The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy

The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy has been going around for quite a while. It represents an idea that creates much opposition from the extreme ends of the spectrum. On one side you have the people who want to place limitations on recent events affecting society, or even past events. On the other you have people who do not want any limitations on those aspects of society affected by the events. Both can be right or wrong, depending on which side you are standing.

The Poisonous M&Ms Analogy goes something like this.
Someone says that you can have a whole bag of M&Ms, not a small bag, but the big party bag with 1000 M&Ms in it, but warns you that 1% of them are poisoned. Do you want to still have the free bag of M&Ms? (the actual scenario used 10%, but I feel that's much too high)

The analogy usually refers to something that is certainly meant to stir the emotions when it is referring to a minority of ideologies, like race, religion, ethnicity or any other defining notion.

There's the side believes that treating them all as suspect is validated by not wanting to eat an M&M from a bag were some of them are poisonous. The other side believes it can be used to prop up any kind of harmful stereotype about groups, such as genders, ethnicities, religious and political communities without having to engage the objections to unfair generalizations.

So we should just do away with all of the laws we've made in the past because they are unfair to people who want to commit a crime against innocent people.

The bottom line is this.
We have laws for a reason and the underlying reason is that a minutely small number of a given population has performed an unjust act on the rest of the population with something harmful, like death, in the beginning. It escalated to other less offensive acts that may not have killed anyone, but hurt the physically or financially. If we knew who they were, we wouldn't need the law, but they are hidden among us and acting like us and society is forced be reactive instead of proactive.

Now we are back to the Poisonous M&M Analogy. What if half of the poisonous ones were green, but only about 40% of them. Now you could throw out all of the green ones, but still have .5% poisonous, that’s about 4 out of say 800.

Here's the part they didn't tell you. If you do eat one of the poisonous ones, everyone standing next to you would also die and everyone within 10 feet of you would end up in the hospital, kind of like a virus. Now you have the bag of M&Ms, what do you do with them?

Of course all of the Skittles are free to eat, but what about the green ones?

DON'T BE BLUE

Have we learned nothing about the damned Human Race?

excerpts from a Mark Twain essay - 1905

Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning.
In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.

Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scottish Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping.

Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh–not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.


Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven.
He was at it in the time of the Caesars, he was at it in Mahomet’s time, he was at it in the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France for a couple of centuries, he was at it in England in Mary’s day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light.................. he is at it today, in Crete, occasioned by the battles between Christians and Muslims.

He will be at it somewhere else tomorrow. The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.


Who is the Higher Life Form?
The difference between an man and an animal is that the man is cruel and the animal isn’t; and that the man wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the animal doesn’t. This seemed to suggest that the animal was not descended from the man. It also seemed to suggest that the man was descended from the animal and had lost a great deal in the translation.
There is this difference between man and the higher animals: he is avaricious and miserly, they are not.
Among the animals man is the only one that harbors insults and injuries, broods over them, waits till a chance offers, then takes revenge. The passion of revenge is unknown to the higher animals.


Roosters keep harems, but it is by consent of their concubines; therefore no harm is done. Men keep harems, but it is by brute force, privileged by atrocious laws which the other sex were allowed no hand in making. In this matter man occupies a far lower place than the rooster.


Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity–these are strictly confined to man; he invented them. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them. They hide nothing; they are not ashamed.  Man is the only animal that blushes.

Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals.
The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses, except to obtain food. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and with calm pulse to exterminate his kind. Animals are territorial and will gather in mass to expell an intruder, but the animals will abandon the task once the intruder has left. Man will continue beyound his territory to hunt them down for no good reason.


Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country–takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him.
Man is the only Slave. And he is the only animal who enslaves. He has always been a slave in one form or another, and has always held other slaves in bondage under him in one way or another, for wages, service, nobility or ancestry.


Man is the only animal with the "Moral Sense". The ability to distinguish good from evil; and with it, necessarily, the ability to do evil; for there can be no evil act without the presence of consciousness of it in the doer of it. And man will try to explain it away as an animal instinct or an insaine act like an animal who doesn't know right from wrong.


So....It obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that the theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals.


The Damned Human Race – Mark Twain Essay, published in 1905
http://www.zengardner.com/the-damned-human-race-mark-twain-essay/
DON'T BE BLUE

to the United States Congress

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil ------- is for good men to do nothing."

- Edmund Burke, among others.

The Mathematics of Religion: One God, but whose?

Updated 3/31/2017

The Mathematics of Religion

.....between religion and arithmetic, other things are not equal. You use arithmetic, but you are religious. Arithmetic of course enters into your nature, so far as that nature involves a multiplicity of things. But it is there as a necessary condition, and not as a transforming agency. 

No one is invariably "justified" by his faith in the multiplication table. But in some sense or other, justification is the basis of all religion. Your character is developed according to your faith. This is the primary religious truth from which no one can escape. Religion is force of belief cleansing the inward parts. For this reason the primary religious virtue is sincerity, a penetrating sincerity.

In the long run your character and your conduct of life depend upon your intimate convictions. Life is an internal fact for its own sake, before it is an external fact relating itself to others.

Religion is the art and the theory of the internal life and strife of man, so far as it depends on the man himself and on what is permanent in the nature of things. But all collective emotions leave untouched the awful ultimate fact, which is the human being, consciously alone with itself, for its own sake.

Religion is what the individual does with his own solitariness. It runs through three stages, if it evolves to its final satisfaction. It is the transition from God the void to God the enemy, and from God the enemy to God the companion. Thus religion is solitariness; and if you are never solitary, you are never religious. Collective enthusiasms, revivals, institutions, houses of worship, rituals, religious tomes, and codes of religious behavior, are the trappings of religion, in its passing forms.

Accordingly, what should emerge from religion is individual worth of character. But worth is positive or negative, good or bad. Religion is by no means necessarily good. It may be very evil. The fact of evil, interwoven with the texture of the world, shows that in the nature of things there remains effectiveness for degradation. In some the religious experience the God with whom you have made terms, may be the God of destruction, the God who leaves in his wake the loss of the greater reality. 

For those that say, "God is everywhere, all around us." Your God, nor mine, may not be everywhere.
He was not in that café in Kabul that was just blown up by a terrorist, at least not my God!
He was not in that store or building that was terrorized by some crazed person with a gun that shot those innocent people, at least not my God.


Do you believe in GOD!
A question that frequently emerges from people who are deeply religious, but unfortunately what they are really referring to is..............Do you believe in THEIR God?
Believing in God is, in the long run, not as important as living your life as if you believed in God and even more importantly extolling the attributes of a good, kind, and just God.


When asked that question I usually would reply, which God is that? Is your God a tolerant God? Does your God say that only those who follow your religion, will be welcome into Heaven, and there are many religions? Will your God accept everyone who lives their life not only in acceptance of other's beliefs but also condemning people who practice evil in the name of God?


If you believe in God, then you must believe in Satan, the God of evil. Where God is the semblance of creating order out of chaos, Satan is the opposite, striving to create chaos out of order. Those who practice harm to innocent people, in the name of God, are worshiping Satan.


All religious leaders need to take a stand against Satan's followers. Any terrorist who wages war for their god has fallen away from the teachings of their church, synagogue or mosque and is now in league with Satan, the god of evil, the god of hate.


Pity the Atheist, which they vehemently deny is also their religion, Atheism, but it speaks to the act of being tolerant of others beliefs, which Atheists are not. They say they only believe in science. They are so arrogant that they say they would not believe in God if he came down and stood before them. Otherwise you're just an agnostic, in wolf's clothing.


Atheists have no history of being or doing good or living your life as a person who rejects evil for the sake of being a good, kind, and just person. They force their beliefs upon others, just as all religions do, but demand you denounce what goodness any religion preaches. If they were tolerant of others, they would not be so demanding and they would be encouraging goodness over evil.




In considering religion, we should not be obsessed by the idea of its necessary goodness. This is a dangerous delusion. The point to notice is its transcendent importance; and the fact of this importance is abundantly made evident by the appeal to history. All religions have defectors that still claim allegiance to their religion, be they Christian or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Mormon or whatever. The deeper they go into harming not only those outside their religion, in the name of God, but even those believers in the same religion, the closer they come to actually worshiping Satan. Satan worshipers revel in dominating the many by the few.




So ask yourself again, WHO IS MY GOD!

You are the sum total of all you have experienced, learned, thought, felt, believed and acted upon. 
What you are -- is inside of you, influenced by external forces, both good and bad. 
You are -- what you believe, based on who taught you and how you interpreted their ideology. 

My God lives and can only live, inside of me, guiding me.

Excerpts from:

Religion in the Making by Alfred North Whitehead (1926)

http://alfrednorthwhitehead.wwwhubs.com/ritm1.htm

Suggested reading:

The Psychological Origin and the Nature of Religion by James H. Leuba

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39511/39511.txt

 DON'T BE BLUE 

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil and the one-eyed monkey.

Updated 3/31/2017

 

Golda Meir got it wrong.
 Only because of the basic prejudice of the Jews vs Arabs mentality, when she said in 1957, "We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."

It should have been,
"We will only have peace with the Muslims when they love their children more than they hate non-Muslims."


Not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arabs. Most of all, not all Muslims are the same.
The tolerant majority are just that, tolerant, but the fundamentalists hate not only other Muslims, the extremists hate everyone.



Terrorism, like any other hateful prejudice, from the KKK to Louis Farrakhan´s Black Muslim's to Hamas and Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda and now ISIS and Boko Haram, and the newly formed Black KKK, and their ilk, should be dealt with by force, since force is the only language they speak. These terrorists are the cannibalistic kind, it's as if they eat their young, when they use them as human bombs and practice polygamy, so they can make more human bombs. It's no wonder they treat women worse than cattle.



The 2011 bombings in Moscow were a precursor of things to come in Europe and therefore destined to happen in America, if we continue on the road to socialism and "political correctness" infesting our politicians. There is no place for "political correctness" in a war on terrorism. Whereas it may be thought of as politically incorrect to put all members of any group in the same category as those in the group that are true terrorists, you MUST start somewhere since they will not police themselves. Let them sort it out when they complain that they are not terrorists, and prove it to the world by exposing their own terrorists within their ranks.



The place to start would logically be with the leaders of the group, except when the leaders can not truly lead because the followers will not except their leadership. Whether it's the religious leaders or the political leaders, the truth is that Islam is more about politics than it is about religion. It's also more about being afraid to allow their own people to come out of the Middle Ages and into the modern moralistic world.


Politics and religion are so intertwined that they can not be separated and the leaders are so powerless, they can not change it. Sadly and more important is that they don't want to change it because then they will lose their power and grip on their own people.


Islamic fundamentalists still rule by fear and the fear mongers are the fanatical religious leaders that hide in the shadows of evil and worship Satan, but call him Allah.


All religious leaders need to take a stand against Satan's followers.
Any terrorist who wages war for their God has fallen away from the teachings of their church, synagogue or mosque and is now in league with Satan, the god of evil, the god of hate.







DON'T BE BLUE
(Holding my breath)