As many people are aware, the world will end on May 21, 2011 which is likely to cause an interruption in service on the Turley blog. Fortunately, your host will be going to his annual weekend at Shrine Mont with other families. I expect our weekend bloggers to remain at their posts through the rapture while I await the rapture on a mountain top in Virginia in a pure and sanctified state. I remind everyone that during the end of the world we will maintain the policy of civility and decorum on the blog. Profanity and uncontrolled screaming are strongly discouraged. There is also a chance that anonymity will be lost in the post-rapture judgment on any trolls.
Last weekend in New York, the troops were out with signs announcing the end of the world. It took a bit of explaining to the kids, but I reminded them that this meant no end of term exams (which mollified them).
The Family Radio Worldwide and its leader Harold Camping have done an amazing job in informing millions of our collective demise this weekend. For us at the Turley blog, it is not an end but an opportunity. While I cleanse my soul at Shrine Mont (while fishing), I know that our bloggers will remain online up to the rapture for hundreds of millions of people surfing the Internet at the last minute. To help them, I wanted to add references to the most likely search terms for Saturday to help them reach our site:
1. Proper clothing for the rapture.
2. WiFi access in heaven.
3. Justin Bieber’s rapture schedule.
4. Can Obama block final judgment for Bush officials involved in torture program?
5. cheap homes for sale by members of the Family Radio Worldwide ministry.
Good luck, everyone. I will not be with you when the rapture occurs but I assure you that this blog is right with God. At the time of the final judgment, Turley blog regulars will be given preferential treatment and should fear not. If you are still a bit nervous, I recommend playing Captain & Tennille’s Muskrat Love while watching Under Siege 2: Dark Territory . Then, no matter what happens, it won’t seem quite so bad to leave this world behind.
116 thoughts on “Notice: Interruption of Service This Weekend For The End of Times”
Wow, marvelous blog layout! How long have you been blogging for?
you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is magnificent, let alone the content!
It’s monday evening here and old Harold Camping is finally giving some answers. Among them, that saturday May 21 turned out to be a “spiritual judgement” instead of the Rapture, but the end of the world will still happen on Oct 21.
A simple apology clarifying that he was wrong would have been best, and returning the funds that remained.
I feel embarrassed, even dirty on his behalf.
“The reason that I have not “taken the bait” and engaged in an adversarial process with BIL is my continual rejection of adversarial process.”~Brian
I’ve not often seen more engagement, especially adversarial, than between you and the BIL, Brian. Really, review just the past month of your ‘non-engagement’ on this blog. If you were being forced by laws or circumstance….that would be a different story, I would think you actively engaging in attempts of self-preservation….maybe. Also, what do you mean by this sentence? …”Is not equivocation a marvel to behold?
“I made a decision to not actually be an adversary to any other person.”
Then how come, Brian, do you explain coming in here and taking an adversarial stance with the inhabitants of this blawg? Not just adversarial, but intensely and stubbornly adversarial.
Is not equivocation a marvel to behold?
It has long been utterly obvious to me that adversarial process stems from people being adversaries of one another.
There is, alas, apparently something called “choice” or “decision-making.”
In my so-called infancy, I made a decision to not actually be an adversary to any other person.
The last time I checked the literature regarding familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), absent surgical prevention, the average (arithmetic mean?) age of cancer onset was 39 years and, absent timely surgical prevention or effective excision of cancer, the average (arithmetic mean?) age of death from cancer was 42 years.
Averages are only averages. I have made it past my 72nd birthday, 30 more years than the average for people who, like me, have FAP and have not had effective preventive surgery prior to age 39. I got to age 47 before I was able to persuade physicians to start doing effective surgical prevention of cancer.
For 72 years, the whole of the time since I was born, I have never internalized the notion that anyone ever does anything other than as situational factors allow, and I have never internalized the orthodox notion of human fault being real or being a factor in purportedly-bad decision outcomes.
Were I a hypothetical reasonable person having the FAP gene, I would hypothetically have died about 30 years ago. Why did I not so die? Could it possibly be because I am an actual person, who, like all actual persons, can never do what is expected of non-existing hypothetical persons?
Finding myself to be an ordinary, run-of-the-mill person who is without any form of notable exceptionality, it comes to my mind that, if there is anyone who might benefit from knowing about and/or understanding how I have managed to live my life without ever, within my inner life experiences, being an adversary of anyone or anything, I may wisely seek to learn whether how I have learned to live my life might be of any interest to someone else.
So, I make an effort to describe how I have lived my life so far, as I observe that few people whose lives have come to my attention seem to have much of a clue as to how I actually live.
I do not allow other people to define me such that I will internalize their definitions of me. Thus, Buddha Is Laughing may be flawlessly correct in defining me as delusional within his available total frame of reference; in possible contrast therewith, I decline to define him. Rather than defining BIL, I choose to describe my understanding of what I have been able to internalize as hypotheses for possible evaluation of his espoused views.
Because I had encountered quite a few folks whose core belief structure is, in my view, rather similar to that of BIL, and because I have always been able to find internal contradictions in that core belief system as I am able to fathom it, I have had decades of effort in unriddling the inner mechanism(s) of that core belief system.
I have no adversaries. No person, and no group of people, has an iota of a smidgen of a wisp of a phantasm of the power to be my adversary. No event, no belief, no fact, no fiction, has a trace of the power of even one person to be my adversary.
It is possible to live a life without having any adversaries, and to do so for more than 72 years. The argument to the contrary fails because my life is the refuting counter-example.
To those who believe in adversity, my actual life cannot exist, so BIL’s continuing claim of my being delusional informs me.
The rebuttal comes with my being an actual, living person.
I am presently without a better explanation of BIL’s repeated assertion to the effect that I am delusional is other than his espoused view is his “delusional” projection of his self-image.
The reason that I have not “taken the bait” and engaged in an adversarial process with BIL is my continual rejection of adversarial process. I am aware of the “trick.” If I accept BIL’s adversarial notion of proof, then I have rejected my understanding of the nature of human nature. Sorry, BIL, far more clever folks than you have invariably failed to bait me that way. For me to accept your notion of “proof” would be my rejecting of the entire collection of my life experiences.
I use the method of dichotomous hypothesis/alternate-hypothesis disproof; a method which I cannot imagine any Adversarial System Court Judge tolerating even slightly. However, it seems that the method I use has found much favor among very competent scientists who work at or beyond the cutting edge in some field of inquiry.
There are people who are able to observe scientific revolutions, in the Thomas Kuhn sense. There are people who do the work of scientific revolutions. Scientific revolutions, by their nature and by definition, necessarily overturn and/or undermine prior orthodoxy.
Within the orthodox perspective, there are no scientific revolutions because, within true opinion, there can be no false opinions?
Proof-texting really is a miserable way to communicate usefully?
“…many are being ‘accused’ (read projected upon) as being spies, or worse, when in fact they are simply caught in the chains of a dying sytem and standing in the way of some greedy gut. It’s not like these ‘go getters’ have to follow any rules anymore….and yes, I know all about being marginalized (and worse)….I have a big and apparently threatening honest mouth….” W=C
Yep. I get it. Fully and completely… “Ain’t it America”… No rules, no “rule of law”… for some. It’s evil…
The use of “you” was unintentional… I should have said “one”… Given your comments over the months, I know that realize just how bad things are…
What you are suggesting is a system that pre-judges.
As in “prejudices”.
That abuse of process you are seeing has a lot less to do with the process than it does with the bad laws promulgated by Congress. For example, look into patent trolls/trolling. There is an area of law that is almost nothing but abusive filing. However, it’s not flaws in the dispute resolution system that allow that sort of thing to happen. It’s bad law that doesn’t properly define proper standing and/or primary and ancillary rights around patents. Are there areas where process can be improved? Most certainly. Personally, I think most states have med mal statutes of limitations that are far too short given the nature of how health problems can manifest after malpractice. But a good 90% of the error you see comes from bad law rather than bad procedure and that most of that bad procedure (such as short SOL windows on medical malpractice) are also derived from bad legislative practice, legislative practice that as a matter of campaign finance is where the graft rubber meets the corruption road.
“The adversarial system is “adversarial” because the parties having the dispute are “adverse” – it reflects the reality of the conflict. Why is that so difficult to grasp, W=c? I know why it eludes Brian. Why it eludes you is a mystery.”~BIL
It doesn’t elude me…and I am not averse to it(at least not the uncorrupted variety….)….except for the parts I have mentioned here and previously ie; ‘politicized or fundamentalist inobjectivism’ or the creation of adversarial situations BY the system itself. Not everything that goes through the system is about adversity…but there are those who are perfectly comfortable ‘using’ the system to thier own ends by imposing and disrupting by creating false adversity…or maybe, because there are those who cannot accomplish anything WITHOUT an adversary…the system is not discerning and inevitably becomes corrupt.
That our current dispute resolution system is crippled by corruption does not change the fact that adversity does not arise from the “adversarial” component of that dispute resolution system. Adversity comes from parties with differential perceptions and circumstance. Dispute resolution systems are ALWAYS going to be adversarial because, duh, parties with disputes are by definition adverse.
adverse \ad-ˈvərs, ˈad-ˌ\, adj.,
1: acting against or in a contrary direction : hostile
2a : opposed to one’s interests
Without naturally occurring adversity (and it naturally arises out of circumstance in action not a meme), there would never be contrary opinions or inequitable situations and thus no need for a dispute resolution system to settle differences between adverse parties.
The adversarial system is “adversarial” because the parties having the dispute are “adverse” – it reflects the reality of the conflict. Why is that so difficult to grasp, W=c? I know why it eludes Brian. Why it eludes you is a mystery.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, May 23, 2011 at 10:12 am
You can think the adversarial system is a superstition all you like. I’ve proven time and again that it isn’t: it is a societal tool used to varying degrees of success. What you can’t prove is that the adversarial system can be modeled like a virus.
I’m going to butt in here and say there is no adversarial system if the outcomes are ‘controlled’ by political/ fundamentalist channelings. [think election 2000 Floridagate…). When the infrastructure of a sytem (judges) are politically motivated then they are no longer objective….and therefor no longer able to accurately judge. Corruption of the system ie; a system that no longer works is no system(in Brianspeak). We are in, have been in, and continue to be in, a chaotic state that is wearing a civil veil.[or IMHO costume…). All that is left is the adversary.
1, May 23, 2011 at 8:00 am
And Buddha would be right, IMHO.
W=C, …and however bad you think it is… it’s worse… We have too many wanna-be-spies who watched too much “24″ and think that they’re saving America. We’re in deep, deep trouble, but there’s a tight lid… (Did you see Thomas Drake on 60 Minutes last night? If not, watch it the web site and read Jane Mayer’s New Yorker article, The Secret Sharer…) Anyone who speaks up about what’s going on is quickly marginalized…
yes, I know. But it is even bigger worse than that….many are being ‘accused’ (read projected upon) as being spies, or
worse, when in fact they are simply caught in the chains of a dying sytem and standing in the way of some greedy gut. It’s not like these ‘go getters’ have to follow any rules anymore….and yes, I know all about being marginalized (and worse)….I have a big and apparently threatening honest mouth….
“not proof within my imagined model of internalized reality”
Imagined being the key word there.
Something is not proof if it doesn’t comport to the model in your head? That’s not just delusional. That’s bad logic and bad science. It’s outcome determinism, begging the question and wishful thinking all rolled up into one untidy fallacious package.
My proof is the entirety of human history and the basic functions of a thing, namely dispute resolution as a governmental function and the actual nature of adversity as being circumstantial and not memetic.
Is in your imagination. Your internal belief structure.
Because it’s delusional.
The world persists outside of your head, Brian, and it does so in ways often contrary to what you’d like it to be.
And I think it’s funny when a delusional person who regularly tries to couch his “science” in religious terms calls me a “Fundamentalist” by the way. So if that was your attempt at insult, I suggest you try again. Law is not a religion no matter how many times you try to say it is. Your repeated insistence on casting law in the terms of religion is simply another sign of your delusional behavior. While we’re at it, science isn’t a religion either. It’s a verifiable methodology for testing the world as it exists outside your head. If the test results don’t match what’s in your head – and they don’t – then the problem isn’t with the method as properly applied. The problem is in your head.
“The dispute resolution system that is not adversarial has been well-described.” No. It hasn’t, Brian. Because by their very nature, all disputes are adversarial. One side says one thing, the other side says another things. They are, by definition, opposing and adverse. You believe a dispute resolution system that is not adversarial has been described because you fail to understand the nature of adversity and creating such a belief fuels your delusions.
You can’t help being delusional, Brian.
However, by now, you should have realized that no one takes you seriously in this forum. This is evidenced by responses you get like “blah, blah, blah” from anon nurse and others. Then again, proof of a thing outside your imagination is not something you are capable of grasping. You’ve already admitted that no proof that doesn’t match your “imagined model of internalized reality” is going to be sufficient.
That is the very definition of “delusional” – a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.
Again, you can’t help what is wrong with you. But if you want to keep spreading your insane Gospel According to Brian? It’s going to keep getting smacked down time and again as the deluded anti-social nonsense that it is. I don’t care whether you ever believe it or not. Because you still mistake talking at you for talking to you. Talking to a delusional person is useless. Talking around them is to aid in the prevention of others buying into their delusions.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, May 23, 2011 at 10:12 am
Alas, “proof” within your imagined model of internalized reality (apologies to Sartre) is not proof within my imagined model of internalized reality.
I disavow coercive intimidation in every form which comes to my attention as plausibly classifiable as of tyrannical fundamentalism.
Your espoused version of imagined reality, as I can fathom it, is no less of fundamentalist delusion to me than is the version of espoused imagined reality of Richard Dawkins or Brother Camping.
My guide as to how I am properly to live my life is not derived from society nor from any purported social contract or other similar nonsense. My guide is of my conscience; as to whether I find what I am doing will eventually end up being helpful to others (in which instances, I proceed for as long as what I am doing is what I find will be helpful to others) or find it will eventually end up being harmful to others (in which instances I desist).
The contrast between the conduct in the Nazi death camps of many Jehovah’s Witnesses with almost all other branches of purported religion or non-religion informs me that primacy of clear conscience is the best guide anyone may ever have (apologies to the Scientologists).
Internalized beliefs come to me as a simple consequence of my being alive. I distrust all such beliefs because I trust life itself far more than any mental models of life I can possibly imagine.
The dispute resolution system that is not adversarial has been well-described, as, for example, by David Bohm, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett, in the paper I have repeatedly mentioned, “Dialogue – A proposal.” There assuredly is such a dispute resolution system, it works, and I live it.
Fundamentalists commonly confuse imagined sincerity with accuracy of thought.
I am making no effort whatsoever to dismantle or discredit the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence. The system itself is performing that task superbly and needs no help from me.
What I am doing is exploring what may plausibly replace it when humanity is ready, if that ever happens.
There are no sacred teachings in my life experience; nothing is immune from challenge and nothing which results in terrible harm for thousands of years (judgment-making?) is, so I conjecture, going to persist once its nature is sufficiently well understood.
People who have blind faith in the blindness of justice are plausibly blind to the harm acting on such blind faith generates. To such, methinks I may not be completely blind.
Just because you believe in something does not mean that it exists.
My work is not grounded in learning what exists. It is grounded in learning what is imagined to exist that does not actually exist.
“ann coulter says you can be “perfected””
If to be perfected means beng anything like Ann Coulter,
I’ll take my chances with Armageddon.
You can think the adversarial system is a superstition all you like. I’ve proven time and again that it isn’t: it is a societal tool used to varying degrees of success. What you can’t prove is that the adversarial system can be modeled like a virus. Because it can’t. Some of the human notions that can lead to adversity – such as hate, greed and religious intolerance – can be modeled as a virus because they are memes (an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture). The adversarial system is not an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture. It is a construct designed to reduce tyranny by creating systems for disputes between people – people who by the very nature of having a dispute are adverse (a situational effect). The adversarial system is an engineered system designed to reflect the reality of adversity. Comparing the adversarial system to a virus model makes about as much sense as comparing a space shuttle to virus model. You cannot distinguish between cause and effect and that much is readily apparent by your repeated attempts to mis-model a system as a “disease vector” when it is in fact an engineered response to the diseases you seek to address (man’s cruelty to others).
You’re delusional, Brian. It’s not your fault. In the spectrum of autistic behaviors, delusions are not uncommon. You had a bad experience with adversarial process and now you seek to discredit it with the (misapplied) tools at your disposal. Revenge is as base a human motive as there is and you can protest to the contrary all you like but that’s all you’re engaged in is simply a pissing match against a socially engineered system that disappointed you. Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean it does not exist. It just means you don’t believe. And when people believe something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there is a word for that: delusion. Feel free to disbelieve in the true nature of the adversarial system all you like. It will persist despite your vain efforts to dismantle or discredit it. There is no dispute resolution system that is not adversarial, because it is the adverse nature of the parties that creates the dispute in the first place, not the systems designed to address those disputes. The adversarial system is not a cause of the “disease”. It’s a symptom of societies immune responses.
Comments are closed.