Don't make decisions too soon or be rushed to judgement

[Pinto Girl]

My Dad had this huge library and I happened to get some (but not nearly all) of his books, and one was the "Foundation Trilogy" by Isaac Asimov.

The book was actually three books, "Foundation," "Foundation and Empire," and "Second Foundation." Basically, it was the story of this guy called Harry Seldon and how he was working on a theory of group behaviour.

His hypothesis was that you can't really tell people what to do, but you can 'deflect' the behaviour of the masses if you wait until pivotal moments in time. At that moment, a point of decision is reached; a single course of action emerges from the endless list of alternatives.

I think that might be a good way for us as a country to begin to heal the wounds of divisiveness (sp? or is that even a word?)...simply by choosing *not* to rush to judgement.

I mean, honestly, there are some things, especially certain pressing foreign affairs, which *do* require immediate decisions based upon incomplete information. But other domestic policy decisions, I think, might benefit from a more through public examination.

I think it would be great if we could set aside some of the social and moral desisions we're being called upon to make, in the name of National Unity.

There are lots of things that we *don't* have to take a stand on, I think, at least not right now. We're simply being asked to make too many decisions, too quickly, and then we're stuck with them and lots of ramifications which we never took time to accept or decline, let alone forecast.

This appears to me to be a growing issue of National Security, and one which seemingly is ripe for continued exploitation by our enemies.

[Wildkow]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 7 2006, 10:46 AM) [snapback]345123[/snapback]</div>

My Dad had this huge library and I happened to get some (but not nearly all) of his books, and one was the "Foundation Trilogy" by Isaac Asimov.

The book was actually three books, "Foundation," "Foundation and Empire," and "Second Foundation." Basically, it was the story of this guy called Harry Seldon and how he was working on a theory of group behaviour.

His hypothesis was that you can't really tell people what to do, but you can 'deflect' the behaviour of the masses if you wait until pivotal moments in time. At that moment, a point of decision is reached; a single course of action emerges from the endless list of alternatives.

I think that might be a good way for us as a country to begin to heal the wounds of divisiveness (sp? or is that even a word?)...simply by choosing *not* to rush to judgement.

I mean, honestly, there are some things, especially certain pressing foreign affairs, which *do* require immediate decisions based upon incomplete information. But other domestic policy decisions, I think, might benefit from a more through public examination.

I think it would be great if we could set aside some of the social and moral desisions we're being called upon to make, in the name of National Unity.

There are lots of things that we *don't* have to take a stand on, I think, at least not right now. We're simply being asked to make too many decisions, too quickly, and then we're stuck with them and lots of ramifications which we never took time to accept or decline, let alone forecast.

This appears to me to be a growing issue of National Security, and one which seemingly is ripe for continued exploitation by our enemies.
[/b]

Probably in the top three, of my favorite author's and read's. I shun/avoid as much as possible any discussion about abortion. I wish science/technology would come along that would make abortion moot.

Wildkow

[dragonfly]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 7 2006, 01:58 PM) [snapback]345133[/snapback]</div>

Probably in the top three, of my favorite author's and read's. I shun/avoid as much as possible any discussion about abortion. I wish science/technology would come along that would make abortion moot.

Wildkow
[/b]

It has. Condoms and RU486. Boggles my mind why the Catholics would be against either. Or are they still? I forget.

[Pinto Girl]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 7 2006, 03:26 PM) [snapback]345186[/snapback]</div>

It has. Condoms and RU486. Boggles my mind why the Catholics would be against either. Or are they still? I forget.
[/b]

I can't believe I'm about to write this...but, regarding Catholics and birth control...seems to me that, actually, the abstinence mesage *does* work...if one *follows the teachings.*

Problem is when the 'no birth control' message is pressed upon people (this is different from educating people) who either aren't Catholic, or are Catholic but don't believe in/practice the teachings which surround this message...and which help it make sense from a health standpoint.

[daniel]

Catholics are an odd lot. I've known a surprising number of them who consider themselves good Catholics, but who openly reject papal teachings. I once asked a progressive priest friend of mine about some of the reactionary positions of the former pope. My friend's reply was, "Yes, we've tried, but we just can't get him to see reason." This was a priest, and he declared to anyone who asked that the pope was just plain wrong.

[Wildkow]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 7 2006, 12:26 PM) [snapback]345186[/snapback]</div>

It has. Condoms and RU486. Boggles my mind why the Catholics would be against either. Or are they still? I forget.
[/b]

Hmmmmm, condoms don't always work and RU486 has been impicated in some deaths.

Wildkow

[Alric]

Salvor Hardin, the great Mayor of Terminus, has always been a hero of mine. His motto; "Violence is the last resource....for the incompentent". Much of the world's suffering would be alleviated if we teach this wisdom. Because violence is in the end, a sign of weakness.

[daniel]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 7 2006, 10:37 PM) [snapback]345325[/snapback]</div>

... RU486 has been impicated in some deaths.
[/b]

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/ru486.html

The FDA's warning highlighted the risk of sepsis or blood infection when undergoing medical abortion using the drug in a manner that is not consistent with the approved labeling.[/b]

The 4 or 5 deaths (a number so low it is of questionable statistical significance) resulted from using the medication in a manner "not consistent with the approved labeling."

[nerfer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Nov 7 2006, 01:46 PM) [snapback]345123[/snapback]</div>

:
I mean, honestly, there are some things, especially certain pressing foreign affairs, which *do* require immediate decisions based upon incomplete information. But other domestic policy decisions, I think, might benefit from a more through public examination.

I think it would be great if we could set aside some of the social and moral desisions we're being called upon to make, in the name of National Unity.

There are lots of things that we *don't* have to take a stand on, I think, at least not right now. We're simply being asked to make too many decisions, too quickly, and then we're stuck with them and lots of ramifications which we never took time to accept or decline, let alone forecast.

This appears to me to be a growing issue of National Security, and one which seemingly is ripe for continued exploitation by our enemies.
[/b]

Good point, but when a group of people is calling for a decision, choosing to put that off is still a decision. For some, the reason for the decision comes from the Bible, which won't change and therefore doesn't require gathering more information. My problem with that is, there are many interpretations of the Bible (and other religions which must coexist according to our Constitution), so this can easily create a situation where one dominant religion or even denomination is favored over the others.

Addressing this idea to the other topic in this thread:
If people choose not to have abortions because of their religion, more power to them. Some call this murder, since there may be a heartbeat, etc. But others may feel that a body doesn't have a soul until it takes breath (after all, according to Genesis, God created Adam from dust, then breathed life into him. Jesus "breathed his last" on the cross and his soul departed from him.) So abortion, while perhaps regrettable, is not murder in their eyes, even with Christian beliefs. Our government cannot pick sides between religious interpretations and impose a law on all, including non-Christians.

Back to the point of the books, you could say that Roe v. Wade was the pivotal moment in time, when 9 Supreme Court justices made abortion legal for all women. But really, wasn't it the elections before that, that put the presidents in power that nominated those justices to the Supreme Court? People may have been voting for entirely different purposes, but the effects of those votes lasted well into the future. Some claim the current reduction in crime is due to the availability of abortion - many unwanted children who may have been abused or largely abandoned and gone into a life of crime were instead never born. So you may say you aren't making a decision on that issue yet, but really you're already laying the groundwork for that decision, and its consequences many decades later.

I think rural areas of India and China are going to face big crime problems in the future because of the heavy infanticide and abortion being used to artificially select boys instead of girls (by a 30% margin in some cases). More unattached, young men will grow up and this is the demographic most likely to cause crime, including violent crime towards women. By letting this continue, they're affecting their future negatively for at least a generation.

[Pinto Girl]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Nov 8 2006, 11:50 AM) [snapback]345517[/snapback]</div>

Good point, but when a group of people is calling for a decision, choosing to put that off is still a decision. For some, the reason for the decision comes from the Bible, which won't change and therefore doesn't require gathering more information. My problem with that is, there are many interpretations of the Bible (and other religions which must coexist according to our Constitution), so this can easily create a situation where one dominant religion or even denomination is favored over the others.

Addressing this idea to the other topic in this thread:
If people choose not to have abortions because of their religion, more power to them. Some call this murder, since there may be a heartbeat, etc. But others may feel that a body doesn't have a soul until it takes breath (after all, according to Genesis, God created Adam from dust, then breathed life into him. Jesus "breathed his last" on the cross and his soul departed from him.) So abortion, while perhaps regrettable, is not murder in their eyes, even with Christian beliefs. Our government cannot pick sides between religious interpretations and impose a law on all, including non-Christians.

Back to the point of the books, you could say that Roe v. Wade was the pivotal moment in time, when 9 Supreme Court justices made abortion legal for all women. But really, wasn't it the elections before that, that put the presidents in power that nominated those justices to the Supreme Court? People may have been voting for entirely different purposes, but the effects of those votes lasted well into the future. Some claim the current reduction in crime is due to the availability of abortion - many unwanted children who may have been abused or largely abandoned and gone into a life of crime were instead never born. So you may say you aren't making a decision on that issue yet, but really you're already laying the groundwork for that decision, and its consequences many decades later.

I think rural areas of India and China are going to face big crime problems in the future because of the heavy infanticide and abortion being used to artificially select boys instead of girls (by a 30% margin in some cases). More unattached, young men will grow up and this is the demographic most likely to cause crime, including violent crime towards women. By letting this continue, they're affecting their future negatively for at least a generation.
[/b]

Wow, yes, well put. You're right...I've never thought about it in that way...laying the groundwork for future court decisions by voting for entirely different purposes...fascinating.

Perhaps this desire for us to come to a decision on everything is actually a marketing ploy. Perhaps it's just a way for us to reveal certain biases about ourselves, so political candidates can either be marketed to us more effectively...or, iif we're on the fence or in the 'other' camp, then it's easier to determine that we're not worth marketing to in the first place.

Marketing triage.

I mean, it's easier to market to a polarized group...they're by nature similar to each other and so the messaging will, naturally, be more specific and probably more effective.

As far as making decisions on issues of theology...the reality of it is that all of us different people (even queer ones like me) are already here in the U.S., and it's impossible to make us behave in any one way, let alone make us go away. The genie is out of the bottle; the toothpaste has already been squeezed from the tube.

So why not back off from being so judgemental and embrace the uniqueness that each of us brings to the party...? There's nothing else to be done, really.

It's like, I won't judge you, please don't judge me, and let's just all work together.

Still processing...but judging cause and effect is one of the most difficult things to be done...important that we have a well educated and group-minded citizenry.