How Far Should we Question Things?

[sandmoth12]

Because I am a science major, it is frequently implied to me that I should question everything. After all, some of the more influential discoveries in the past were due to great scientists rejecting the norm and questioning the knowledge of their time. In one of Albert Einsteins quotes he says "The important thing is not to stop questioning," even the science channel today has quite a few commercials stating that people should "question everything." But how far should we question things? Is there a limit? Should certain things not be questioned? If a person grew up very poor and had no control over it, then does that give them the right to steal from the rich? Should we question things like this because from the point of view of the poor person stealing from the rich is fair, and if it was not, then we would not have stories like Robin Hood or Bonnie and Clyde. Yet we generally view Robin Hood as a good guy. How far can questioning things go before it is too far?

Is there some universal line were all people should stop questioning things?

[Catta]

I question your need for attention seeing as you made two of your usual threads within 8 minutes of each other.

[Deleted]

You have already made this thread before, more than once in fact.

[sandmoth12]

I question your need for attention seeing as you made two of your usual threads within 8 minutes of each other.

I question your contribution to the thread.

[Deleted]

I question your contribution to the thread.

And I guess he's questioning your contribution to the forums by creating threads like this again and again.

[Adam Jensen]

Questioning things does not mean setting out and plundering the rich. It only means to question when it is acceptable to plunder the rich.

It's always acceptable to plunder the rich.

[mikeakanice]

There is a difference between questioning things and just being against one side. Lets take the Boston bombings for example. As soon as it happened people like Alex Jones and others even on this forum were screaming inside job to take away civil liberties. People also like to scream that the big media companies in today are worthless. They then go and show some small news site and claim they actually have the facts. When realistically I don't know how that small news site has any credentials for being factually correct other than they aren't one of the big "news companies".

PS. I know I could have written that better


Oh, and I see the op has the anonymous trademark as his profile pic. Yea, I'm sure this guy isn't bias.

[sandmoth12]

There is a difference between questioning things and just being against one side. Lets take the Boston bombings for example. As soon as it happened people like Alex Jones and others even on this forum were screaming inside job to take away civil liberties. People also like to scream that the big media companies in today are worthless. They then go and show some small news site and claim they actually have the facts. When realistically I don't know how that small news site has any credentials for being factually correct other than they aren't one of the big "news companies".

PS. I know I could have written that better


Oh, and I see the op has the anonymous trademark as his profile pic. Yea, I'm sure this guy isn't bias.

Were the Boston bombing appropriate? From an Islamic extremists point of view Americans are fat, spoiled rich kids on the block, and they deserved to be bombed. Now I do not personally believe in this, but I can see how it makes sense through an extremists eyes. By doing this I am questioning something that maybe should not be questioned.

Now, of course, everyone is going to say the Boston bombing were plain wrong, and should not be rationalized. But this illustrates when questioning stuff can go too far.

[Deleted]

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.

René Descartes

Are you a real seeker after truth?

[sandmoth12]

René Descartes

Are you a real seeker after truth?

Truth is frequently not near as pretty as a lie.

[Raiju]

Were the Boston bombing appropriate? From an Islamic extremists point of view Americans are fat, spoiled rich kids on the block, and they deserved to be bombed. Now I do not personally believe in this, but I can see how it makes sense through an extremists eyes. By doing this I am questioning the whether violence is valid or not.

Now, of course, everyone is going to say the Boston bombing were plain wrong, and should not be rationalized. But this illustrates when questioning stuff can go too far.

No, people are going to say that it's ridiculous that you are assuming extremists believe people should be bombed because they are fat, spoiled, and rich. It's what they perceive of your actions that would make them want to bomb you, not your weight in 99% of cases.

Wealth can be a source of envy, but once again I don't see how bombing ties in well with it in most cases. More like theft.

[Deleted]

Truth is frequently not near as pretty as a lie.

And that's why people lie :P
But you can't escape from truth.

[nightmarez]

Were the Boston bombing appropriate? From an Islamic extremists point of view Americans are fat, spoiled rich kids on the block, and they deserved to be bombed. Now I do not personally believe in this, but I can see how it makes sense through an extremists eyes. By doing this I am questioning something that maybe should not be questioned.

Now, of course, everyone is going to say the Boston bombing were plain wrong, and should not be rationalized. But this illustrates when questioning stuff can go too far.

wtf are you saying bombing anyone is bad.
islam does not teach anything about terrorism it's against it.
those fake muslims are just giving real muslims bad name.

[mikeakanice]

Were the Boston bombing appropriate? From an Islamic extremists point of view Americans are fat, spoiled rich kids on the block, and they deserved to be bombed. Now I do not personally believe in this, but I can see how it makes sense through an extremists eyes. By doing this I am questioning something that maybe should not be questioned.

Now, of course, everyone is going to say the Boston bombing were plain wrong, and should not be rationalized. But this illustrates when questioning stuff can go too far.

That had nothing to do with my post and its like you didn't read any of it and tried to dodge my points.

[Reeve]

This is a carbon copy of another thread you made a few months ago. I didn't click on this one initially because I thought it was a necro. I'm sad to see I was mistaken.

[Gheld]

Why ask useless questions?
How deep is the ocean? How high is the sky?

Who is John Galt?

[Reeve]

Who is John Galt?[/I]

That'd fit better in the other Sandmoth thread open right now.

[Gheld]

That'd fit better in the other Sandmoth thread open right now.

It would actually fit better in the railroad thread. It fits in this thread though because some questions are completely useless, some on a situational basis and others absolutely so.

[Orlong]

I dont believe ANYTHING unless it can be 100% proven to be true with no possible alternatives

[Radux]

This exact thread was created and closed a month ago. Please don't recreate them.

Locked.