It was Holocaust denial, an accusation in which Jews have fabricated evidence and testimony that Nazis murdered millions of Jews. It is hate speech because it attributes extreme injustice to Jews.Originally Posted by The Rani
I could see that that thread was going to be trouble. The reality of the Holocaust is settled.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Moralism, Truth, Justice and the American Way
OK... I confess to having a problem with this one. I mean, you are usually inarticulate, but this one is a real mess. If you are being home schooled, you should perhaps consider public schools. Public schools would also give you an opportunity to learn how to interact with people your own age.
You did use a couple of Big Words which might be talked about, though.
Truth: Different people determine truth in different ways. If various people attempt to find truth using entirely different methods, they reach different results. For some, Truth can only be found by reading the Bible. Anything that conflicts with the literal interpretation of the Bible is thus False. They will casually, automatically and without remorse throw away information that conflicts.
Others learn primarily from observing the world. If one can repeatedly observe something in nature or perform a reliable repeatable experiment, one finds Truth. If such empirical Truth conflicts with the Bible, well, the verses in conflict are considered allegorical. They might very well still contain moral Truth or reflect period cultural perspectives, but can't be considered true in a physical scientific sense or a historical sense.
Others seek Truth from partisan political magazines, web sites and talk shows. This seems strange to those with reality based world views. Partisan sources are... well... partisan. The editors and writers are often making a profit by telling conservatives what they want to hear. Sometimes they are advocating for political candidates or pushing the agenda of contributors. At any rate, their version of Truth is antithetical to empirical or scientific Truth. They are not the same thing. Quoting partisan political sources in order to contradict scientific journals or similar empirical scientific sources of information tends not to move those who care about empirical truth at all. Rather than quote obviously partisan information sources, you might as well spew schoolyard taunts, obscenities and racial slurs. None of those approaches will move those interested in empirical truth. All you will achieve is diminishing your already negligible credibility. Still, you should understand that your idea of Truth from partisan sources isn't shared by those with other world views and values.
The opposite of 'Truth' would of course be 'lies'. Your world view seems twisted by the idea that those who tell you something you don't want to hear must be lying sexual deviants. In a forum like this, much of the discussion is about comparing and contrasting world views and values. All one can do is exchange words. There is nothing to be won or lost other than through helping people understand one's perspective, and occasionally even changing someone else's perspective.
What is to be gained by lying? What is more precious to an intellectually active individual than how they perceive the Truth? You will not get far if your quest is to find out why we are lying to you. In general, we aren't. We care deeply about the world and are being forthright about how we perceive the world. If you cannot comprehend that those who disagree with you are sincere and deeply committed to their values, you are a sad excuse for a humanoid indeed.
Well, there are trolls. Trolls are generally miserable excuses for humanoids who find pleasure in sharing their misery. One cannot assume trolls value Truth or share their true world views. Trolls would be a major exception to the notion that most of us are being sincere.
Moralism vs Truth. OK. I'm familiar with Judeo-Christian morality. One of the basics is "Thou shalt not kill." A simple moral principle. How does one balance morality with reality? One reads human history. Armies march and contest with one another regularly. Police officers carry handguns. The reality is that the moral principle just does not work for humans in an absolute universal sense. Conflict is an inherent part of the human condition.
There are many and varied systems of human morality. If one is in a wishful thinking mode, it would be nice if people followed one or another of these codes of behavior. Still, when one is talking about how human cultures really work, one has to grow beyond the wishful thinking and spew expletives phase.
There might be more worth talking about in your incoherent rant above, but if so I can't seem to parse it.
Truth ordinarily allows different approaches that get the same results. A good journalistic standard is to require at least two different, independent sources for a news item. That is why scientists rely upon double-blind tests. If one wishes to determine that a sample of a mysterious powder contains such illicit substances as heroin, it is best to have the powder tested in at least two different laboratories.
That's a good way too see it. Scientific truth and moral truth do not depend upon each other. Science can tell us what sulfuric acid does to flesh. Morality tells us that inflicting upon people what sulfuric acid does to live flesh is wrong. The Bible says nothing about sulfuric acid, which did not come into general knowledge until the Bible was compiled. The Bible says nothing about sneaking arsenic into food, either.Others learn primarily from observing the world. If one can repeatedly observe something in nature or perform a reliable repeatable experiment, one finds Truth. If such empirical Truth conflicts with the Bible, well, the verses in conflict are considered allegorical. They might very well still contain moral Truth or reflect period cultural perspectives, but can't be considered true in a physical scientific sense or a historical sense.
FoX and MSNBC are both largely analysis of the news. They usually have opposite views on any political issue. Someone like Rachel Maddow is clearly to the Left -- but she tells people to consult such scientific material as is available in the mass media, and ideally peer-reviewed scientific material (the latter, unfortunately for me, isn't so accessible; I would need library privileges at a college). I would go with peer-reviewed journals if I could, and if I did have access to them I would understand them.Others seek Truth from partisan political magazines, web sites and talk shows. This seems strange to those with reality based world views. Partisan sources are... well... partisan. The editors and writers are often making a profit by telling conservatives what they want to hear. Sometimes they are advocating for political candidates or pushing the agenda of contributors. At any rate, their version of Truth is antithetical to empirical or scientific Truth. They are not the same thing. Quoting partisan political sources in order to contradict scientific journals or similar empirical scientific sources of information tends not to move those who care about empirical truth at all. Rather than quote obviously partisan information sources, you might as well spew schoolyard taunts, obscenities and racial slurs. None of those approaches will move those interested in empirical truth. All you will achieve is diminishing your already negligible credibility. Still, you should understand that your idea of Truth from partisan sources isn't shared by those with other world views and values.
Sexual deviance is independent of political beliefs, formal education, ethnicity, etc. It correlates only to itself. It is evil; if one has the temptation to indulge it one must resist it. But we must resist our tendencies to steal, don't we?The opposite of 'Truth' would of course be 'lies'. (The) world view (of Apollonian) seems twisted by the idea that those who tell (him) something (he) don't want to hear must be lying sexual deviants. In a forum like this, much of the discussion is about comparing and contrasting world views and values. All one can do is exchange words. There is nothing to be won or lost other than through helping people understand one's perspective, and occasionally even changing someone else's perspective.
Global warming that results from human choices has human choices for stopping it -- and consequences for failure to stop it. For those who deny the consequences some of us choose to make those consequences explicit. Rising shorelines, inundation of prime farmland, and expansion of deserts in mid-latitude areas are bad consequences. For those who trivialize the consequences, some of us try to show what global warming can do to destroy the security that many of us presume. There is more to global warming than that winters will be less severe -- like crop failures.
I think we have someone with little ability to trust others. Distrustful people are especially vulnerable to swindlers, contrary to what one might expect. After some of the riots of the 1960s, hustlers appeared with cheap watches in jewelry cases with exaggerated price tags. Those watches had allegedly been stolen from jewelers during the riots and were being sold as "steals". So one could get a $275 watch for $20. Wow!(to apollonian) What is to be gained by lying? What is more precious to an intellectually active individual than how they perceive the Truth? You will not get far if your quest is to find out why we are lying to you. In general, we aren't. We care deeply about the world and are being forthright about how we perceive the world. If you cannot comprehend that those who disagree with you are sincere and deeply committed to their values, you are a sad excuse for a humanoid indeed.
Except that the watch was worth next to nothing. The victim soon finds that the watch is nearly worthless, and soon complains about being ripped off. But what can one expect from a (it rhymes with trigger)? Honest people aren't looking for 'steals'. They recognize the need for profit in normal transactions. Maybe not monopoly profits, but enough to allow merchants and manufacturers the sorts of livings that allow them to transact business.
Like Holocaust denial, denial of global warming is a crooked hustle. "A" has fallen for both, and he faults people for not accepting them. He imputes moral faults since the people that he defends have huge grievances that must be salved if his buddies are to be protected. Thus he attacks.
Maybe they think intellectual irresponsibility 'fun'. How would I know? They do not play by the normal rules of intellectual give-and-take.Well, there are trolls. Trolls are generally miserable excuses for humanoids who find pleasure in sharing their misery. One cannot assume trolls value Truth or share their true world views. Trolls would be a major exception to the notion that most of us are being sincere.
"Thou shalt not kill" has an implicit corollary in "Allow no pointless, preventable death". It is generally assumed that someone doing great bodily harm has lost his usual right to assume the continuity of his life. So if I confront someone raping a child and I have deadly force as my sole means of stopping an overt crime, I have may have the constructive right to kill the rapist who fails to stop and desist. With war, there is no obvious answer except to avoid sneak attacks and wars intended to enslave and pillage -- and to leave non-combatants alone. The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials established that leaders can go too far in war.Moralism vs Truth. OK. I'm familiar with Judeo-Christian morality. One of the basics is "Thou shalt not kill." A simple moral principle. How does one balance morality with reality? One reads human history. Armies march and contest with one another regularly. Police officers carry handguns. The reality is that the moral principle just does not work for humans in an absolute universal sense. Conflict is an inherent part of the human condition.
Murder, kidnapping, rape, torture, theft, perjury, etc. have been universal anathemas irrespective of the culture. Cultures that tolerate those have poor records of survival. Drug trafficking, child abuse, environmental degradation, and drunk driving are new anathemas. Maybe we will evolve to see economic exploitation as another "Thou shalt not"... or at least as a corollary of "Thou shalt not steal". But that could as easily be Buddhist as... Protestant fundamentalist.There are many and varied systems of human morality. If one is in a wishful thinking mode, it would be nice if people followed one or another of these codes of behavior. Still, when one is talking about how human cultures really work, one has to grow beyond the wishful thinking and spew expletives phase.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
And I don't think I was alone in that; both options got more than one vote.
What Really Happened!
What Really Happened!
But don't just stop with climate change article. The site weighs in on just about every conspiracy theory you'd care to hear about, or would if anyone here cared for conspiracy theories. Also, the real story behind Obama's birth certificate! Exciting stuff for the reality challenged! Learn what sort of garbage messed up Apollo's mind!
Make sure your anti-virus software is up to date.
Apollo? You do know that advertising your fondness for conspiracy theories isn't going to win you any credibility?
Ramblings
Oh, wow. That's a serious complement, a promotion. Most think the Anti-Christ will be / has been a pope. I don't really think I am worthy, but if I am truly the antithesis of your world view, I consider this a high complement.
You do realize that "Truth exists because Christ says so" is a faith based argument, an argument from authority. Most would consider climate science to be in the realm of empirical knowledge, thus faith based perspectives would be irrelevant.
The strongest stand the Bible takes on climate change had 40 days and 40 nights of rain flooding the world, then the flood receding very rapidly. Not plausible.
If your idea of Truth is an ad-hoc mixture of the Bible, partisan propaganda and What Really Happened, we are not going to agree on what things are or are not True. Our world views are just simply incompatible.
As an idea of how incompatible, I'll quote a few paragraphs from a recent article on Real Climate, my primary source for keeping up to date on climate science. From Rossby waves and surface weather extremes...
While the technobabble is pretty thick, the principles behind the above have been discussed on this thread. With the arctic and antarctic heating faster than the rest of the globe, west to east flowing jet stream winds are flowing slower and with more north-south excursions. Thus, weather patterns have been stalling, holding in place, leaving the areas beneath them hit by extreme and persistent weather patterns. The Real Climate post combines culling of data bases with modeling to confirm the idea.
The Old Testament of the Bible is very much the core of Judaism. Without that core there would be no Christianity.
Again, if you consider What Really Happened to be an authoritative source of Truth, our world views and ideas of Truth are utterly and completely incompatible. You do have your rich fantasy life. Within your dream world, sure, you can delude yourself into thinking you have proved this thing or that. Just don't expect those with empirical world views to take your fantasies seriously.
With regard to Global Warming, I am more concerned with empirical truth than moral truth. Given your scorn of empirical truth, I doubt you can understand this. Anyway, your thesis is very much wrong.
I consider the highest value for Christianity to be love, love for God, and love for one's fellow man. At least as the Catholic nuns taught it, these were Jesus's two greatest commandments, to love your God with your whole heart, your whole mind and your whole soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself. This is another concept that I doubt you can understand. Nothing in your posts suggest you value love highly. Thus, you would be utterly unable to comprehend true Christianity.
You don't follow the Jesus of the Bible, but Jesus the Bigot. So long as you speak from hatred as a matter of course, and speak through love never, how can your views on Jesus, Judea-Christianity and the Bible be taken seriously?
I am jealous. I consider myself to be his antithesis.
Wannabe Antithesis?
Maybe we could do tag team antitheses?
I thought that it was Hitler. Or was it Stalin? Whatever.
Exactly. Although science is one of the least authoritarian of enterprises it has its rules for discerning truth from falsehood. It speaks rarely in absolute certainty, but it has more lasting authority than just about anything else because it self-corrects. Irreproducible results don't count. Personality does not matter except in educational efforts (in either incarnation of Cosmos, Carl Sagan and Neil de Grasse Tyson both used showmanship for educational purposes. Teachers can learn something from that). Science at most offers a level of certainty."Truth exists because Christ says so" is a faith based argument, an argument from authority. Most would consider climate science to be in the realm of empirical knowledge, thus faith based perspectives would be irrelevant.
Indeed, ridiculously impossible. Noah would have had to have circumnavigated the Earth to collect the animals and done so just to drop them off where they belong -- polar bears in the Arctic and penguins in the Antarctic. Nothing was said about fresh-water fish and amphibians, so Noah would have needed to build and install a freshwater aquarium with the technologies of glass-making and metalworking not at his disposal. Most significantly, the falling rain would have been boiling-hot due to the heat released as vapor condenses as a liquid; it would have scalded Noah, his family, and his menagerie.The strongest stand the Bible takes on climate change had 40 days and 40 nights of rain flooding the world, then the flood receding very rapidly. Not plausible.
I had to search for What Really Happened to know what that was about. It's awful.If your idea of Truth is an ad-hoc mixture of the Bible, partisan propaganda and What Really Happened, we are not going to agree on what things are or are not True. Our world views are just simply incompatible.
Caution about global warming implies hedging against the worst.As an idea of how incompatible, I'll quote a few paragraphs from a recent article on Real Climate, my primary source for keeping up to date on climate science. From Rossby waves and surface weather extremes...
While the technobabble is pretty thick, the principles behind the above have been discussed on this thread. With the arctic and antarctic heating faster than the rest of the globe, west to east flowing jet stream winds are flowing slower and with more north-south excursions. Thus, weather patterns have been stalling, holding in place, leaving the areas beneath them hit by extreme and persistent weather patterns. The Real Climate post combines culling of data bases with modeling to confirm the idea.
In my experience Jews are good people as a whole. There are rogues and sociopaths -- but most seem to be rebels from Judaism.The Old Testament of the Bible is very much the core of Judaism. Without that core there would be no Christianity.
Someone with a rich fantasy life or who can simulate one could have a great income off a new equivalent of the Harry Potter or Alice in Wonderland series. Really good fantasy fiction meets human needs. But nobody pretends that Harry Potter is anything other than fiction. Of course it is wise to keep the story 'family friendly'. Reality can be extremely nasty, as History has shown. Oh, excuse me -- apollonian probably tells us that such horrors as Nazi physicians doing vivisection on live patients and Nazi guards having dogs attack live prisoners as if the dogs were lions or hyenas preying upon wildebeest didn't happen.Again, if you (apollonian) consider What Really Happened to be an authoritative source of Truth, our world views and ideas of Truth are utterly and completely incompatible. You do have your rich fantasy life. Within your dream world, sure, you can delude yourself into thinking you have proved this thing or that. Just don't expect those with empirical world views to take your fantasies seriously.
Rational tests of reliable fact exist. Those preclude presentation as fact that George Washington was a mythical character or that the Loch Ness monster is real. Maybe one can have a fantasy world in which the Holocaust does not happen.
Part of moral truth is that one respond rationally to reality even if one uses an irrational method to get an innovative solution. One needs justify one's response with rationality. Global warming, if genuine, has moral consequences. One can deny what sulfuric acid does to flesh or what arsenic or cyanide does to cellular metabolism -- but the legal system might not be so sympathetic to someone who inflicts those upon people. Rationality now precludes prosecutions for witchcraft.With regard to Global Warming, I am more concerned with empirical truth than moral truth. Given ... scorn (by "A") of empirical truth, I doubt (he) can understand this. Anyway, (his) thesis is very much wrong.
Or Judaism, which he sees only as a malign conspiracy. But let us remember that in the most demonic social order that ever existed, those Christians who still remembered that love for humanity was the essence of Christianity were among those compelled to resist Hitler at great risk to their lives and such slight freedom as was allowed to the 'privileged' Aryan. Caught for their resistance, some exposed the moral depravity of the Third Reich by condemning the cruelty and injustice of the order. Some would be beheaded; some would be executed by hanging on piano wire, a method not so swift as beheading but instead intended to impose a prolonged agony as under crucifixion.I consider the highest value for Christianity to be love, love for God, and love for one's fellow man. At least as the Catholic nuns taught it, these were Jesus's two greatest commandments, to love your God with your whole heart, your whole mind and your whole soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself. This is another concept that I doubt ("A") can understand. Nothing in (his) posts suggest (that he) value(s) love highly. Thus, (he) would be utterly unable to comprehend true Christianity.
It is up to us as moral actors to see injustice and cruelty as consummately disgusting even if they might serve some social ends. Moral choices are the difference between Martin Luther King and Adolf Hitler -- or some unnamed and unknown victims of Stalin and Stalin himself. It is also the difference between on the one side the Jews Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner and the cross-burning fascists of Mississippi who murdered those two for challenging white domination of Mississippi blacks.
(As for the corrupt High Priests of Jesus' time -- they were quislings (pardon the blatant anachronism) of their Roman overlords. In return for telling people to obey the Romans to the extent that did not imply an overt violation of Jewish practice they got to let the Romans do some dirty work against personal rivals and dissidents. Jesus was far more credible than the puppet leaders that the Romans selected for the pretense of local authority -- and those puppet leaders wanted Him dead. They got their way on Jesus. If the Romans had had any wisdom they would have seen Him as no threat as His appeal was entirely spiritual).
There is no Jesus the Bigot any more than there is a Gandhi the militarist or Vaclav Havel the Commie stooge.(to "A")
You don't follow the Jesus of the Bible, but Jesus the Bigot. So long as you speak from hatred as a matter of course, and speak through love never, how can your views on Jesus, Judea-Christianity and the Bible be taken seriously?
Heck, I prayed for "A" after all else failed. Prayer failed.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
You still have that opinion, after I so kindly corrected you?
Discussion and even argument is not "squashing."
I hope I have garnered the most apollonian insults. It's always great to be #1.2. Part of what bothers the "typical liberals" on this forum is your repeated insults (yet I note that they don't seem bothered when people who share their views hurl similar types of insults.)
He is a bother because he is driving some honest posters away. People don't like spam.
Way out there, without any tether to reality; all the more so, since he claims to be a "realist."3. To me, a lot of what you post seems way out there (i.e. the ass of the blind man's elephant.)
No, it's not. The holocaust is known directly by witnesses and evidence. The USA's record is not stellar either, but it's also entirely irrelevant to that issue.4. I did learn something from your posts about "holocaust denial," which isn't "denial" at all but rather saying that the claims were exaggerated. Given our government's tendency to vilify our enemies, to justify our bombing the living shit out of those enemies, I think that's entirely possible.
No, silly, I voted for the option that now has 3 votes.
Since, I assume, if you have some sense or reasoning ability, I have corrected those "opinions," then I don't need to screw myself, ho ho ho.
And yes, I am God. And so are you; hu hu hu
Another reference that you should be aware of, but are not. Xers; what can I say? You guys are out of the loop.
You can't threaten someone's opinions with nothing. Therefore, Apollonian threatens no-one's opinions.You haven't corrected those opinions, which of course means that I have no sense or reasoning ability.
Basically, I'm a dumb whore who deserves to be slowly strangled to death by my own patients.
Can you follow that reasoning OK?
If not, then the proof seems to be, that you are afraid to admit being wrong, rather than that brower or anyone else is afraid of a spammer's opinion.
And as I pointed out, playdude makes coherent points and arguments and backs them up; the spammer does not, but makes only insults.(Which reminds me, playdude actually did call Danilynn a whore a while back, and nobody said squat about it.)
You're not a whore, ho ho ho, but you do have a problem in admitting your mistakes. Not that you are alone in that (my revision of the Seinfeld saying).
Thank you for showing due respect to your superior in reasoning ability. Ho ho ho
Yeah, man, I'm a dumb whore who always insists that I'm right, even when I'm wrong. Thanks for helping me figure that one out, your holiness! (((bows)))
I expect you will remain just as detached when the spammer starts insulting you too. ho ho ho
If memory serves, Vince offerred and you grabbed the name after ditching the prior Witcheepoo, and Xer of Evil before that. You can imply motivations not seen ... or not.
Then again, you might just this guy amusing. If so, carry on.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Biblical Hate and Changing World Views
Never mind the Talmud, just go to the Old Testament Bible, holy to all three great western monotheistic religions. Pardon if I paraphrase...
Behold, here is the Land of Milk and Honey. Go into this land. Kill the men. Rape the women. The offspring shall be slaves for several generations.
I read the Bible as a historical document. The culture of the Jews changed over the years. The early books featured a God that wasn't nice at all, a God of war, vengeance and violence, equally ready to punish or destroy his people's enemies or his people themselves. He mellowed out quite a bit by the time the Jews had been conquered and taken as slaves a few times. Still, even in Roman times, many of the Jews weren't looking for someone to save their souls and teach them love. They were looking for a warlord that would throw off Roman rule.
Most modern Christians and Jews sort of blur over that part of the Bible. The words of Jesus and other more recent prophets are held to over ride the kill the men and rape the women ethos. There are other not so nice parts. Justice was eye for an eye. Homosexuality was condemned. While the whole Bible is often held up as the Word of God, a lot of folk read it selectively, have to read it selectively. In a post Enlightenment post Civil Rights era world, some parts of the Bible are held to be more holy than others.
I would prefer to agree that there is no "Christ the Bigot," that there is no room for hate in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Still, if one is looking for hate, one can find it. Too many modern conservative fundamentalist (so called) Christians do find it. Christ the Bigot does exist in Apollo's fantasy world, but also in the world views of many modern neanderthals. Apollo might state it crudely. He might attribute hate to modern Jews while expressing hate himself, somehow ignoring the hypocrisy. But the hate is there. Apollo isn't alone.
It's one of the reasons I call myself a devout agnostic, why I put Enlightenment philosophy over Judeo-Christian religion. I cannot read the Bible as absolutely True and totally divinely inspired. It contradicts itself too much. One has to selectively pick and choose which parts one will emphasize over the others.
Apollo chooses to emphasize very different parts than I chose. My emphasis?
And now abides faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
In my Bible, hate and truth don't even make the top three.
Credibility
As a first throw the dirty underwear against the wall and see what sticks definition...
Credibility might correlate to how close two people's worlds views are to one another. As an example, anyone who follows Christ-the-Bigot and reads What Really Happened as a source of factual information would think you have a lot of credibility. Those who have noticed that the arctic is melting, the Antarctic is melting, Greenland is melting, the lower Himalayan glaciers are melting, most other glaciers are melting, Mount Kilimanjaro is melting...
Well, not so much.
I'm from the South, remember? I'm supposed to be used to ignorant as hell redneck idiots and sit back like a good little bitch until told to heel and sit by the menfolk. Oh, and because I'm from the South it is perfectly acceptable to call us anything and everything. Is the thought process I have seen here.
Besides I'm sure I have been called much worse by a way better class of individual.
As for the Eric and Apolloian thing, my guess is Eric isn't used to such a rabid attack that continues unabated even in the face of repeated over and over repetitions. And it has really gotten to him.
While it is nasty on any number of levels, I'm starting to think of this as particularly dirty comedy. Once you reach that level Rani, and accept that, it becomes amusing.
Last edited by Danilynn; 07-14-2014 at 06:03 PM.
If one is reading the New Testament or following most any establishment church, correct. I could only wish I could proclaim you absolutely and totally correct from the perspective of all world views.
He does exist in Apollo's fantasy world, and in the minds of others vaguely similar to Apollo. One might question how Christ the Bigot got there, but one should not deny evils which do exist.
While I can respect and admire the attempt, in a technical sort of philosophical sense the prayer might be considered improper. Humans are given free will. They are free to choose between good and evil, love and hate, salvation and damnation. It is not God's place to force such a decision. No matter how sincere your request, how true your motivation, it would be improper for your request to be granted.
It would be up to Apollo to save himself.
New guy is certainly ruffling the feathers of the local rooster society. Truly remarkable to watch the insanity being brought out. In some respects I have to give Apollian props for pissing all over their cheerios for a change. Even if the hint of insanity is rivaling katsung, it's impressive.You got it.
My favorite was pbrower saying "I'll pray for you" and the "pray for yourself, fuckface" (paraphrased) response. Comedy gold.
Even though I didn't say anything at the time (no point bothering with playdude, in my opinion) I want you to know that I found his comments about you "servicing" others in the military to be absolutely disgusting, misogynistic, vile garbage.
Aww, Apollonian, that's sweet. I have never been called a liberal before. Ask anyone else, just ask Eric, they will all tell you I am a rabid republican evil whore of a southern girl.
But that's sweet. calling me a liberal and making me feel like I fit in with the others on this forum in their ultra special clique.
Thank you.
But for the insanity, trying to reason, talk to or even debate anything with Eric is the insanity.
consider him background noise and carry on.....
Comedy gold.
embrace it. and much like everything else it becomes amusing. Like people watching, through a forum....
climates change. that's what they do. And as for the rest of the quote, if you ask Eric that's what he will say about me.
As for Jewish people, I don't know any personally. I live in the South, now Baptists, yeah I know a lot of those.
I wouldn't begin to assume who controls either party, I'm just not sure it's the citizens. After all if voting did anything useful, they wouldn't let us do it.
Besides, I live in an area dotted with hundreds of 6x6x6 reasons marked with names as reminders of what happens if you dare cross the Feds. All circa 1861-1865. A few of those 6x6x6 contain my family members.
More to the point, again from the south, a place that existed in Great Depression style life from 1865 until the 1960s/70s. We believe in storing up against the bad things and being prepared and self sufficient. And most of all avoiding the government's wrath.
Last edited by Danilynn; 07-14-2014 at 07:35 PM.
Welcome
Well, I wouldn't use precisely those words, but you're welcome if you want to be.
