new topic:

why do people assimilate words like this?

i know i've got a big problem with quickly skimming / speed reading and sometimes misconstruing words / sentences. i'm just damn impatient !

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is
taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a
toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we
do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

quote:

Originally posted by tathi new topic: why do people assimilate words like this? i know i've got a big problem with quickly skimming / speed reading and sometimes misconstruing words / sentences. i'm just damn impatient ! Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

Interesting, the only word I couldn't decipher instantly was "iprmoetnt", and that's the only one you've misspelled it with an e instead of a. And change your nick to tahti, now I keep getting confused when I see tathi

___________________
1+1=10

lol i didn't write that, i also got stuck on iprmoetnt i thought it said impotent

i've been practicing speed reading lately, it's awesome

it's funny how when you finally realised my nick is differnet you get confused, subconsciously you are thinking tahiti or whatever and consciouly you think wtf thats wrong

quote:

Originally posted by tathi new topic: why do people assimilate words like this? i know i've got a big problem with quickly skimming / speed reading and sometimes misconstruing words / sentences. i'm just damn impatient !

i got the same problem... probably worse if i read a word a bit (or much) wrong first time, i will read it in the wrong way until someone tells me otherwise. sometimes it is really embarasing :S sometimes i also misses some known words that i have seen many times before and mess up texts and so :S donno if it is that i am impatiant or if it is some kind of light dyslexia

english is your second language though right?

it's definately not dyslexia, you probably read alot quicker than most people because you skim

quote:

Originally posted by tathi english is your second language though right?

yeah, but it happends in swedish too, not that often tho.

quote:

it's definately not dyslexia, you probably read alot quicker than most people because you skim

yeah that is probably why... i'm not 100% sure tho... is there any online tests for that?

Well first off before i dip my spoon in this bowl,

Let me say, I think this man is not a good parent.

1) He obviously not only oppressed his ideals on his daughter but tried to change they entire system of the pledge for the entire country.
He, as an atheist goes the same route as any other nonbeliever does which is to oppress/force, His beliefs on others.
Argument for religious people goes the same way. But, the fact of the matter is it was set in stone in the 1950s and why change it anymore. Live with it.
Lets do a reverse scenario: The pledge did not contain the phrase ," under God" in it during this era. Some religious individual tries to impose the phrase in it , will the nation let him?

It all depends honestly, given the circumstances during the 1950s I believe we all get the feeling that the phrase has been with us for a long time already that changing it will cause an uproar.
1950s= post war, communism ---All reasons for the change..to unify a nation not looking at the differences between each other but rather looking at the nation of the us entirely and looking for unification.


2004= one guy looking for selfish goals to be achieved...doesnt look at the big picture but personal/group gains.
I suspect that as a country we're not really ready to take the step of altering the pledge.

2) I honestly believe all the money and time he has invested in this case could have been used wisely in his daughter who im assuming doesnt give a shit and just wants her dad to be there to parent her while he was busy talking with attorneys etc


But for someone who's worried about the way our culture treats atheists, I think there are much, much bigger fish to fry.

Many have argued that the 1950s was only a mere 50 yrs ago and it can be changed. Well,
regardless of when the "Under God" phrase was put into the Pledge, this phrase represents an unbroken concept since the founding of this country. This country was founded on deep religious principle. Though this nation is hardly perfect, the backbone of our society has been an unwielding faith in the creator, God. The sole reason our country is as successful, civil and just as it is, though imperfect, is due to a construct of law based on faith. Anyone who seeks to see what a nation without law built on faith is like, will witness the greatest horrors mankind has ever known. China, Soviet Russia, Nazism, Communism, Fascism -- all founded on principles of man rather than God.

The majority of Americans support the Pledge with "Under God." The majority of Americans believe in some sort of Creator. Those on the radical left who seek to destroy the principles this country was founded on constitute a well-funded minority backed by the popular press. "Under God" is in no way an endorsement of a particular religion, it is an endorsement of the very truths this country was founded.

So lets just respect the ones who implemented it

Last edited by speedracer_mec on Jun-29-2004 at 01:54

Thanks, Speed.

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec Well first off before i dip my spoon in this bowl, Let me say, I think this man is not a good parent. 1) He obviously not only oppressed his ideals on his daughter but tried to change they entire system of the pledge for the entire country.

So are the parents who are sending their children to sunday school opressing their ideals on their kids? Why, using your logic, yes they are!

quote:

He, as an atheist goes the same route as any other nonbeliever does which is to oppress/force, His beliefs on others. Argument for religious people goes the same way. But, the fact of the matter is it was set in stone in the 1950s and why change it anymore. Live with it. Lets do a reverse scenario: The pledge did not contain the phrase ," under God" in it during this era. Some religious individual tries to impose the phrase in it , will the nation let him?

He is not forcing his beliefs upon others, he is merely asking that other people's beliefs do not be forced upon him, which is a big difference.

quote:

Many have argued that the 1950s was only a mere 50 yrs ago and it can be changed. Well, regardless of when the "Under God" phrase was put into the Pledge, this phrase represents an unbroken concept since the founding of this country. This country was founded on deep religious principle. Though this nation is hardly perfect, the backbone of our society has been an unwielding faith in the creator, God. The sole reason our country is as successful, civil and just as it is, though imperfect, is due to a construct of law based on faith.

Really? Why then was the phrase "under god" not inserted in the original pledge? How can it reflect an unbroken concept since the founding of the country if it didn't exist during the foundation and was introduced 200 years later? Because the country was not founded on deep religious principle, it was founded on secularism and humanism. Unfortunately, it seems this didn't reflect the general wishes of the population.

quote:

Anyone who seeks to see what a nation without law built on faith is like, will witness the greatest horrors mankind has ever known. China, Soviet Russia, Nazism, Communism, Fascism -- all founded on principles of man rather than God.

Are you trying to say that all the secular regimes are bad? Let's remind you, secular regimes include all the western democracies. Faith in the creator is not the backbone of american socity, it is not the backbone of any western democracy. The backbone of western societies is secularism and equality. Regimes who rely upon faith are theocracies. Such regimes exist or have existed in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, midieval European countries and many ancient ones. Infact such regimes have historically caused some of the most grievious crimes against humanity. The thing that is great about America and that made it different from other countries back in 1776 is that it is a country based on freedom, equality, and separation of the church and state. Unfortunately, it was populated by a large amount of fundamentalists which were chased away from Europe when Europeans started to realize those elements were bad for the society.

quote:

The majority of Americans support the Pledge with "Under God." The majority of Americans believe in some sort of Creator. Those on the radical left who seek to destroy the principles this country was founded on constitute a well-funded minority backed by the popular press. "Under God" is in no way an endorsement of a particular religion, it is an endorsement of the very truths this country was founded.

It is irrelevant what the majority of Americans believe. 20 years ago majority of americans didn't believe in evolution, but that's not good enough reason to keep it out of schools. Under god is an endorsement of christianity, or Abrahamic religions if you want to be more specific, because other religions are polytheistic and believe in different gods. If it was to endorse other religions, it should have said under gods.

___________________
1+1=10

thanks, tito.