The holy trinity of circular reason

Also works as a computer program loop:

10 The bible is the word of god

20 What the bible says is true

30 If the bible says it is the word of god then Goto 10

This circular logic is what stumps me every time someone on the radio or in person quotes the bible. Why quote the bible to someone who may not believe in it? Quoting the bible is like quoting your uncle. "As my uncle once said: two plus two equals five." Wow! If your uncle said it, let me take it seriously. Wait, who's your uncle ...?

Modern obesity is caused by the four C's: cars, couches, computers, and carbs.

Flags are too vague for communication.

For many the national flag is a powerful and unambiguous symbol. Unfortunately, it represents a different set of ideas for just about everyone; its exact meaning is never clearly defined. Does it symbolize only the good aspects of a country, or only the negative, or all aspects? Does the flag represent the country as a whole or only its government? Is it a reference to the past, present, or future? Does it represent those who have fought for it? If so, they would have fought for a representation of themselves — a very circular activity.

When you involve the flag in speech you are using an extremely vague pronoun. Imagine using the word "it" with extreme passion. No one would know exactly what you mean, unless they happen to project as you do. What's clear is only that you are passionate, and clueless about your vagueness.
When patriots employ this symbol they are thinking of specifics, but aren't elaborating on specifics in the larger world context. When people burn the flag, they usually have very specific current events in mind, but the ritual is misinterpreted by the patriots as a disaproval of their own personal and perfectly noble ideals. And the patriotic use, on the other hand is misinterpreted by victims and critics of the flag's nation as approval of the clearly reprehensible. Hence the misunderstanding: "they hate our freedom".
Flags are just a terrrible way to communicate. They were invented for battling armies to identify themselves and to indicate the direction of the wind, so that weapons could be hurled with the proper force and angle. They serve to unify different interests against a conceived external entity.
Flags work well for aggression, but terribly for discourse.

Patriotic display is a form of bragging that is tolerated because it compliments the group.

Photography is to reality what a steak is to a cow.

Fashion is about how you look, art is about how you see.

The purest form of evil is moral certitude.

Switzerland is a clock.

This could be meant as a reference to Harry Lime in The Third Man: "In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Switzerland doesn't just produce clocks and watches, it functions like them.

The Netherlands repeat a picture of tall people on big bikes in front of small houses made of tiny bricks and gigantic windows.

Be it as it may, for, as it were, so be it.

Those who study history are tempted to repeat it.

The flag is to citizens what a worm is to fishes.

Question: is there a former colony that returned to its pre-colonial, traditional system?

Experience creates the most stubborn form of prejudice: postjudice.

Prejudice, the act of judging without experience, based on hearsay and conditioning and projection towards the individual, instead of careful examination, is clearly tragic. But, I'd like to propose that "postjudice", which would be the act of judging based on personal experience, can also be tragic. Personal experience is most convincing, and much harder to counter when conclusions based on it are off the mark. Only a maximum of personal experience can counter the impressions of original experience.

Tradition is no excuse for idiocy.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg came first, obviously.

Before there were chickens many animals laid eggs. Later on, chickens laid eggs. So, the egg came before the chicken.

What better way to shield yourself from critique than to claim the unknowable?

Ethics is to religion what home cooking is to fast food.

Why do we believe in the necessity of belief?

In conversations, I often hear the emphatic phrase “I believe in …” referring to any controversial or improbable subject. For example, I hear “I believe in life after death." This is usually someone who has not experienced near death, but has decided based on second hand information that the case is plausible enough to commit to a belief in it. In the absence of knowledge, belief is declared. Those who have actually had a near death experience tend to say, “I know what I saw.” In other words, they are beyond the need for a declaration of belief.
It seems that even among people who are not religious, there is the belief in the necessity of belief. There is even: “I believe God doesn’t exist." Why are we so programmed against a position of ongoing uncertainty, of a confident “maybe?” The mind has plenty of shelf space for various contradicting arguments. Why can’t we hold multiple positions and accrue evidence for and against all of them? Yes, each position reflects the ideas of its opposite, but too firm positions close the mind.
I recognize that in many cases a strong belief, regardless of evidence, is highly motivational and therapeutic. Great mosques and cathedrals are evidence that belief can propel ordinary people to create the almost impossible. And there is healing power in belief as well. But this is only an argument for the function, the power of belief, its usefulness — not its necessity.
When it comes to the ultimate nature of existence, I know that I don’t know and I assume, but don’t believe, everyone else also doesn’t know. I am perfectly at peace with that.

I love this interview with Bertrand Russell where he says: "... and if you can't find out if it's true or not you should suspend judgment". Why is this "suspension" such a taboo?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrxSkc68Ci0

One more link: Larry David:

"If I really believed that stuff, I'd keep it to myself."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1yOckwMm_k&feature=related

If this is a free country, why do things cost money?

Under capitalism people are free, but services aren’t. Under communism, this is reversed.

This above statement is crude, but there's some truth to it. Of course, not all services in the US are privatized. The usage of roads, reception of basic television or radio, public education, etc. are without direct cost, And, whether people are completely free in the US is another, long discussion, since the high cost of living, specific travel bans, and a long list of laws restrict freedom to some extent. However, in the US there is a MUCH greater atmosphere of freedom than in any of the communist countries, past and present. Anyone who has ever been to both spheres knows this deeply. In the US, freedom is an ideological concept, kept alive by the faiths and actions of many sectors of society.

Services under communism arent't really free, but paid for by collective labor, and there isn't much choice in one's contribution to this labor. On top of that there are direct, though subsidized, costs for services and necessities such as rent, food, transportation. The people pay rent, pay for goods, but very little. Meanwhile, in China, which has converted to the weirdest and worst hybrid of capitalism and communism, there are many types of services, such as education, that require private payment.

These aren't the only two choices, as far as systems are concerned. Fortunately, the cynical Europeans have adopted social democracy, also termed market socialism. This system has refereed, fairly well, a conflict between hyper-capitalism and its consequences. In this system, services are nearly free, and people are so as well. There is also the space for complaint, which means that this system, which functions better than all others ever invented, is openly very insecure about itself.

Science learnes from mistakes. Religion ritualizes them.

Dangerous when organized

There are five things that are more dangerous when organized: crime, violence, greed, irrationality, and selfishness. Organized crime is the mafia; organized violence is the military; organized greed is the corporation; organized irrationality is the church, organized selfishness is the nation.

The danger of organization in each of these cases is acceptance and multiplication. In the context of individual action, all of these tendencies are recognized as wrong or at least problematic. In the context of an organization, the pattern of "people do as others do" (conformity) comes into play. Behavior is no longer questioned, but protected and encouraged by the institution. The institution undermines individual self-criticism.

The danger of multiplication is committing otherwise reprehensible acts on a large scale. Wrong, multiplied, should demand outrage, multiplied, but it rarely does. For example, violence is a taboo for virtually anyone. Whole news cycles are devoted to the outrage of a single, scandalous murder. But violence on a massive scale by the (own) military — this applies to any nation — is actively justified, not only by those involved, but instinctively by large sections of society who consider the military part of the larger institution of "nation".

The individual act is considered a matter of debate, but if organized and multiplied, it can count on significant protection from critique within the institution. This leads to further acceptance and multiplication of the next act.

Conservatives aren't evil, but they prefer evil to disorder.