TED Community » Paul Kirhagis

Comments

• TEDCred score: +2.80 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A comment on Conversation: Where do organized religions go wrong?

  Jan 12 2013: When i think of religion I believe it is a conduit for people to channel something that is innately part of their humanity. Fancy words for the idea that people feel spirituality on a most fundamental level then find something to help them connect to it and the world around them.
  
  Do you think that the leaders who were the spearheads for the religious atrocities across the centuries were true believers and, if so, would we chalk up their actions to their individual insanity or to the organization itself?

• A reply on Conversation: Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?

  Jan 11 2013: I would have to agree with your reasoning here. The only thing is, and I may be in the "uneducated public opinion" group here, hasn't the past shown us that, given too much power, fallible men will use any advantage they may have over the masses to further their own ends? My thought here is that we know, from history, that governments and those in power are easily corrupted by power. Our forefathers knew this ugly side of human nature and built in safeguards to our governments (checks and balances) and the constitution as a whole.
  
  I'm assuming you would agree with me and I would then want to pose a question in response to your post....
  
  Knowing what we know about the nature of government and those in power, do we cede power (i.e. the ability of the government to disarm its constituents) and have faith that our government has not proven (yet) that they are willing to to turn on it's us?
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Which is more important, to do right or to do good?

  Jan 11 2013: We think (too much. that is one of our problems)
  
  I would suggest we don't think enough. It's too common for people to act without thinking, which then leads to habitual behavior that leads to many of the problems we encounter on a daily basis. Thinking critically is a necessity and a responsibility.

• A reply on Conversation: Where do organized religions go wrong?

  Jan 11 2013: Do you think this is a function of a group survival instinct?
• +2

  A comment on Conversation: Can you define your life in just six words?

  Jan 11 2013: In the womb of Knowledge, Reborn.
• +2

  A reply on Conversation: Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended?

  Jan 11 2013: "Suggest there is a different dynamic between an individual being armed and better able to protect themselves in a specific threatening situation, and then looking society wide. Guns may help in individual situations, but overall having numerically more, and more powerful weapons around would seem to make people less safe overall."
  
  There is absolutely nothing to support this statement in any SCIENTIFIC analysis of data. Its comments such as this that really skew an uneducated public opinion in the wrong direction. Posing an argument in such a way that sounds like it "makes sense" without any data or research to support the statement.
  
  I could just as easily say that the more citizens who are armed in a society deters criminals because they know that there is a better chance of encountering an armed citizen and therefore it would seem that more guns would seem to make people more safe.
  
  Seems to "make sense" and supports the opposite side of the argument but in reality no one knows how the number of guns affects violence or crime.
  
  Point is it's easy to make arguments by being a wordsmith, but making arguments willy nilly without having any backup is not useful and is, in fact,, counterproductive to coming to any meaningful resolution. People get mired down in arguments that can't be won by either side and nothing ever sees a resolution.
  
  edit: This is why the media and lobbyists on either side cannot be trusted as sources. The do this ALL THE TIME.

• A reply on Conversation: Should US laws have expiration dates?

  Jan 10 2013: I believe that was the topic of discussion for this conversation.

• A reply on Conversation: The laughable debate about the USA national debt.... Part one

  Jan 10 2013: Completely agree, but people have to first be made aware then taught to think critically about there behaviors....that's why ted is awesome :)

• A reply on Conversation: Should US laws have expiration dates?

  Jan 10 2013: Maybe societal norms was not the best phrasing that I could have used. My thought is that the review of laws at required intervals will address problems that arise due to society advancing faster then those laws.
  
  Also reviewing law would serve to show holes or areas of law that are necessary and are not currently on the books. My initial thought was regarding prescription pain pill abuse. The law is seriously lacking in proper punishments for people that abuse such substances. Just one example of how a review of law could serve to bring that law more in line with the times.
  
  As an aside, I disagree that right and wrong is a black and white concept that "enlightened" men and women should be able to write legislation regarding any issue with no problems. The grey area between right and wrong is often seriously difficult to navigate and when legislators inevitably get it wrong sometimes (they are human after all) it's not an issue of incompetence, its an issue of their own humanity. This applies to voters as well. A review of the law as society evolves will serve to revisit some of these issues and allow congress to reconsider their previous actions. I think this would serve the nation quite well.

• A reply on Conversation: Should US laws have expiration dates?

  Jan 10 2013: Isn't this done intermittently? I'm not aware of a comprehensive required review that happens at any regular intervals.