Sukhi

i think Jungee's on the right track in terms of the difference between a terrorist and a militant. but at the same time, it all really does just boil down to politics and what someone wants u to think and believe in. who is it who gives us these terms and labels neways? the media, right? and who controls the media...? in most countries, it's the government. so really speaking, it boils down to politics and what they want us to believe and think.

i agree with Pheena. both of them were at fault. but i really think that the son should've stood up for what he believed in. you can't just throw away your life because you don't want to hurt your parents. just like the son didn't wanna hurt his parents, the son should've understood that the parents probably don't wanna hurt him either. and if he had attempted to COMMUNICATE with them, it's possible that they could've seen what he was trying to say. but i distinctly remember something said about attempts at trying to explain why the couple didn't wanna take on the burden of the new house. what i would've done is made my decision and stuck by it regardless of what the parents would have said. i also think that the girl did the right thing in this case. as bad as it sounds, but i think that she's smart to have ended it. if her future husband was unwilling to stand up for himself, then what would've happened in the future? besides that, who in their right minds would've wanted to get into a situation where the parents have a problem with you because of your choice on how you wanna live your life.

Dynamic_Banda... u totally lost me... but in response to jtSingh... although i can't tell u which one comes first because i myself don't know enough to tell you about it, i do believe that the mind and conscience share the same brain from which they function. thus, the same brain that supports lies is gonna have to support truth as well... how reliable is that? i just think one should be a lil cautious about the entire my-conscience-is-right notion. although realistically speaking, i don't think you should totally ignore all thoughts or your conscience, the only place where you can be sure you're getting the truth is from God.

i never believed in the war against iraq... and frankly speaking, i don't believe that this supposed war on terrorism is even about conquering terrorists and makin the world a better place. this apparent war on terrorism started with the 9/11 attacks when Bush decided to take the fight over to Afghanistan. i was shocked at that as it was, and i distinctly remember sayin to my family and friends, "watch him find an excuse to bring the middle east into this, especially Iraq." and what did i see a couple of months later? the Bush administration has set out on a path to bring Iraq under its control. there seemed to be something fishy about the entire thing when the US claims of weapons of mass destruction were reported to be unfounded by UN inspectors. what was even fishier was the way the US pushed forward along with Britain to take matters into their own hands. their bullying techniques, thankfully didn't affect Canada too much and we stayed outta their mission to bring down another enemy. but it just got worse and worse. the Iraqis were crushed under the power struggle between a tyrannical government and a power hungry foreigner. and what do we get today?! the satisfaction of knowing that the Americans and British politicians lied to us, that the UN inspectors were right, that thousands of ppl had to die for some god-forsaken purposes hidden from public view by the governments of two of the world's leading nations. what do we really have today but another place filled with terror and suffering...? human nature really pisses me off sometimes...

ok... as much as i'd like it if i wasn't the one who was gonna get all psychological on u guys... i'm sorry but imma do it... the conscience isn't really a separate thing... if u really think about it... it's not something concretely different from anything else in your mind, regardless of how different it feels. and why do i say that? because the same brain cells that support your negative thoughts are supporting this good thing we call the conscience... and another thing is... goin back to talkin bout subjectivity and whatnot... a lot of us think that things are wrong based on what we learn... and culture is what teaches us what we oughta think is right or wrong... and culture is really subjective.... depending on what culture u're a part of, certain things are gonna seem to be good and true while others are gonna be totally taboo... so this is really subjective... but this isn't to say that absolutes don't exist in the universe... obviously if God exists, then absolutes exist too. but at the same time, are we absolutely sure that the wisest thing would be to rely on something that can deceive us so easily (our mind)?

nicely done! someone give the chile a prize! :thumbsup:

haha! well, it's too bad u thought i had nothing left to say, cuz i do! ok... firstly, i don't agree with introspection because it relies much too heavily on our subjective perspectives. try as hard as we might, we'll never really be able to break free of subjectivity and truly empathize with another being. (and this of course, only applies to normal human beings... i'm not including the Gurus or enlightened souls here...) yeah, i agree, that was a pretty arrogant statement. but i really dislike Descartes, from the bottom of my pitiless heart... ok tha's a lie. i don't have a pitiless heart, but i think you understand that i don't like him. why don't i like him regardless of the fact that he restarted philosophy after the medieval Christian church had basically killed it for about a thousand years? hmmm... possibly because he failed at escaping his solipsist (is that the word i'm lookin for?) position while he was writing his "meditations", he has horrible arguments for the existence of God, and the fact that whereas he believed that introspection is a method to sift through the entirety of a mind's contents, we know from many ppl that there is such a thing as the unconscious (Freud anyone?). so that basically covers why i don't agree with him. my dislike comes from the fact that i had to READ his meditations... *shudders*... next... yes he made assumptions based on logic, but they were still wrong. it's the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. ok, now is where things get interesting. you're gonna tell me that science and math are objective truths. well, here's my question to you. aren't science and math based on perceptual categories? we seem to have this innate taste for grouping things together, to categorize and to see things in a certain way. an example is causation. (and yeah, this comes from Hume...) if you're playing pool and you hit the ball, you assume that the ball is going to cause another ball to move. well, this is perception and assumption for you. what if in the universe, it's just a coincidence that it really doesn't have to happen that way? what if there is no such thing as causation and it's all just up in the air but we just tend to see things in that way? as for relying on a third party for verification of the "objective" truth. it's not possible because your third party (if human or animal) is also subject to these perceptual categories. we all have the same way of thinking... that things have a purpose, things have a cause... and of course your third party will agree with you. but just because you have agreement, it doesn't necessarily mean that you have the truth. and it's absolutely possible that i'm wrong and so is Hume and these aren't just subjective categories that humans all over the world and through time use to view the world and events taking place in it. but this goes into the fact that we can never know for sure that we know is true... and that's possibly why science is forever having to prove itself as true time and time again. ok, moving on... what i'm trying to say is that our perceptual categories prevent us from being objective. but this doesn't mean that the truth is relative. i believe the truth is absolute. it's just that our subjective natures of thinking prevent us from really seeing reality for what it is. but like i said in my previous msg... we all know what Sikhi's answer to that is. and because Sikhi provides a way to know Truth, it becomes possible. the hard part is stayin on the path. as for people becoming completely irrational and illogical when it comes to religion... welcome to human nature... most of us are blind and unquestioning fools, wandering around the cosmos in search of something we're unable to see because of our own misfortune. but luckily, we have Sikhi and a way to rid ourselves of our ignorance.

it would be really appreciated if ppl would stop toyin with the feelings of those of us who know Rena Kaur by spreading rumours... this is a trying time... please understand... if u have some real news, that u can confirm, please do inform us... otherwise... leave those rumours out...

why dun u just google him up?

argh! i've been a hypocrite too! ok... i dun agree with introspection. i think it's stupid, especially descartes. i mean as smart as he is, he totally lost himself because he made too many assumptions. i think that Hume is the only one worth lookin into because he's the only one who really recognized that reality (or truth in this case) is objective, whereas we are subjective creatures and can only see the world through whatever perceptual constructs we already have in our minds. so to answer the question of how to find Truth... it isn't possible. we can't do it, simply because we're bounded by our own thinking. but! (and this is a biggie) i do believe that we all know Sikhi's answer to how we can get to the Truth. need i say more?

i dunno... family and friends...?... hmmm... ... jokes jokes... so u live in browntown? i used to live there too. now i live in the garbage dump city. *laughs* and speakin of toronto... i used to live there too... it was fun, but it was totally gangsta-ish. how the heck r u surviving TheSingh28?

that was nice... i gotta say, it really shows how important BALANCE is in order to be Sikh...

i agree with Shasterkovich... analyzing things philosophically and logically usually leads to the truth. but you need to do it in context of what you're trying to find the truth of. but at the same time, regardless of what you're looking at or trying to discover the truth about, you need to seriously analyze the question.

oh woops... i forgot to intro myself... i'm Sukhi, currently 19, in uni (psyc), from mississauga (tha's in canada, for those of u who dunno)...

if u can agree that lying on a job application is wrong... then this would be wrong too. don't hide ur love for Sikhi or the fact that u're goin to the Gurudwara. if you do lie about it or hide it, u'll let ur parents know that Sikhi isn't something u're willing to fight for in ur life and it'll make ur parents think (if u successfully deceive them, which is also wrong in a way) that u've given up on Sikhi and it isn't important to u. be honest about how u feel about Sikhi and how important it is to you. ur parents will understand on their own that this is something that means a lot to you, and in a way, they'll back off on their own. if they don't, then you need to be patient with them and explain how u feel to them. the sooner you involve ur parents in ur life and let them know how significant Sikhi is to you, the sooner ur life becomes easier and the sooner ur parents respect ur wishes. be strong. stay honest...

so what do u do for that 1 time outta 10 when u do need it...? and if u're askin in terms of Sikhi... i dun think neone supports dishonesty... i distinctly remember bein told a gazillion Sakhis supporting honesty as a principle to live by not to mention shabads... but mebbe i'm wrong...

lying is wrong. especially in this case. if something comes up that he/she should know how to deal with but can't because of their lack of real experience, it'll become apparent that he/she lied, leading to other problems. besides, why would he/she wanna get a job that they didn't get based on their real merits? not to mention all the other bad stuff lying entails... it'd be better for ur friend to stay true to him/herself and get a job the honest way...

if u were willing to marry someone who isn't Sikh, there's nothing wrong with that. the problem would come from whether u were willing to compromise on ur religion. if u r, good for u. if u rn't, good for u as well. ur answer to whether u will compromise on bein a Sikh (and ur partner will compromise on their religion) is gonna affect ur marriage regardless of what u may think at the moment. it will affect u in some way at some point in time, even if u're the least religious Sikh in the world and ur significant other is the least religious whatever in the world. these kindsa things seem to have the ability to sneak up on u, and u'll have to deal with it. personally speaking, i'd think that it would be better to stick to ur own faith as a couple of ppl said. it's easier that way. not to mention all the extreme positions given by a select few as well. but on the other hand, if u believe that u have found the one u were meant to be with... some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.

i agree. Waheguru is the only friend u'll ever need. but at the same time, please don't isolate urself from the world. yes, there are backstabbers. yes, there are ppl who aren't trustworthy. but there's something that can be learned from all our experiences here. just make sure u never let go of what's really important. and tha's Sikhi.

sorry, this is gonna sound stupid... but what's havan? :?