Danger Imminent - US Embassy shutdown

[scottycelt]

Precisely what I wrote in #51.

I know precisely what you wrote.

I'm simply requesting a clarification as to what you may have meant to write as you appear to suggest (#55) that I have somehow misinterpreted precisely what you wrote in #51.

[Pabmusic]

Without an element of faith there is no hope and everything becomes pointless...

Faith and Hope are not the same at all. Hope is a wishfulness that things turn out in a particular way. We all have hope. Faith is an irrational belief (ie: not supported by evidence) that things exist according to the tenets of a belief. Don't be sidetracked into assuming that I am singling out religions here - there are plenty of strange beliefs around. Homeopathy is one (nothing quite like courting controversy, is there?). And indeed, they often evoke a placebo effect that is real.

I've planned weekend activities because I have faith (and hope) that I may still be around. Yet there is no real, hard evidence I shall still be around...

Not quite. You hope you will be around, and the overwhelming historical evidence suggests that you will be around. But you may not be (and I most sincerely hope this is not the case, Scotty!!!!). That is not the statement of a faith position at all, but an assumption based on evidence (or at least a likeliness based on history).

If I adopted the sceptical attitude that I might not be around this weekend I may as well stay in bed...

I don't think think you would - you've got a full weekend planned. People expect you to be there. You wouldn't let them down.

We all need a certain amount of faith in order to simply live our lives whether we realise it or not.

I can think of things like "It'll all turn out OK in the end" - which I suppose is a faith position, but hardly a strong one - we tend not to base our lives on such philosophies. But I'm stumped to recognise any other faith position in my life. Plenty of hope, but then (as I've said above) Hope is not Faith.

Where would "faith, hope and charity" be if the first two were identical?

[ahinton]

I know precisely what you wrote.

I'm simply requesting a clarification as to what you may have meant to write as you appear to suggest (#55) that I have somehow misinterpreted precisely what you wrote in #51.

I can comment helpfully neither on how you might have interpreted what I wrote or on why the sense of it seems to elude you, but it seems simple enough to me. I referred to certain US government lies as not being necessarily "worse" or "better" morally, but likely nevertheless to be of far greater and more wide-ranging significance in practice, than those of any other government, US being the superpower that it is. What's so difficult about tht?

[scottycelt]

Faith and Hope are not the same at all. .... Where would "faith, hope and charity" be if the first two were identical?

Ah now, I didn't say that they were identical, Pab ... I merely stated that the two are often interlinked!

It's difficult to have much hope without at least an undercurrent of some faith, however minimal.

For example if I were to back a horse with my hard-earned cash I would of course hope that it would win. However, that hope couldn't even exist if I were not to have some faith that there was at least a possibility the animal would win. If I had no faith in that possibility there would be absolutely no hope or any point whatsoever in entering the bookies and placing the bet. Not that I would ever dream of indulging in such an ultimately financially-ruinous practice!

'Blind faith' is one thing but genuine faith is often based on reason, calculation and human experience.

Of course that does not mean that genuine faith will always prove to be justified. We live in an imperfect world!

[ahinton]

For example if I were to back a horse with my hard-earned cash I would of course hope that it would win. However, that hope couldn't even exist if I were not to have some faith that there was at least a possibility the animal would win. If I had no faith in that possibility there would be absolutely no hope or any point whatsoever in entering the bookies and placing the bet. Not that I would ever dream of indulging in such an ultimately financially-ruinous practice!

Not unless you found an ingenious way in which successfully to claim tax relief on the amount of your stake, I suppose...

[scottycelt]

I can comment helpfully neither on how you might have interpreted what I wrote or on why the sense of it seems to elude you, but it seems simple enough to me. I referred to certain US government lies as not being necessarily "worse" or "better" morally, but likely nevertheless to be of far greater and more wide-ranging significance in practice, than those of any other government, US being the superpower that it is. What's so difficult about tht?

I don't see any 'reference to certain US government lies as not being necessarily "worse" or " better" morally in your original post so hardly any wonder the sense and meaning of it eluded me, ahinton!

Of course some political 'lies' have greater consequences than others. However a 'lying' Asian or European politician is surely hardly any more acceptable than his/her American counterpart?

Nevertheless, in politics I often feel it is much more a case of politicians being 'economical with the truth' rather than being found guilty of outright lying!

[amateur51]

Not unless you found an ingenious way in which successfully to claim tax relief on the amount of your stake, I suppose...

Morning Crescent! Ahinton's found a way of bringing tax into this thread! ;D

[ahinton]

I don't see any 'reference to certain US government lies as not being necessarily "worse" or " better" morally in your original post so hardly any wonder the sense and meaning of it eluded me, ahinton!

No, you didn't, because it was implied (albeit pretty clearly, I'd have thought) rather than stated as such; I did, however, write that "America is a big country and a very wealthy one and its agendas are sufficiently large and wide-ranging and affect so many other nations that the lies for which they do get caught (as well as those for which they have yet to be exposed) are often of greater substance and international significance than those of most other countries. I did not and do not suggest that US government lies are any better or worse than those of any other government but, given the size and scope of the consequences of the former, it is surely likely and indeed necessary that they attract more attention and exposure than the latter.

(Note to self; remember when it's advisable to use words of one syllable).

Nevertheless, in politics I often feel it is much more a case of politicians being 'economical with the truth' rather than being found guilty of outright lying!

That does happen frequently, of course, although I'm not so sure that I'd agree that there's sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it does so in the majority of such occasions; since so many politicans are so cavalier about the economies of the countries in which they operate, their widespread economy with the truth is, however, only to be expected, methinks!

[ahinton]

Morning Crescent! Ahinton's found a way of bringing tax into this thread! ;D

Morning to you too, ams! But Mornington Crescent, please! My excuse (such as it is), prompted at least in part about the latest revelations on tax evasion and avoidance in Britain on this morning's news, is that there are times when momentary diversions from knocking one's head against a brick wall seem as necessary as they're welcome...

[amateur51]

Morning to you too, ams! But Mornington Crescent, please! My excuse (such as it is), prompted at least in part about the latest revelations on tax evasion and avoidance in Britain on this morning's news, is that there are times when momentary diversions from knocking one's head against a brick wall seem as necessary as they're welcome...

Sorry about the need for a correction - the absence of smileys on this thread means I was not able to infest my post with the defusing elements I needed to make clearer my intentions. It was intended as a gentle ribbing.

As to the brick wall ...

[JimD]

What - are the Yankees going home - can it be true?

Not all of them, at any rate.

http://www.madingleyamericancemetery.info/graves.htm

[scottycelt]

As to the brick wall ...

It's certainly worth due and sympathetic consideration, amsey.

All my concerns here are for the poor, unfortunate brick-wall.

It is certainly most unlikely to remain in one piece every time ahinton suddenly decides to viciously attack the wholly innocent third-party structure with his head?

Even brick-walls are entitled to some protection ...

[ahinton]

All my concerns here are for the poor, unfortunate brick-wall.

It is certainly most unlikely to remain in one piece every time ahinton suddenly decides to viciously attack the wholly innocent third-party structure with his head?

I don't do vicious attacks, as well you should know by now - but I am also disinclined to believe in the relevance of the "innocence" to which you refer here.

Even brick-walls are entitled to some protection ...

Might that not depend upon whether or not they form part of the structures of embassies being closed and/or vacated by Americans?

[ahinton]

Sorry about the need for a correction - the absence of smileys on this thread means I was not able to infest my post with the defusing elements I needed to make clearer my intentions. It was intended as a gentle ribbing.

I consider myself duly gently ribbed!

As to the brick wall ...

...see my response to scotty above.

[Richard Barrett]

I don't think there has ever been any solid evidence produced which shows that 'those in power in America' are 'caught lying' any more than those in power anywhere else.

This is true - of course they lie no more nor less than those in power anywhere else. But, given their constant war footing and the need to sustain their gargantuan "defence industry", their lies are generally associated with causing death and misery on a larger scale than others' lies. As for "economical with the truth": just off the top of my head, remember Colin Powell demonstrating that WMDs existed in Iraq? That for one thing was such a barefaced lie that even he looked embarrassed.