Most people? All other people, although I have met quite a few who understand the same concepts that I do. In fact there have been hundreds of books written about stuff like this, some of it philosophical, some metaphysical, some scientific (quantum physics) some spiritual. There are millions who discuss this stuff amongst themselves but few stupid enough to venture onto a public forum like this.;-):lol:
What is the truth?
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
Isn't that what I said, "The truth is only relevant to the beholder." That you don't believe it proves it to be true.;-):lol:
I don't suppose it occurred to you that if the org. was partial to the USA it would have put the USA farther up the ladder?
Anna, it did put USA at No. 3, which is very high. If they put USA at No. 1 it would be too obvious.
A survey of this kind really cannot be done by any one country, there will be accusations of favoritism, it won’t be credible. It needs an impartial organization like UN to do this type of survey. In my opinion, survey by UN is likely to be much more reliable than one carried out by an American organization (who would have a vested interest in promoting tourism to USA).
Anna, it did put USA at No. 3, which is very high. If they put USA at No. 1 it would be too obvious.
A survey of this kind really cannot be done by any one country, there will be accusations of favoritism, it won’t be credible. It needs an impartial organization like UN to do this type of survey. In my opinion, survey by UN is likely to be much more reliable than one carried out by an American organization (who would have a vested interest in promoting tourism to USA).
I think it is more like people avoid the truth because it is too difficult to deal with. Our media is designed to entertain rather than inform precisely because exposure to the whole truth and nothing but the truth would be far too much for them to handle unless they had a firm grip on reality. That seems to be lacking as evidenced by the obsession with diversion. People will much rather read every tiny detail of the life of some bimbo like Paris Hilton rather than look at things that actually affect their lives. They would much rather protest abortion than actually spend time with their own kids. They would much rather get upset about the homeless than actually do something about it. The list is endless.
Balogna. The UN is no more impartial than you are. Your opinion doesn't mean much and neither does your 2008 report because you show NOTHING substantiating it, You have not shown yourself to be an authority on anything here.
As I said before, the one I found had the UN report with Canada as 4th in April THIS year.
"To produce this annual Index we consider, for each of these countries, nine categories: Cost of Living, Culture and Leisure, Economy, Environment, Freedom, Health, Infrastructure, Safety and Risk, and Climate. This involves a lot of number crunching from “official” sources, including government websites, the World Health Organization, and The Economist, to name but a few.
Once the data is collected, we also take into account what our editors from all over the world have to say about our findings. These correspondents and colleagues are working and living in these countries themselves and give us a more realistic view of our official findings. "
"Our sources
We used the following sources to compile the data for our 2009 Quality of Life Index:
UNESCO Statistical Yearbook; Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties; United States Department of Commerce; U.S. State Department; The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention; The Freedom House Survey; Statistical
Abstract of the United States; The World Factbook; The World Almanac and Book of Facts; The World Bank Atlas; Gale Country and World Rankings Reporter; U.S. Department of State Indexes of Living Costs Abroad, Quarters Allowances, and Hardship Differentials; The World Health Organization; UN Statistical Yearbook; The Economist World in Figures. We also used popular newspapers and magazines, such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, National Geographic, Time, and The Economist.
And, of course, we consulted letters from International Living subscribers and remembered the experiences of our contributing editors around the world."
Besides, I think the UN would hardly go as far in depth as these people did because they only look at development factors. There are people living in the bush of South America that are perfectly content with being there and are happy as clams at the beach but they aren't developed.
Quality of Life Index 2009
The UN's methods and focus:
Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
People will much rather read every tiny detail of the life of some bimbo like Paris Hilton rather than look at things that actually affect their lives. They would much rather protest abortion than actually spend time with their own kids. They would much rather get upset about the homeless than actually do something about it. The list is endless.
Quite right, Cliffy. People take the easy way out, all the things you mentioned are easy to do. It is much more interesting to read about Paris Hilton than it is to do hard work, find out how their own lives are affected and then try to improve it. Protesting about abortion is very easy (and satisfying in a self-righteous manner, you get to label your opponents as babe killers and feel good in comparison to them). Getting upset about homeless from an armchair is easy; to do something about it is difficult.
Quite right, Cliffy. People take the easy way out, all the things you mentioned are easy to do. It is much more interesting to read about Paris Hilton than it is to do hard work, find out how their own lives are affected and then try to improve it. Protesting about abortion is very easy (and satisfying in a self-righteous manner, you get to label your opponents as babe killers and feel good in comparison to them). Getting upset about homeless from an armchair is easy; to do something about it is difficult.
As I said before, the one I found had the UN report with Canada as 4th in April THIS year.
Sorry Anna, but you have not posted any link to that effect; the only link you have posted was to year 2000. You have not posted a link to Human Development Factor for 2009 (I don’t think it exists, as yet). The link I posted was put on the web on 22 May 2009 and gives figures for 2008.
human development index - Google Search
So I am not even sure that the figures for 2009 are out yet, they probably will be out next year. I don’t know where you got your information that Canada is No.4, it may be some other study.
Anyway, as I said before, it is quibbling whether Canada is No. 3 or 4, the top countries are very close together, and whether Canada is 1, 2, 3 or 4, doesn’t really matter.
You have only posted the link to the study by the American organization for the year 2009. And in that respect, the following is the crucial sentence.
“Once the data is collected, we also take into account what our editors from all over the world have to say about our findings. These correspondents and colleagues are working and living in these countries themselves and give us a more realistic view of our official findings.”
That tells me that there is plenty of subjective opinion in that study, making it unreliable. As I said, it is natural that a study carried out by an American organization is going to display USA in glowing colours. If they didn’t, they would be accused of being unpatriotic.
I would trust United Nations any day, over an American organization (especially when it tells us what a great place United States is).
Sorry Anna, but you have not posted any link to that effect; the only link you have posted was to year 2000. You have not posted a link to Human Development Factor for 2009 (I don’t think it exists, as yet). The link I posted was put on the web on 22 May 2009 and gives figures for 2008.
human development index - Google Search
So I am not even sure that the figures for 2009 are out yet, they probably will be out next year. I don’t know where you got your information that Canada is No.4, it may be some other study.
Anyway, as I said before, it is quibbling whether Canada is No. 3 or 4, the top countries are very close together, and whether Canada is 1, 2, 3 or 4, doesn’t really matter.
You have only posted the link to the study by the American organization for the year 2009. And in that respect, the following is the crucial sentence.
“Once the data is collected, we also take into account what our editors from all over the world have to say about our findings. These correspondents and colleagues are working and living in these countries themselves and give us a more realistic view of our official findings.”
That tells me that there is plenty of subjective opinion in that study, making it unreliable. As I said, it is natural that a study carried out by an American organization is going to display USA in glowing colours. If they didn’t, they would be accused of being unpatriotic.
I would trust United Nations any day, over an American organization (especially when it tells us what a great place United States is).
Come on Cliffy, don't kid a kidder.
There is only one way to experience reality but many perceptions of it. A perception of reality doesn't have to agree with any other. But only when it does not agree with the truth can it be false.Again you mix up belief and truth. The truth, or reality if you like, is what is. Your interpretation or belief if you like is how you see it.
Seems to me you're assuming what a lot of people think here. Mixed with a little bit of science, you seem to be summing up the who human experience to suit your argument.
You can reinvent everything from the beginning each day if that what you choose to do. But the Wheel is still the Wheel and a one kilogram stone is a one kilogram stone. It doesn't mater how you feel about it, nor anyone else.
Imagination is a wonderful gift.
Perhaps you would have a little bit more credibility if you didn't keep contradicting yourself.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/spirituality-philosophy/84514-ever-take-close-look-10-a.html
Post #159
Do you really know what all the gibberish means and how it has any relevance to today's world? This jibba jab makes as much sense as flushing your bowels out with Draino.
I suppose I could have qualified that with "to me" it makes just as much sense... but when someone says what they believe is true and says it with the authority of god, I forget protocol and speak with the same authority to mirror their tone.
Besides, we all know how you like to nit pick.;-)
Too bad. You don't bother to post links to support your sometimes outrageous claims the vast majority of the time.
Maybe. I don't remember now.
Now you say they are very close together, but in the other thread where we discussed this, it was a significant difference. You sure flipflop a lot.
Yup There's nothing like being in the thick of things as an eye witness to correct mistakes the armchair observer made.
Ah, so you still don't think anyone other than the UN can be objective. Prove that those people I linked to were subjective, bigmouth. You made the claim, you prove it.
lmao I guess you didn't notice that the ones that published what I linked to used info from WHO and a myriad of other sources for their info, UNCLUDING the UN.:roll: You have a very weak argument, Sir Pooter?
Maybe. I don't remember now.
Of course you don’t remember Anna, because you never posted any link. You probably assumed that Canada is No.4, below Australia, or saw some other study and confused it with the human development index.
You don't bother to post links to support your sometimes outrageous claims the vast majority of the time.
Only ‘sometimes’ outrageous, not always outrageous? You surprise me, Anna. And I always post links to substantiate what I say. If I am not sure about something, if I am quoting something from memory, I say so.
Now you say they are very close together, but in the other thread where we discussed this, it was a significant difference. You sure flipflop a lot.
It was nothing of the sort, Anna, I have been consistent throughout. Filpflop is in your mind.
Ah, so you still don't think anyone other than the UN can be objective. Prove that those people I linked to were subjective, bigmouth.
Sorry Anna, I don’t have to prove anything to you. I couldn’t prove anything to a right wing extremist like you anyway. Again, I know (from what you have written so far) you are a US lover, a Canada hater. So it is natural that you consider any study from US (especially one that tells us what a great place United States is) as the Gospel truth.
Unfortunately for you, most people in Canada would believe United Nations over United States. Indeed, I think a great majority of people in the world would believe United Nations over United States, especially when the US organization is trying to tell us what a great place US is.
lmao I guess you didn't notice that the ones that published what I linked to used info from WHO and a myriad of other sources for their info, UNCLUDING the UN
‘Uncluding’? Is that including, or ‘unincluding’, a typo or what? I have showed the subjective element in the study from US organization. Now you may accept that study as the Gospel truth (especially since it tells us what a great place United States is). But again, I would much rather trust UN than trust US.
Of course you don’t remember Anna, because you never posted any link. You probably assumed that Canada is No.4, below Australia, or saw some other study and confused it with the human development index.
You don't bother to post links to support your sometimes outrageous claims the vast majority of the time.
Only ‘sometimes’ outrageous, not always outrageous? You surprise me, Anna. And I always post links to substantiate what I say. If I am not sure about something, if I am quoting something from memory, I say so.
Now you say they are very close together, but in the other thread where we discussed this, it was a significant difference. You sure flipflop a lot.
It was nothing of the sort, Anna, I have been consistent throughout. Filpflop is in your mind.
Ah, so you still don't think anyone other than the UN can be objective. Prove that those people I linked to were subjective, bigmouth.
Sorry Anna, I don’t have to prove anything to you. I couldn’t prove anything to a right wing extremist like you anyway. Again, I know (from what you have written so far) you are a US lover, a Canada hater. So it is natural that you consider any study from US (especially one that tells us what a great place United States is) as the Gospel truth.
Unfortunately for you, most people in Canada would believe United Nations over United States. Indeed, I think a great majority of people in the world would believe United Nations over United States, especially when the US organization is trying to tell us what a great place US is.
lmao I guess you didn't notice that the ones that published what I linked to used info from WHO and a myriad of other sources for their info, UNCLUDING the UN
‘Uncluding’? Is that including, or ‘unincluding’, a typo or what? I have showed the subjective element in the study from US organization. Now you may accept that study as the Gospel truth (especially since it tells us what a great place United States is). But again, I would much rather trust UN than trust US.
Idiot. I don't remember where I got the info from. Having comprehension problems, are you?
You post supporting info? You claimed that people aren't humans until after they exit the womb and you stated science was of the same opinion. You sure didn't back that up with any supporting info. So again, you are lying.
Yup. What I read does go through my mind. You flipflopping is an observation made after seeing you flipflop many times since I have been at CC
You won't prove it because you can't prove it. :roll: It isn't that I hate Canada, I just don't have the same rosy viewpoint of it that you obviously do, Comrade Lenin.
Why would that be unfortunate for me? I already know the sheeple in Canada (and the USA, for that matter) keep voting in the same parties of duds at election times.
lol Look at the context of the sentece, silly. You should be able to figure out that it was a typo. But then, this is you, so I shouldn't expect very much sense. The "u" key is right next to the "i" key. It is nowhere near the "n" key. Half the letters on this keyboard are rubbed off. You add it up.
And it doesn't really matter about whether they are objective, subjective, injective, adjective, or whatever -jective you want to attach to it. Would you like to know why it doesn't matter? I hinted at it a few times.
Oh, heck with it, a study on development and a study on quality of life are two different subjects, that's why. lmao
Last edited:
Would you like to know why it doesn't matter? I hinted at it a few times.
Oh, heck with it, a study on development and a study on quality of life are two different subjects, that's why. Lmao
I agree that the two are not exactly the same thing, but they are close enough. And if you post an impartial, unbiased study of the quality of life in various countries, that will certainly carry some value.
Unfortunately, such a study by an American organization, which tells us that US is No. 3 in the world, just doesn’t cut it, isn’t credible.
In the absence of an impartial study on quality of life, the one on human development will do.
Oh, heck with it, a study on development and a study on quality of life are two different subjects, that's why. Lmao
I agree that the two are not exactly the same thing, but they are close enough. And if you post an impartial, unbiased study of the quality of life in various countries, that will certainly carry some value.
Unfortunately, such a study by an American organization, which tells us that US is No. 3 in the world, just doesn’t cut it, isn’t credible.
In the absence of an impartial study on quality of life, the one on human development will do.
roflmao
Show how they are close. I already mentioned about the tribe in South America that remains undeveloped and yet the people are quite content. Those types of people would be at the bottom of the UN's list. But they wouldn't be at the bottom in the quality of life index.
Loke I said, you won't prove the study was subjective because you can't. And their lack of credibility is only in your funny little mind.
In the words of Bugs Bunny, "Ah, whatta maroon". lmao
Show how they are close. I already mentioned about the tribe in South America that remains undeveloped and yet the people are quite content. Those types of people would be at the bottom of the UN's list. But they wouldn't be at the bottom in the quality of life index.
Loke I said, you won't prove the study was subjective because you can't. And their lack of credibility is only in your funny little mind.
:roll:Yeah, those look like the same aspects of study alrighty. roflmao
In the words of Bugs Bunny, "Ah, whatta maroon". lmao
Last edited:
It's funny how I always get accused of nitpicking when I shine the spotlight on hypocrisy....probably because many don't see hypocrisy as all that important.
Depends on the degree of hypocrisy, doesn't it? I could say I don't think people should drink grapefruit juice while I drink it myself. That'd be hypocritical. Then I could be adamantly against any kind of death penalty and turn around and shoot someone. That would also be hypocritical.
Everyone's a hypocrite in some way. Some are just worse than others. lol
Anyway, I think truth is subjective and relative.
Everyone's a hypocrite in some way. Some are just worse than others. lol
Anyway, I think truth is subjective and relative.
liberalman
Truth cannot be accumulated ore stored in your mind and/or soul. What is accumulated is always being destroyed; it withers away. Truth can never wither because it can only be found from moment to moment in every thought, in every relationship, in every word, in every gesture, in a smile, in tears. And if you and I can find that and live it- the very living is the finding of it- then you will not become propagandists; you will be creative human beings- not perfect human beings, but creative human beings, which is vastly different.
Truth cannot be accumulated ore stored in your mind and/or soul. What is accumulated is always being destroyed; it withers away. Truth can never wither because it can only be found from moment to moment in every thought, in every relationship, in every word, in every gesture, in a smile, in tears. And if you and I can find that and live it- the very living is the finding of it- then you will not become propagandists; you will be creative human beings- not perfect human beings, but creative human beings, which is vastly different.
What is truth...............?To seek truth is to deny it; truth has no fixed abode. Is God to be found by seeking him out? Can you search after the unknowable? To find, you must know what you are seeking. If you seek to find, what you find will be a self-projection; it will be what you desire, and the creation of desire is not truth. To seek truth is to deny it. Truth has no fixed abode; there is no path, no guide to it, and the word is not truth. Is truth to be found in a particular setting, in a special climate, among certain people? Is it here and not there? Is that one the guide to truth and not another? Is there a guide at all? When truth is sought, what is found can only come out of ignorance, for the search itself is born of ignorance. You cannot search out reality: you must cease for reality to be ....Think it out for yourself.
You wax poetic, my friend and you come closer than most others to understanding the essence of truth. The truth will be recognized when it appears in your life, or is it appears in your life when you recognize it? It certainly cannot be contained in books not can it be taught. One might recognize it if the mind is free of preconceived notions and ideas, if it is unfettered by dogmas and beliefs. It can only flow in a mind that is open to it. It can never be observed by a mind trapped in the box of the status quo. Glimpsed maybe but not seen.