Truth, in the conventional sense, is an illusion. You can prove the lie. It takes courage.
I think it’s safe to assume that by “conventional sense” you are referring to the pre-20th century version of truth, the Newtonian mechanical universe version. It has since been shown that we can’t get outside of our universe to observe it, that we may never be able to measure the position and speed of fundamental particles because firing photons at them affects them, so we will always be “uncertain”, and even time might just be an illusion. A Buddhist would not have any trouble with all of this. As Heisenberg said,
“It is easily seen that what this criticism demands is again the old materialistic ontology. But what can the answer from the point of view of the Copenhagen interpretation be?. . . The demand to “describe” what “happens” in the quantum-theoretical process between two successive observations is a contradiction in adjecto, since the word “describe” refers to the use of classical concepts, while these concepts cannot be applied in the space between the observations ....The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct “actuality” of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.”
However, we can still predict that the earth will spin tomorrow the same way it did yesterday and the time of sunrise will match the charts. We can’t predict where the earth will be exactly in 10 million years, due to the randomness of chaos theory, but it has been making its trips around the sun for a few billion years regardless.
Knowing all that, and everything we know in the realm of things that aren’t extremely large or extremely small, we can predict what will happen to a human brain when an explosion happens near it. Any lay person can understand this without directly experiencing or even knowing someone who experienced it. I rely on people with experience, but I can predict the odds of someone lying about something like that and I can evaluate the systems that accumulated that knowledge.
Unless I missed the mark on what “sense” of truth you are referring to, I believe this cancels any special claims you have to knowledge of those soldiers.
Mriana, Tim, I brought out Heather Cox Richardson because her analysis of the American political landscape startled me. Are you guys saying that this academic is a flake?
I went back a page and didn’t see what you are talking about, Sree. Was it more than one page back? I don’t even have a clue who this Richardson is or even what you are talking about. Most of the time you make no sense anyway and if it does make any sense, it isn’t exactly accurate.
Skimmed through all the pages and no Richardson. Whatever the case, your dotard isn’t going to make the U.S. better. He is destroying it.
I said in another thread that I haven’t read her, but if she agrees with me, she must have something going on. I truly do not know anything about her other than Lausten recommended her. But that in itself is a plus.
But Obama wasn’t a Russian Obligate. Didn’t make his money sucking off people and screwing others. Obama carried out his duties with respect and dignity as the leader of an entire nation. Not perfect by any means and totally disappoint since leaving office, still opposed to that man, you love Trump the mouth, who’s simply a reality TV host and a loud mouthed salesman selling snake oil? Where is this substance you believe?
All he has to offer is the politics of resentment and hatred and totalitarianism. His policies are guaranteed to create blow back and more misery on many levels.
Hell this messiah cult around him - that doesn’t even bother you guys or give you a moments pause??? Why, why, why are you so comfortable with all that?
I mean what is going on inside your heads beyond resentment and revenge for imagined slights?
thatoneguy said : That’s beside the point — which is small mistakes seem more sinister than they really are when you hate the one who made the mistake.
Never forget : "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" arose as part of a quotation by the expansively named and impressively hirsute John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
Small mistakes seem sinister when they are made by the people who are supposedly in charge of such affairs and have the power to create a butterfly effect where small mistakes over time result in a national catastrophy…
Don John was way corrupt before he had any of the power that he has now. He was corrupt enough to successfully enhance his power FAR BEYOND that of any previous top executive of the USA. So he must be getting close to that “absolute corruption”.
I don’t consider T rump’s tendency, to bombastically promise hyperboles of destruction onto some adversary nations, then to pull back before devastating conflict occurs with fake announcements of agreements and personal notes of love for the dictators/leaders of the same nations, I don’t consider that to be a “Small” Mistake. Each time he does this crap, there is a window of opportunity for things to go terribly wrong. I say that Don John has made Big Mistakes, but has been extraordinarily lucky that we have not yet experienced vast and horrible consequences.
