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof." This has been taken to mean separation of church and state which would date back to the Scopes trial, a trial over if evolution could be taught in schools.

Those that follow creationism would be the ones who find there beliefs dating back to Jewish roots. This would include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All of these faiths base God as creating the universe in six days (the seventh day of rest is not believed by Muslims). In that time God spoke everything into existence.

 This is creationism summed up. The first day He made light to separate night from day, the second day He made an expanse to separate the waters He hovered over before the first day. The third day He made land and put plants and trees on it, the fourth day He made the sun, the moon and the stars to be a way of keeping track of time. The fifth day He created water creatures and birds, and told them to multiply. The sixth day He made land animals and then humans as the only creature in God's likeness. Then Christians and jewish people believe God rested on the seventh day.

Evolution is a bit more perplexed as there are two forms of it, small-scale and large scale evolution. The small scale is just stating that over time a species adapts like leaves falling off a tree or a human going through puberty. This is scientific fact, however large-scale evolution makes a claim that defies creationism completely in stating that every species have a common ancestor that over time turned into many diverse species. The claim is that fossils support the theory along with DNA and other science. It doesn't say there isn't a God, just not the one mentioned in creationism. 

According to a site based on the works of Harun Yahya the theory of evolution is a philsophy and not a science. In fact he claims that science and fossils show the same animals of today millions of years ago.  These claims are disputable yet he throws that DNA has 3.5 billion digits in it. According to David Dewitt there is a misleading 98% similarity between humans and chimps in DNA which is actually only 95%. That is a total of 150,000,ooo DNA pairs different or even two percent would be 70,000,000.

Now evolutionists just go with the facts such as Henry Gee, Rory Howlett, and Phillip Campbell state on bringing up 15 proofs of evolution they call "evolutionary gems".  They use fossils, teeth, skeletons, natural selection in nature, and several other points found in the scientific world. 

Personally I don't see how we can claim the past when we weren't there. A lot is left up to interpretation and outside of religion and science it doesn't even play as a thought process. Both sides will take the same pieces of information to prove there side and which side presents themselves better is typically on a bias that you already form. 

I believe that biology has every right to teach evolution but creationism should be taught also inside of literature or history so both sides are presented in school curriculum in the same grade level.

nature vs. nurture

In recent years people have used the defense in the court of law that there childhood caused them there problems. Blaming the way they were raised and the atmosphere on their actions, which by law doesn't matter. The question is what really causes a person to act and become the way they are is it nature? or is it the way we are raised? Psychology calls this argument  nature v. nurture. 

So Harold Manville Skeels, a psychologist that was a professor at Iowa University, conducted an experiment to see if foster care kids would do better in intelligent homes. After setting the stage he had all the kids take an IQ test and come up around 115, which is an above average score and it created a positive for the nurture view.

Alternatively Joseph McInerney stated that some animals show behaviors that they repeat all the time no matter where they live. Humans have basic instincts and some major mental illnesses are caused by genetics. He also claims that multiple genes play a role in determining a behavioral trait. 

When an individual gets brain surgery they sometimes change there views on things and their behavior. Since this happens sometimes it doesn't really accompany the fact that how you're raised has anything to do with it along with it not really being about genes. All that was altered was the brain waves being transmitted and the whole persona changed. This goes against both theories thus it isn't just nature vs. nurture. 

Now the falsehood of one gene containing a behavioral trait is one argument against nature. An appropriate question becomes what do genes do? Do they create a behavior or merely interpret it? 

The case against nurture is that common genes share common patterns so a DNA strand is solid evidence against nurture. Nature more or less just uses it's case as defense and doesn't in depth try to disprove nurture.

So why can't they both be right? I believe they can and are both legitimate on some level.  The particular level may remain unknown but never the less they both have valid statements and evidence to show that they are tied to behavior.

murder and ethics

What is the first thing that comes to mind when the word moral is mentioned? What about the word murder? The word murder is a dangerous connotation because despite your moral code the word murder in general is typically wrong. Then the better question is what is murder?

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary murder is defined as,

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

2 a: something very difficult or dangerous b : something outrageous or blameworthy murder>

Which shows that murder is horrifying and can clearly be blamed on an individual. Now a few questions arise, is euthanasia murder? is fighting in the military and killing the enemy murder? Is the person that has someone jump out in front of their car while they are on the highway committing murder?

Let's start with euthanasia, this is a method that goes back to the Terri Schiavo Case. Is it legitimate to "pull the plug" when someone doesn't want to just exist in pain and suffering? 

One man that has supported euthanasia and has been controversial to many places for it is Dr. Jack Kevorkian also known as "Dr.Death". This man has assisted in about 130 assisted deaths. He was sentenced to prison for 10 to 25 years back in 1998 and was released after 8 for good behavior. He is 79 years old now and still believes he has stayed moral even though it wasn't legal.

So this has sparked states like California to make sure euthanasia is done humanely and views Dr. Kevorkian as an example of what not to do. The problem for them isn't what he did but how he did it, he created a suicide machine and didn't limit it to terminally ill patients that you could put a short time frame on their lives. 

The dilemma is where do you draw the line and how can you without coming across crazy? Now Burke J. Balch and Randall k. O'Bannon argue that euthanasia is giving people the "right to suicide". The part they strongly oppose is that people are in a calm and rational state of mind when wanting to be euthanized. 

Now when you interchangeably use words like suicide and euthanasia the issue is being presented as murder clear cut and obvious. Since calm and rational are words open to interpretation this becomes a very vague argument.

Another issue is what would war be defined as in context to murder. According to Webster since it is lawful it wouldn't be murder and typically if it is someone like Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden most people don't look negatively at it but when it is Gaza and women and children that aren't terrorists are killed the results drastically vary.

Now the Israelites didn't intentionally kill innocent people but it happened. Some now view them as starting terrorism and others back them up. So casualties in war, are they murdered or just casualties?

Just imagine that one night your driving home from work and your on Fletcher or Fowler when suddenly someone jumps out in front of your car and there are cars behind and alongside of you, and your going 45 mph. No matter what you do someone is going to get injured and possibly die. If someone ends up dead did you murder them?

So now the issues are here and the question stands? What is murder and is it justifiable? So valid points are made by different sides but the major determinant in this situation is what are your religious and political convictions? 

what's the word

The english language is full of words with vague meanings such as moral, ethic, good, smart, funny, true, and the list goes on. It is possible to say something in each of these categories that everyone will agree upon but it's easier to think of things that you personally view to fit one of the listed words.

On the issue of gay marriage who is moral? The answer is your side typically, the conservative view of gays not being allowed to get married is justified by religious personal conviction, the liberal side views it as equality and not discriminating... so who is right?

The problem is what is marriage? If marriage is defined as taking a relationship of love to the next level and we need to be equal fair and uphold the constitution then gays, bisexuals, transvestites,polygamists, and anyone else that desires to get married has that right under freedom of religion.

Alternatively if marriage is unifying the souls of a man and a woman to God in Holy matrimony, that it is a sacred ritual practiced within the religion then I don't agree with anyone that doesn't meet that requirement getting married. 

Now the Democratic and Republican parties have both tried to put negative connotations to the opposing side. Republicans used pro-life which gives the opposing side the view of being pro-death. While the Democratic party has become anti-war which makes the Republicans pro-war by being the opposite side. 

Obviously Democrats aren't pro-death because then they wouldn't be anti-war, and Republicans can't be pro-war because they are pro-life. This shows that morality and ethics are not clear and language is manipulated to depict false personas. 

One word that in reality never has the same meaning in any two people's heads is the world. This is an interesting concept because we don't use definitives at all with it. In example the Bible talks about the world but is making reference to more than one kind of world. 

   The stars of heaven and their constellations  will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened  and the moon will not give its light I will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins. I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty and will humble the pride of the ruthless. I will make man scarcer than pure gold,more rare than the gold of Ophir

-Isaiah 13:10 - 12

For God So Loved the world that He gave His one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

-John 3:16,17

So obviously God isn't punishing the same world He is saving so there are multiple meanings for this word. The world is very broad yet it mentions what the  similarity and places those that don't share that similarity in a separate category. 

We some times say terms like the business world, the social world,the sports world, the secular world, and the list goes on. This segregates social groups into different worlds, such as first, second and third world does. It allows us to stereotype.