INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Al Swearegen on July 14, 2016, 06:51:24 PM
-
Dozens, if not hundred, killed in a very rare hardly ever happens, furniture attack? No? Because it was another radicalised Muslim extremist attack. Becoming too common and with people like Open all too ready to minimise it's regularity, cause or damage.
RIP Paris. Sorry you have had to endure this new tragedy
-
Furniture attack??
-
Furniture attack??
Odeon tried telling me how little threat Radicalised Muslims pose and said falling furniture poses a bigger risk.
-
Oh, ok.
Another point that needs to be made is that now we need to consider bans on assault trucks.
These trucks are more dangerous than other trucks because they can be used to kill dozens of people at a time.
We need to limit the size of their gas tanks and fit them with locomotive style "cow catchers" to prevent future mass killings. :tard:
-
Oh, ok.
Another point that needs to be made is that now we need to consider bans on assault trucks.
These trucks are more dangerous than other trucks because they can be used to kill dozens of people at a time.
We need to limit the size of their gas tanks and fit them with locomotive style "cow catchers" to prevent future mass killings. :tard:
It seems French gun laws and explosives control laws may have played a part
-
Oh, ok.
Another point that needs to be made is that now we need to consider bans on assault trucks.
These trucks are more dangerous than other trucks because they can be used to kill dozens of people at a time.
We need to limit the size of their gas tanks and fit them with locomotive style "cow catchers" to prevent future mass killings. :tard:
That funny bar on the back of big trucks is called a Mansfield Bar. It was required after Jayne Mansfield died in a car crash when the car she was riding in drove under a tractor trailer. It brings the point of impact down to the engine rather than the passenger's heads.
-
Al,
You are an idiot.
That is all.
-
Al,
You are an idiot.
That is all.
Come on Odeon, is there a threat or is there not. Is it a significant threat or is it not? Will gun laws change that threat or minimise radical Muslim extremists? You think that talk of falling furniture risk is somehow comparable to regular incidences of radicalised Muslim immigrant extremism?
How long ago was Orlando? 100 then, 100 now, and next time how many?
Is it minimal? Contained? Infrequent? Under control? Predictable? When exactly will the next one occur and how many people will it claim?
No, Odeon. IF ANYONE IS an idiot, it would have to be you. You for dismissing the incidences of radicalised Muslim terrorism. You for trying to intimate that gun control would help this. You for comparing the effect and risk of Radicalised Muslim extremism with falling furniture. You for thinking that anyone suggesting improving vetting systems to reduce these radicalised Muslim extremists from coming into their country is wrong to do so and thinking that freezing Muslim immigration whilst they improve their vetting system to prevent these radicalised Muslim extremists from coming in is bigoted.
You would also be a bigot for pretty much the same reason for saying I was a bigot for agreeing in principle with an idea along those lines and for those reasons.
-
Oh, ok.
Another point that needs to be made is that now we need to consider bans on assault trucks.
These trucks are more dangerous than other trucks because they can be used to kill dozens of people at a time.
We need to limit the size of their gas tanks and fit them with locomotive style "cow catchers" to prevent future mass killings. :tard:
That funny bar on the back of big trucks is called a Mansfield Bar. It was required after Jayne Mansfield died in a car crash when the car she was riding in drove under a tractor trailer. It brings the point of impact down to the engine rather than the passenger's heads.
:thumbup:
This thread is now about Jane Masnfield's bewbs.
(https://thethoughtexperiment.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/mansfield-promises-1.jpg)
-
https://youtu.be/GJv_kTSptyQ
-
Al,
You are an idiot.
That is all.
Come on Odeon, is there a threat or is there not. Is it a significant threat or is it not? Will gun laws change that threat or minimise radical Muslim extremists? You think that talk of falling furniture risk is somehow comparable to regular incidences of radicalised Muslim immigrant extremism?
How long ago was Orlando? 100 then, 100 now, and next time how many?
Is it minimal? Contained? Infrequent? Under control? Predictable? When exactly will the next one occur and how many people will it claim?
No, Odeon. IF ANYONE IS an idiot, it would have to be you. You for dismissing the incidences of radicalised Muslim terrorism. You for trying to intimate that gun control would help this. You for comparing the effect and risk of Radicalised Muslim extremism with falling furniture. You for thinking that anyone suggesting improving vetting systems to reduce these radicalised Muslim extremists from coming into their country is wrong to do so and thinking that freezing Muslim immigration whilst they improve their vetting system to prevent these radicalised Muslim extremists from coming in is bigoted.
You would also be a bigot for pretty much the same reason for saying I was a bigot for agreeing in principle with an idea along those lines and for those reasons.
You are an idiot, Al, an idiot and a bigot. Stopping Muslims at the borders would have been ineffective in both cases, both Orlando and Nice (not Paris, though, but never mind, I'm sure they seem to be really close from where you are). I'm sure blaming Muslims will sway the idiots, just as blaming Jews did a couple of years ago and still does, but it wouldn't help. For one thing, the perpetrators in both cases here were nationals so you could be stopping any number of Muslims and still look like the idiot and bigot you are when the murders happened.
In fact, you still have to present proof for a ban to work. Any proof. Numbers, ideas, anything...? Don't be shy.
You keep suggesting that I'm ignoring the dangers posed by radicalised Muslims. I am not, and I challenge you to prove me wrong. What I have been saying is that banning Muslims at the US borders is stupid, bigoted and ineffective. I'm saying now as I have been saying all along that blaming 22% of the world'd population for the actions of a few fanatics is bigoted, counterproductive and stupid. And yes, I have compared the danger of falling victim to a terrorist attack in the US with that of furniture-related deaths, with the latter being greater, but those are not my numbers. Do a quick Google search and you'll find out.
The reason for the furniture comparison (and it's a valid one; the numbers do check out) was to try to put some sense into you and your moronic ideas. You want to handle what basically is a gun problem (not a Muslim immigration problem) with banning Muslims from entering the US, something that is not based in any sort of research or reality. There is NOTHING to suggest it would help anything, and I challenge you to prove me wrong. It is, however, bigoted to blame the religion for the actions of a few, and while you might not like being called a bigot, it's well within the definition.
You say the FBI are monitoring a thousand (you started with 900 but whatever) potential groups or individuals. How many nutcases with guns do you suppose they are they missing out on? Nationals who can buy the equipment they need legally and then kill gays, police officers or just some kids and teachers at a school? Remind me, how many gun-related homicides are there in the US every year?
900? 1000?
And none of the above means "ignore the radicalised nutcases". It means "don't be a stupid bigoted idiot, try something that can actually make a difference."
Yes, the terrorists are getting to be more visible and yes, something needs to be done. Actually, a lot needs to be done, including the FBI improving its vetting procedures, but I would look at the numbers and take care of the obvious stuff first.
-
And yes, I did say I would stop responding to your idiocy, but then the tragedy in Nice happened and you tried to use it to push for your bigotry, and that's just not going to happen.
-
And yes, I did say I would stop responding to your idiocy, but then the tragedy in Nice happened and you tried to use it to push for your bigotry, and that's just not going to happen.
Indeed I AM going to promote my ideas on here AND that IS going to happen. They are NOT bigoted. So you struck out twice. Let's look at what you just wrote though.
-
Al,
You are an idiot.
That is all.
Come on Odeon, is there a threat or is there not. Is it a significant threat or is it not? Will gun laws change that threat or minimise radical Muslim extremists? You think that talk of falling furniture risk is somehow comparable to regular incidences of radicalised Muslim immigrant extremism?
How long ago was Orlando? 100 then, 100 now, and next time how many?
Is it minimal? Contained? Infrequent? Under control? Predictable? When exactly will the next one occur and how many people will it claim?
No, Odeon. IF ANYONE IS an idiot, it would have to be you. You for dismissing the incidences of radicalised Muslim terrorism. You for trying to intimate that gun control would help this. You for comparing the effect and risk of Radicalised Muslim extremism with falling furniture. You for thinking that anyone suggesting improving vetting systems to reduce these radicalised Muslim extremists from coming into their country is wrong to do so and thinking that freezing Muslim immigration whilst they improve their vetting system to prevent these radicalised Muslim extremists from coming in is bigoted.
You would also be a bigot for pretty much the same reason for saying I was a bigot for agreeing in principle with an idea along those lines and for those reasons.
You are an idiot, Al, an idiot and a bigot.
Oh yes, and a liar and intellectually dishonest and ... :yawn: ...
Impress me Odeon, back yourself for once. Saying you are a bigot or you are an idiot doesn't. Make a point for God's sake. I suggest looking at the meaning of bigotry and starting there. You know Bigotry being the intolerance of a group.
If you say that I am intolerant to radical Muslim extremists, like the Nice and Paris attacks and like the Orlando and San Bernadino attacks...you know I am right with you. I AM intolerant to them. I do not think that is where you are going. So back yourself.
Stopping Muslims at the borders would have been ineffective in both cases, both Orlando and Nice (not Paris, though, but never mind, I'm sure they seem to be really close from where you are).
A fucking lot closer to the last Parisian terror attacks not so very long ago. Yes a LOT closer. The next attacks are going to be close to Nice too.
http://www.australianetworknews.com/isis-plans-attack-france-next-month-euro-2016/
These attacks are a lot closer to Sweden than Australia too. Is THAT what you meant Odeon?
I'm sure blaming Muslims will sway the idiots, just as blaming Jews did a couple of years ago and still does, but it wouldn't help.
I don't blame Muslims though and YOU know I don't blame Muslims. I told you already, I am not playing bait and switch with you Odeon. I blame radicalised Muslim Extremists. That is NOT Muslims.
It is people with a completely different mentality. In the same way a moderate weekly church going Christian is hardly the same as Westboro Baptists. But you know that already, right? :dunce:
Its weak to keep trying for this bait and switch isn't it , Odeon? Yup, I thought so too.
What "still does" by the way? Is this false equivalence born out of your emotionality and inability to be rational, again?
For one thing, the perpetrators in both cases here were nationals so you could be stopping any number of Muslims and still look like the idiot and bigot you are when the murders happened.
"For one thing..." This is all you got isn't it Odeon. We don't have to build a fence across the property line to stop wolves devouring the flock because a couple of these wolves that attacked were already this side of the border, so what is the point?" :dunce:
I don't have to break it down for you do I? :dunce: ...Fuck it, may as well.
Radical Muslim extremism is an ideology. It is NOT Islam but it it cloaks itself within this group (as the aforementioned Westboro ideology cloaks itself with in Christianity). There IS some overlapping beliefs BUT there is distinct beliefs as well.
People with these beliefs are ABSOLUTELY a threat to any country that they are in. Any country accepting these radicalised Muslim extremists is letting potential murderers and rapists and enemies of the country in. People that would harm the country's citizens.
As well as a threat from without, is a threat from within. Radicalised Muslim extremists are often already IN the countries as a result of both poor border security, and radicalisation within the country.
There is precisely TWO courses of action that any RATIONAL person can see as the way of combating these two problems:
1. Reduce risk of them coming in
2. Get on to of the radical Muslim extremists within the country.
I will give you the tip on what is NOT rational. Calling people, supporting measures to address either of this, bigots. :dunce: Spouting claims of falling furniture, is probably at the least impractical and at worst idiotic. :dunce:
In fact, you still have to present proof for a ban to work. Any proof. Numbers, ideas, anything...? Don't be shy.
Do I have to present proof of a ban to work? I do not think I suggested a ban? I thought I simply supported in principle a temporary freeze whilst vetting procedures are improved?
Now as it is not my idea but one I support as a concept it would be idiotic to suggest that I may HAVE to lay ANYTHING out right? :dunce:
If for example you said that due to the new Pokemon Go craze, you were going to organise dogwalking around your area and advertise for "Pokemon Go trainers needed - get paid to Pokemon Go". The thought being that you could get pet owners to have a ready supply of teenage kids to walk around your area for ages and you would spent a pittance in pokemon lures in a few areas around the city, to me that sounds like a decent idea.
If I then tell someone else and they demand details and finer workings of the plan, I am able to say "No idea", and there would be no expectation that I would need to know the supply, demand, cost, sustainability or anything of the sort.
In fact pressing me on details I could not be expected to know would be the height of idiocy. It would not mean that liking the idea in principle was bad or wrong or that I OUGHT to have availed myself of more information and inferring I ought to have would be moronic.
Which brings me around to....YOU :dunce: . For exactly the same reasons I do not need to have any more information. Not my idea. Not necessary I ought to have flesh this concept out further and it is idiotic to suggest/infer/imply that I ought to have. Which kind of begs the question...why do you keep asking? :dunce:
You keep suggesting that I'm ignoring the dangers posed by radicalised Muslims. I am not, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Sure.
Every time I bring this up, you minimise the issue whether it be by inferring the reduced risk, and the risk of falling furniture presenting a bigger risk. You throw the term bigot around like it is confetti. You make a lot of switch and bait attempts to substitute positions I do not have or have not vouched for in hope the substituted positions will make a stronger case or you, You introduce superfluous facts to try to make a stronger case.
There is an argument about gun control in America. Obviously gun control in America has NOTHING to do with radical Muslim extremism. But you try to sell, it as something that need to be resolved in order to address this issue. It is actually pretty much irrelevant. Yet you tell me that it needs to be looked at. Not in terms or boundaries of this debate.
I suspect the reason you do this is that this is all you have to offer in respect to those two issues
There is precisely TWO courses of action that any RATIONAL person can see as the way of combating these two problems:
1. Reduce risk of them coming in
2. Get on to of the radical Muslim extremists within the country.
"Maybe if I make it all about guns and do not address point 1, then we can pretend I have a better alternative to a hateful ideology set to kill the ideological enemy by any means possible."
Truth is you have nothing and you are just shitting on someone who is going to places to address an issue that is difficult and uncomfortable. You call me a bigot not because I am intolerant but rather because I am open to more radical solutions that you are prepared to support and I can see the benefit of accepting imperfect concepts on their face and in principle without needing to be bound to anything more than the idea itself. It never made me a bigot and your inability to back yourself is proof of this. :dunce:
What I have been saying is that banning Muslims at the US borders is stupid, bigoted and ineffective. I'm saying now as I have been saying all along that blaming 22% of the world'd population for the actions of a few fanatics is bigoted, counterproductive and stupid.
I do not give a damn about that position. I never suggested nor argued that position and I do not care to start.
Oh I know this is another bait and switch tactic. :dunce:
Banning Muslims at the US borders is the Trump suggestion or policy on his website or campaign book that he made (that I vouched no opinion on) after suggesting his idea (that I happened to agree in principle with) about placing a temporary freeze on US Muslim immigrants whilst he fixes the subpar vetting systems used to vet radicalised Muslim extremists from Moderate Muslim immigrants.
I also know that YOU know which is and is not my position. You are both being an idiot and dishonest. Why? :dunce:
And yes, I have compared the danger of falling victim to a terrorist attack in the US with that of furniture-related deaths, with the latter being greater, but those are not my numbers. Do a quick Google search and you'll find out.
Nope, it is disingenuous. It is you simply trying to dismiss a threat. Is France at risk of another attack. How safe are the French from another attack like the last three beginning from Charlie Hebdo? Hundreds of citizens killed at short notice by Radical Muslim extremists. When will it happen again? How can they protect themselves? Where in the world will the next attack happen? As I say, IF it is in Sweden can I start throwing zingers about falling furniture around? No? You made no point. :dunce:
The reason for the furniture comparison (and it's a valid one; the numbers do check out) was to try to put some sense into you and your moronic ideas.
It was never a clever idea Odeon, it was a stupid one. One that will be coming back to you again and again as more and more radicalised Muslim extremists commit more acts of brutality. It was weak and idiotic. :dunce:
You want to handle what basically is a gun problem (not a Muslim immigration problem) with banning Muslims from entering the US, something that is not based in any sort of research or reality. There is NOTHING to suggest it would help anything, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
"Basically a gun problem". There you go again. What an idiotic thing to say. Why were the people in the gay nightclub targeted? Was it because Omar had a gun and randomly went crazy?
I mean that IS an option. Consider it. Reduce it down to the fact that he had access to a gun and gun control may have somehow made it illegal to get a gun.
IF it is basically a gun problem that may work....right?
OKay how did people die in the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. What about in London on July 7 2005? What about in Brussels on March 22, 2016? Take away legal access to guns, does it take away the ideology or the desire or intent? Does it reduce the damage that these extremists can do. What if they get a lorry instead of a gun and line up a crowd of people like has JUST bloody happened?
"Basically a gun problem". Bloody idiot. :dunce:
It is, however, bigoted to blame the religion for the actions of a few, and while you might not like being called a bigot, it's well within the definition.
I have blamed the religion for the actions of a few have I? Odeon why are you lying again? Care to show where I have said that I blame the entire religion for the actions of a few? I know you can't, just as you have. In fact I have gone out of my way to be absolutely crystal clear that I distinguish Moderate Muslims from radicalised Muslim extremists and have never blamed one for the other.
So you are down to straight out lying.
Why are you lying. Odeon? Why aren't you backing yourself instead? :dunce:
You say the FBI are monitoring a thousand (you started with 900 but whatever) potential groups or individuals.
Okay are you a liar?
Straight up. You just said that I stated "FBI are monitoring a thousand" That is YOUR words quoted above. That is what you said that I said.
Yup, and if we tack this on to the nearly 1000 US based Islamic extremist cases that are currently active investigations and the fact that both Omar Mateen and the San Bernadino whilst referred and investigated were ultimately dropped as active cases for investigation....yes they definitely need an overhaul......
Look at what is bolded above. DID I say the FBI is monitoring nearly 1000 US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases or that they are monitoring a thousand? Its one or the other.
Okay so how many exactly? Well Director Comey said 900 active US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases. So is 900 cases NEARLY 1000? YES. Is it ACTUALLY 1000? No.
So let's discuss why you just lied. Is your argument THAT weak you have to rely on lies and switch and bait attempts to give it legs? (Rhetorical question, obviously) :dunce:
How many nutcases with guns do you suppose they are they missing out on? Nationals who can buy the equipment they need legally and then kill gays, police officers or just some kids and teachers at a school? Remind me, how many gun-related homicides are there in the US every year?
900? 1000?
And none of the above means "ignore the radicalised nutcases". It means "don't be a stupid bigoted idiot, try something that can actually make a difference."
This is nothing to do with agreeing in principle with the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigration whilst the vetting system to distinguish between moderate Muslim and radicalised Muslim extremist is introduced.
Nothing AT ALL. You get that. There is nothing to suggest that the gun laws you believe may have a hope in Hell of getting introduced will stop radical Muslim extremists from committing these horribly destructive acts as seen in the examples I quoted already.
IF it is basically a gun problem that may work....right?
OKay how did people die in the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. What about in London on July 7 2005? What about in Brussels on March 22, 2016? Take away legal access to guns, does it take away the ideology or the desire or intent? Does it reduce the damage that these extremists can do. What if they get a lorry instead of a gun and line up a crowd of people like has JUST bloody happened?
"Basically a gun problem". Bloody idiot.
"try something that can actually make a difference" The guns laws you wish to get implemented will make a difference? How? How would "I" "try that or make a difference?" What the fuck are you talking about now? Am I American? DO I vote? Do I have a NRA membership to revoke or something?
Problem with emotional arguments Odeon, you say a lot of dumb shit. :dunce:
At the end of the day though, it is simply a concept. Not mine. No more details than an idea. One that on its face looks fine. I do not have to flesh it out or denounce its impracticalities nor endorse anything that comes out of it or that may later be developed. Its simply saying "Here is a suggestion, on its merits, is it worth fleshing out and considering?". It is to me. Will it ultimately be able to be formulated into a strategic plan or policy or anything else of the sort? No idea and I do not much care if it does. Will I agree with it then? No idea. This is my investment.
Yes, the terrorists are getting to be more visible and yes, something needs to be done. Actually, a lot needs to be done, including the FBI improving its vetting procedures, but I would look at the numbers and take care of the obvious stuff first.
Better vetting system sounds like a wonderful suggestion. I too think that a lot needs to be done. I think NOT doing anything, or trying to upgrade a system whilst using the faulty system to do a faulty job is silly.
You do think that stopping using it whilst it is upgraded is problematic, and I don't.
This difference of opinion does not make me bigoted. :dunce:
For all your attempts to bait and switch, drawing false equivalencies and lying, you still have not backed yourself. You called me a bigot and you need to back how I am a bigot. To which group am I intolerant and prejudice against? (If the group is Radicalised Muslim extremists I am on board but then so is every right thinking person. Who is it that you mean and can you back that yet?)
-
I'd kind of be interested to take the word Muslim out of the picture and then gather any information available on what these dickwads are like as people. For example:
- read somewhere that what's recovered on their laptops is generally 80% porn
- a culture of tea boys who are basically servants and sexual playtoys of military officers
Like what if the rhetoric is changed to "Gangs of armed pedophiles are attempting to overthrow the governments of their countries and impose rule of force. They are attempting to intimidate the rest of the world by random massacres in other countries."
What if that were happening and the members weren't trying to hide behind Islam, which is a red herring and not the most reliable screening filter? Nor is "gun owners" a reliable screening filter. Then what would be the appropriate government response?
-
I'd kind of be interested to take the word Muslim out of the picture and then gather any information available on what these dickwads are like as people. For example:
- read somewhere that what's recovered on their laptops is generally 80% porn
- a culture of tea boys who are basically servants and sexual playtoys of military officers
Like what if the rhetoric is changed to "Gangs of armed pedophiles are attempting to overthrow the governments of their countries and impose rule of force. They are attempting to intimidate the rest of the world by random massacres in other countries."
What if that were happening and the members weren't trying to hide behind Islam, which is a red herring and not the most reliable screening filter? Nor is "gun owners" a reliable screening filter. Then what would be the appropriate government response?
There have been studies on the profiles of western islamic terrorists, and the results mean screening filters are improbable. They're predominately naturalized decedents of immigrants, integrated and westernized, islamic converts and religious novices rather than devout, raised as secular or some other religion than islam, educated middle class, over thirty, with stable families. It's entirely possible the rhetoric to fear thy newcomer, the young, poor, uneducated, devout, living in an islamic concentrated area, is a rhetoric propagated by the islamic community. Otherwise, the rhetoric would have to be, fear thy existing typical westernized muslim neighbor.
-
It's entirely possible the rhetoric to fear thy newcomer, the young, poor, uneducated, devout, living in an islamic concentrated area, is a rhetoric propagated by the islamic community. Otherwise, the rhetoric would have to be, fear thy existing typical westernized muslim neighbor.
How do you figure? There's all sorts of groups who would rather see the finger pointed at young, poor, uneducated, devout Muslims rather than Westernized neighbours. Why would it be the Islamic community themselves? The vast majority of Muslims I've seen talk/write about it are horrified when there's another attack because they know it's going to reflect back on them and put them at risk from average Western individuals striking out at random Muslims in retaliation.
-
It's entirely possible the rhetoric to fear thy newcomer, the young, poor, uneducated, devout, living in an islamic concentrated area, is a rhetoric propagated by the islamic community. Otherwise, the rhetoric would have to be, fear thy existing typical westernized muslim neighbor.
How do you figure? There's all sorts of groups who would rather see the finger pointed at young, poor, uneducated, devout Muslims rather than Westernized neighbours. Why would it be the Islamic community themselves? The vast majority of Muslims I've seen talk/write about it are horrified when there's another attack because they know it's going to reflect back on them and put them at risk from average Western individuals striking out at random Muslims in retaliation.
Agree that's true. Didn't mean to say they're the only ones, but yes, it would make sense for them to do so. Some brand of islamic must be the problem, so easy to make that the one who isn't westernized. It doesn't largely reflect back on the westernized individual when the societal focus isn't really on them. Though like the scum of any group, yes they do reflect poorly on the group as a whole on some level.
-
It doesn't largely reflect back on the westernized individual when the societal focus isn't really on them.
Sure it does. It's not even just Muslims, Sikhs get mistaken for Muslim, Indians do, etc. The lowest common denominator of ignorant redneck doesn't know better.
-
The lowest common denominator
Every group has them.
-
Though like the scum of any group, yes they do reflect poorly on the group as a whole on some level.
The problem with this is that when it comes to religious groups, it's the fanatics who have the majority of scripture on their side.
Moderates, on the other hand, have to pick and choose their beliefs, ignoring the worse parts of scripture.
Southern slave holders could quote multiple verses of the bible to back their arguments that god condoned slavery and they were right, the bible clearly supports slavery. The prohibitionists, although they claimed god as an authority for their views, didn't have the backing of the bible for their claims, they had to just make shit up.
Westboro Baptist Church also is a very literal biblical group. They ARE right, god DOES hate fags, the fucking bible says so in clear black and white letters.
The Jihadists are the same, they are the ones who are following the Quran to the strictest letter that they can. They are arguably the TRUE Muslims and the moderates ignore Quranic verses because they aren't insane psychopaths.
All Abrahamic religion is, at it's core, psychopathic non-sense. Yahweh is a tribalistic war god of the Hebrew people and is an insane tyrant. It only follows that the true followers of this god are tyrannical, insane, war-mongering and bloodthirsty.
Terrorism is the natural result of believing on bronze age, barbaric moral codes.
-
Though like the scum of any group, yes they do reflect poorly on the group as a whole on some level.
The problem with this is that when it comes to religious groups, it's the fanatics who have the majority of scripture on their side.
Moderates, on the other hand, have to pick and choose their beliefs, ignoring the worse parts of scripture.
Southern slave holders could quote multiple verses of the bible to back their arguments that god condoned slavery and they were right, the bible clearly supports slavery. The prohibitionists, although they claimed god as an authority for their views, didn't have the backing of the bible for their claims, they had to just make shit up.
Westboro Baptist Church also is a very literal biblical group. They ARE right, god DOES hate fags, the fucking bible says so in clear black and white letters.
The Jihadists are the same, they are the ones who are following the Quran to the strictest letter that they can. They are arguably the TRUE Muslims and the moderates ignore Quranic verses because they aren't insane psychopaths.
All Abrahamic religion is, at it's core, psychopathic non-sense. Yahweh is a tribalistic war god of the Hebrew people and is an insane tyrant. It only follows that the true followers of this god are tyrannical, insane, war-mongering and bloodthirsty.
Terrorism is the natural result of believing on bronze age, barbaric moral codes.
Dead right. I have known a lot of very devout people of different religions and they look at the context of their religion in very good and decent terms. You look at any religion doctrine through a hateful filter and you will get hate and fear.
-
I think something definitely worth thinking on is that IF your family has gone to a country as refugees with precious little after escaping conflicts between their birth country and the host country they were seeking safety in AND if after you were born into this new country you were encouraged to associate with other of your parent's culture rather than that of your birth country, if you lived in areas populated almost exclusively by people of your parent's birth country, if the home country's culture is not embraced but derided, if you maintain strict cultural norms and attitudes of your parent's home country, if you speak there language predominantly around them, all of this well NOT assimilate them into the new culture NOR you even though this is your birth country.
In fact it would be slightly worse for you. For them they still have memories of their homeland and a sense of identity outside of their host country. For you your host country is your home country.
Maybe to handle this lack of identity you rebel and marry the person most stereotypical of your birth country. Maybe you ditch the parents and the tight confines of this imposed foreign culture and immerse yourself in the forbidden, perhaps you hold the parental line or perhaps you are caught in a dangerous vortex of secretly exposing yourself to aspects of the birth country's culture that you feel guilty for and feel a want to pay penance by being seen to be more fundamental and seeking out increasingly more strict and hard line aspects of your parent's culture to "make up" for the transgressions that you feel guilty about?
If you have gay feelings and know it is absolutely taboo how would you shore up this? How would you cleanse your soul and be seen as righteous? If you watch decadent Western porn? If you are drinking or doing drugs? If you enjoy a pork roll as much as the next Western guy? If your secret desires and wishes are in direct opposition to your parent's upbringing and culture. What then?
I can well see how appealing ISIS speaking in your parent's birth language and from the geographical areas that you r parents came from, who are bravely fighting the fights against the culture you have been taught to loathe and in the country that you live, trying to empower you with words that seem to come from a position of authority and even common sense. People who have two things you do not have pride and a sense of identity.
They won't mourn your passing though, you will be another notch, nothing more.
-
Terrorists can't be pigeonholed into a particular demographic; Islamic terrorists are not so different than white Christian terrorists, religious terrorism not so different than political. People just like to think they can know who the monsters are, but they can't.
-
People just like to think they can know who the monsters are, but they can't.
Exactly.
-
Terrorists can't be pigeonholed into a particular demographic; Islamic terrorists are not so different than white Christian terrorists, religious terrorism not so different than political. People just like to think they can know who the monsters are, but they can't.
I don't entirely agree nor disagree.
The thing is Terrorists and Extremists are monsters. Their hateful rhetoric and poisonous ideology is easy to find similarities in if you substitute the recipient of their actions and hate speech it sounds just as awful and militant.
The problem is that treating all terrorism and terrorist threats with equal weight and equal attention is counter productive.
There was a time that Christmas Right Extremists were probably really bad. The Klu Klux Klan (the militant arm of the Democratic party back in the day) used to lynch and shoot black people. They don't now, for all their nasty hateful speech and racist pandering. These days they are no better or worse than the Black Lives Matter crowd.
The threats today are the Radical Muslim extremists. There are other real threats like AntiFa and New Black Panther party, but these threats are not yet to the extent, nor have the reach of Radical Muslim extremism.
In the future maybe these threats will fade away and the KKK will rise again, or Skinhead thuggery, or any other terrorist or hate group. At the moment, dispersing equal opposition and attention is probably unwarranted.. Radical Muslim extremism is the main threat.
-
What about mentally ill young men like the guy who shot up the movie theater and the ones in high schools?
-
What about mentally ill young men like the guy who shot up the movie theater and the ones in high schools?
What about them exactly?
Are you asking whether the subject of mental health issues is a subject and an issue worthy of discussion unto itself? Are you asking if enough is done with the mentally ill, in America?
What I was discussing was not that, I was discussing the radical Muslim extremists. If you want to talk about people with mental health issues in America, happy to do so I guess, it just was not related.
-
I don't know about a furniture attack in Paris, but my middle toe is bruised, probably from stepping on some insignificant thing (a pea?).
Oh, the trials of being a pampered Royal.
-
I don't know about a furniture attack in Paris, but my middle toe is bruised, probably from stepping on some insignificant thing (a pea?).
Oh, the trials of being a pampered Royal.
You do have tiny feet :(
-
Terrorists can't be pigeonholed into a particular demographic; Islamic terrorists are not so different than white Christian terrorists, religious terrorism not so different than political. People just like to think they can know who the monsters are, but they can't.
I don't entirely agree nor disagree.
The thing is Terrorists and Extremists are monsters. Their hateful rhetoric and poisonous ideology is easy to find similarities in if you substitute the recipient of their actions and hate speech it sounds just as awful and militant.
The problem is that treating all terrorism and terrorist threats with equal weight and equal attention is counter productive.
There was a time that Christmas Right Extremists were probably really bad. The Klu Klux Klan (the militant arm of the Democratic party back in the day) used to lynch and shoot black people. They don't now, for all their nasty hateful speech and racist pandering. These days they are no better or worse than the Black Lives Matter crowd.
The threats today are the Radical Muslim extremists. There are other real threats like AntiFa and New Black Panther party, but these threats are not yet to the extent, nor have the reach of Radical Muslim extremism.
In the future maybe these threats will fade away and the KKK will rise again, or Skinhead thuggery, or any other terrorist or hate group. At the moment, dispersing equal opposition and attention is probably unwarranted.. Radical Muslim extremism is the main threat.
Not talking about the klan; the US has only had a couple of racially motivated acts classified as terrorism over the past twenty years. Modern day christian terrorist acts in the US are as frequent as islamic. Sometimes purposely leave myself open to valid contradiction to see what people might say. There is a difference between Islamic terrorism and other types of terrorism, and it's not that it's the main threat; it's because it's the threat which gets the most public attention, and rightly so. The big difference between islamic terrorists and any other type of terrorist, is that terrorists generally attacks what/who they stand against and Islamic terrorist stand against western culture so target the general public. It's a different type of public concern than other terrorism, because the average person in the general public doesn't really see themselves as a potential target for other types of terrorism. Not really even sure how many people in the US would see themselves as a potential target of Islamic extremism on domestic soil. Though to be fair, North America has seen less than one percent of the number of terrorism incidents as Eastern Europe since 2014, so the perspective is likely different there.
-
Oh, and found this great website. https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/
-
What about mentally ill young men like the guy who shot up the movie theater and the ones in high schools?
The world isn't ready to face religion as a mental illness.
-
They are not "radical Muslims". They are drunken/drugged up angry losers. Some of these have been found to run night clubs and buying "The Koran For Dummies".
-
What about mentally ill young men like the guy who shot up the movie theater and the ones in high schools?
If I were IS, I'd claim all attacks like that. Anything to spread fear everywhere.
-
People just like to think they can know who the monsters are, but they can't.
Exactly.
yes.
-
Terrorists can't be pigeonholed into a particular demographic; Islamic terrorists are not so different than white Christian terrorists, religious terrorism not so different than political. People just like to think they can know who the monsters are, but they can't.
QFT
-
They are not "radical Muslims". They are drunken/drugged up angry losers. Some of these have been found to run night clubs and buying "The Koran For Dummies".
This, actually, I find myself agreeing with. Considering many of the last few attacks, I'd bet this to be a better description of the perpetrators than the one IS is so quick to attribute to them ("our soldiers", etc).
Worryingly, it makes them very hard to find in time for any intelligence organisation.
-
What about mentally ill young men like the guy who shot up the movie theater and the ones in high schools?
If I were IS, I'd claim all attacks like that. Anything to spread fear everywhere.
Which they are doing, to the extent possible.
-
(a lot of drivel deleted)
Sorry, but you failed to deliver your point (assuming you had one). Again. Two top tips for your next post:
- Less is more.
- Similes and hypotheticals are not your thing. Avoid them like the plague.
Oh, and it would help if your rationalisations included some degree of logic to begin with.
-
(a lot of drivel deleted)
Sorry, but you failed to deliver your point (assuming you had one). Again. Two top tips for your next post:
- Less is more.
- Similes and hypotheticals are not your thing. Avoid them like the plague.
Oh, and it would help if your rationalisations included some degree of logic to begin with.
You know what I would do if I were you? If I was confronted with clear examples of being caught attempting multiple bait and switches and lying, I would feign not having read what was said too. In fact I would say it was too long, uninteresting and had no logic. I would try to be as patronising as possible in doing so.
That is if I were you - the type of person given over to lying and dishonesty. If I was me I would be embarrassed try a more honest approach.
-
See my reply in the other thread.
-
See my reply in the other thread.
Saw it and unimpressed. At least you weren't lying, so that was something I guess.
-
They are not "radical Muslims". They are drunken/drugged up angry losers. Some of these have been found to run night clubs and buying "The Koran For Dummies".
This, actually, I find myself agreeing with. Considering many of the last few attacks, I'd bet this to be a better description of the perpetrators than the one IS is so quick to attribute to them ("our soldiers", etc).
Worryingly, it makes them very hard to find in time for any intelligence organisation.
Yeah, they could just be lone maniacs that have been inspired by other attacks. But then the media make out it's all 'IS'.
-
Yup. And they actively look for that angle.
It's a bit like what Trump does in his speeches, he plays on people's fears.
-
Yup. And they actively look for that angle.
It's a bit like what Trump does in his speeches, he plays on people's fears.
He plays on people's thoughts, and who knows, maybe he shares those thoughts. Again, it's a case of learning not to ignore the millions of people who will vote for them and understand why they have concerns.
-
Yup. And they actively look for that angle.
It's a bit like what Trump does in his speeches, he plays on people's fears.
He plays on people's thoughts, and who knows, maybe he shares those thoughts. Again, it's a case of learning not to ignore the millions of people who will vote for them and understand why they have concerns.
And you were doing so well for a little while.
-
Yup. And they actively look for that angle.
It's a bit like what Trump does in his speeches, he plays on people's fears.
He plays on people's thoughts, and who knows, maybe he shares those thoughts. Again, it's a case of learning not to ignore the millions of people who will vote for them and understand why they have concerns.
And you were doing so well for a little while.
You have not been doing well for a while.
-
Yup. And they actively look for that angle.
It's a bit like what Trump does in his speeches, he plays on people's fears.
He plays on people's thoughts, and who knows, maybe he shares those thoughts. Again, it's a case of learning not to ignore the millions of people who will vote for them and understand why they have concerns.
And you were doing so well for a little while.
People are looking for answers, and Clinton is offering more of the same stuff that has caused all of this.
-
Yup. And they actively look for that angle.
It's a bit like what Trump does in his speeches, he plays on people's fears.
He plays on people's thoughts, and who knows, maybe he shares those thoughts. Again, it's a case of learning not to ignore the millions of people who will vote for them and understand why they have concerns.
And you were doing so well for a little while.
Sadly enough, I kind of agree with Benji here.
Trump, Wilders and others are better in transforming fears into votes than other politicians do. Yet they almost all seem to work on those fears lately. On the things they are opposed to, not the things they stand for. And the likes of Wilders and Trump are best in playing the game, because they have the least scruples. They also need the fear to be big and they play it well.
The old fashioned Anathema Sit.
It's not good for anyone in the long run.
-
Should we table this discussion or just couch surf?
-
Yes.
-
Should we table this discussion or just couch surf?
:oneliner:
-
A lot pf people said it, in a lot of different ways: Religious Fundamentalism is, basically, a personality disorder. And these terrorists are, first and foremost, disturbed people such as you find in any culture.
But it doesn't follow that Islam isn't a threat. You take away the terrorist attacks, and you're still left with instutionalised homophobia, institutionalised antisemitism, institutionalised mutilation of young girls, etc. And the scary thing is that a lot of this thinking is quite acceptable to relatively moderate Muslims.
Actually, I really think Islam is fundamentally different from the other major religions. The other major religions (with the possible exception of Judaism) were founded by men of peace. By contrast, Mohammed , himself was a Jihadist. And he's supposed to be the "perfect" man . I don;'t how you could hold that view without approving of Jihad,
Similarly, Mohammed was a paedophile. He married a seven year old girl, and managed to contain himself until she was nine. Again, if Mohammed was "perfect" , that has to be acceptable behaviour. Did Jesus or Gautama Shakyamuni do anything remotely comparable? Not that we know of.
The Roman Catholic Church, for e3xample, has been responsible for all kinds of atrocities. But if you read the gospels, you can easily see that it's attitude was totally counter to Jesus' teaching. You have to raid the Old Testament to find any kind of justification . Jesus ' teaching about love and forgiveness was explicity said to displace the Old Testament stuff, so to override his teachings with an "Eye for an Eye and a tooth for a tooth" and all that, is disingenuous to say the least. . Therefore, rabid christian fundamentalists really don't have much of a leg to stand on, if they were only open to reason.
Tjhe jews, bless 'em, have a nasty jealous bloodthirsty God (at least, according to the Jewish books that the RC Church selected as "inspired by God" i.e the Old Testament. i wouldn't be sure they are representative ) but also a very long tradidton of religious debate. Also, importantly, they don't give a damn if you don;'t agree with em. They are never, ever going to rampage all over the world trying to force the rest of us to convert
The Quran is a totally different kettle of fish. Muslim extremists can truly claim to be doing it "by the book" and that gives them a lot more persuasive power than the other extremists . It's bloody worrying. Some of the Muslims in my country (UK) want to have Sharia Law in the areas where they predominate . And they've set up paedophilia rings that target non -muslimn girls , because the Quran says they can do what they like to non-Muslim girls.
OK, OK, quite a lot of Muslims , the majority perhaps, are very civilised ; but I suspect these are mostly people who don't especially believe in Islam, it's just part of their cultural background. Given the very nasty penaltuies the other Muslims might impose on them, they're not likely to say so aloud, are they?
When Britons worry about the influx of Muslim immigrants, I really don't think most of us are worried about terrorist attacks so much as the chipping away of our secular culture, and the re-imposition of various things that we thought we'sdd left behind in the Dark Ages, with a few extra horrors thrown in.
-
It's a He'll of a lot to think about.
I wonder whether Open would call you a bigot for rationally confronting this head on and honestly, and whether he would give a false equivalency of the concern and threat you described as being the same as being hurt by falling furniture?
-
A lot pf people said it, in a lot of different ways: Religious Fundamentalism is, basically, a personality disorder. And these terrorists are, first and foremost, disturbed people such as you find in any culture.
But it doesn't follow that Islam isn't a threat. You take away the terrorist attacks, and you're still left with instutionalised homophobia, institutionalised antisemitism, institutionalised mutilation of young girls, etc. And the scary thing is that a lot of this thinking is quite acceptable to relatively moderate Muslims.
Actually, I really think Islam is fundamentally different from the other major religions. The other major religions (with the possible exception of Judaism) were founded by men of peace. By contrast, Mohammed , himself was a Jihadist. And he's supposed to be the "perfect" man . I don;'t how you could hold that view without approving of Jihad,
Similarly, Mohammed was a paedophile. He married a seven year old girl, and managed to contain himself until she was nine. Again, if Mohammed was "perfect" , that has to be acceptable behaviour. Did Jesus or Gautama Shakyamuni do anything remotely comparable? Not that we know of.
The Roman Catholic Church, for e3xample, has been responsible for all kinds of atrocities. But if you read the gospels, you can easily see that it's attitude was totally counter to Jesus' teaching. You have to raid the Old Testament to find any kind of justification . Jesus ' teaching about love and forgiveness was explicity said to displace the Old Testament stuff, so to override his teachings with an "Eye for an Eye and a tooth for a tooth" and all that, is disingenuous to say the least. . Therefore, rabid christian fundamentalists really don't have much of a leg to stand on, if they were only open to reason.
Tjhe jews, bless 'em, have a nasty jealous bloodthirsty God (at least, according to the Jewish books that the RC Church selected as "inspired by God" i.e the Old Testament. i wouldn't be sure they are representative ) but also a very long tradidton of religious debate. Also, importantly, they don't give a damn if you don;'t agree with em. They are never, ever going to rampage all over the world trying to force the rest of us to convert
The Quran is a totally different kettle of fish. Muslim extremists can truly claim to be doing it "by the book" and that gives them a lot more persuasive power than the other extremists . It's bloody worrying. Some of the Muslims in my country (UK) want to have Sharia Law in the areas where they predominate . And they've set up paedophilia rings that target non -muslimn girls , because the Quran says they can do what they like to non-Muslim girls.
OK, OK, quite a lot of Muslims , the majority perhaps, are very civilised ; but I suspect these are mostly people who don't especially believe in Islam, it's just part of their cultural background. Given the very nasty penaltuies the other Muslims might impose on them, they're not likely to say so aloud, are they?
When Britons worry about the influx of Muslim immigrants, I really don't think most of us are worried about terrorist attacks so much as the chipping away of our secular culture, and the re-imposition of various things that we thought we'sdd left behind in the Dark Ages, with a few extra horrors thrown in.
You'd do well to remember that the Inquisition thought they were doing it "by the book", too. Does that mean that the current batch of Catholics are simply Catholics by culture and upbringing rather than religious in any actual sense of the word?
No. The priests change so what the book means changes.
There are some very vocal and visible nutjobs killing each other and outsiders in the name of Islam, but I'd say the vast majority of Muslims are just like the rest of us. Some are good, some are bad, some believe (among Muslims, I should probably say more), some don't.
And to them, the Quran does most certainly not advocate killing nonbelievers. In fact, it says that a Muslim should never be the aggressor.
But that kind of headline won't sell, not in the UK and not in anywhere else in the Western world. It's far better to write they all want you to live under Sharia Laws, even if the vast majority of the Muslims disagree with the idea, for themselves and for others. Fear sells, a fact used by the nutjobs to create more of the same.
By spreading that sort of thing, you are helping the nutjobs, enabling them, because some people will think you have a point and widen the gap between "us" and "them" far better than the nutjobs can.
-
It's a He'll of a lot to think about.
I wonder whether Open would call you a bigot for rationally confronting this head on and honestly, and whether he would give a false equivalency of the concern and threat you described as being the same as being hurt by falling furniture?
Rationally? There is little rationality involved when repeating easily disproved misconceptions. We live in an information age and finding actual facts is easy.
Independent thinking, unfortunately, is hard, regardless.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/
You'd do well to read the above.
-
Pretty much every "terror attacks" are committed by Muslims who drink, use drugs and eat pork. Some of them had "the Koran for dummies" books or whatever. They are drunken and/or drugged up losers.
Telling the truth seems to be "antisemitic" i'm afraid.
-
It's a He'll of a lot to think about.
I wonder whether Open would call you a bigot for rationally confronting this head on and honestly, and whether he would give a false equivalency of the concern and threat you described as being the same as being hurt by falling furniture?
Rationally? There is little rationality involved when repeating easily disproved misconceptions. We live in an information age and finding actual facts is easy.
Independent thinking, unfortunately, is hard, regardless.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/
You'd do well to read the above.
No all his fears are completely rational and justifiable
-
You'd do well to remember that the Inquisition thought they were doing it "by the book", too. Does that mean that the current batch of Catholics are simply Catholics by culture and upbringing rather than religious in any actual sense of the word?
Nope, I don't think that at all. I think that the RC Church is a big, powerful institution that went the same way as all big powerful institutions do: corrupt to the core and far more concerned about wordly power that about it's spitritual roots. For a very long time, it managed to rule by fear and brutality, but it's time is past. Nowadays, the genuinely religious people are coming to predominate in the RC Church, I think, so it's opposite to what you said., in my view.
Its much too soon for the same thing to happen with Islam, Islam's power isn't waning , is it? It seems to be on the rise. People who are brought up as Muslim don't really have an effective choice about remaining Muslim. They're in a similar posituion to Christians at the time of the witch-trials. Which is to say: I fear that Isl;am is as dangerous and oppressive The RC church used to be. I didn't bother saying that cos I thought that much was pretty obvious; but it also has a few additional reasons for being dangerous, as I pointed out.
I should think that most of the Inquisition were cynical opportunists ln a similar mould to our "Witch Hunter General" , but I don't know. I don't think it's especially relevant anyway
There are some very vocal and visible nutjobs killing each other and outsiders in the name of Islam, but I'd say the vast majority of Muslims are just like the rest of us. Some are good, some are bad, some believe (among Muslims, I should probably say more), some don't.
Of course. The vast majority of Catholics are just likethe rest of us too. People are much of a muchness. . But some cultures do bring out the worst in people. Islam, as an institution , is over-influenced by cultural mores that hacven't changed since Jesus' time. That is, it's being propagated out of backward little places where they still stone women to death for committing adultery etc. Much of that stuff actually comes from the culture rather than the book, but you can't expect people to discriminate that closely. When you grow up steeped in something like that, you usually don't think about it that deeply, especially not if you're illiterate.
But again , much same ccan be said about many different cultures and religions, at many different junctures in history. I was focussing on the things that make Islam a tad more dangerous than all the others , IMO.
It's far better to write they all want you to live under Sharia Laws, even if the vast majority of the Muslims disagree with the idea
A "vast" majority of 75% disagree , according to one credible (IMO) statistic. That's not a very comforbable majority. And what they p[rivately state for stastistical purposes and what they feel it's politic to say aloud in the Mosque might be two different things. A Muslim can be pressured into fallimnng into line more easily than you or I can.
I do , personally know a few Muslims, you know? including a Muslim academic who's been threatened by other Muslims just for having, and expressing moderate opinions, and for not wearing a Burka OK, so nobody's physically attacked her as yet, but those kind of threats are far from uncommon. You've gotta sympathise with those kind of pressures.
That woman does not say that Islamitself is a threat to her because she's actually a believer. But I say it.
-
Islam is certainly very much the focus of any discussion about the dangers of religion. Unfairly, in my humble opinion.
I think you are assuming a lot, from the actual beliefs of the majority of Muslims to how a Muslim would be more easily persuaded than others. I have Muslim friends, too--in the UK as well as here in Sweden--and my impressions differ from yours. With all due respect, I think you allow your views to be coloured by fear.
That said, if 25% of the UK Muslims are actually in favour of Sharia Laws, while that is alarming, I very much doubt they would all support their introduction by acts of terror. Perhaps even more alarming is that it very clearly demonstrates the gap between "us" and "them", and as long as that gap exist, stopping the radicalisation of young Muslims will be very difficult. Blaming all Muslims for the crimes of a few plays into the hands of the likes of ISIS.
And just so we are clear on this--I'm an Atheist. I don't believe in a god or a supreme being. I do, however, very strongly believe in religious freedom and see no reason to limit their choices unless they want to limit mine, and I have yet to see Islam as a religion attempt to do that.
I also believe in knowledge rather than assumptions, which is why I have read the Quran and the Hadith (or rather, translations of them, which is important since many, perhaps even most, Muslims will only consider the original-language works to be the real thing, which very much sets them apart from, say, the Bible), and I've tried to understand the contexts in which they were written and in which they are interpreted now.
Oh, and I don't approve of Burkas but I'm against banning them--banning a piece of clothing is silly and ineffectual.
-
Actually it is important in a thologogian perspective, if considering a formal study (I.e one which takes data and formally compares it, to do a..code dig, and decompile from source. Checksum included. Because our modern words used in e.g the KJV, and the probably more accurate greek texts and latin Vulgate, of the etymology of wording, and the ACTUAL equivalent meaning in the original aramaic. And to apply a scientific, logical approach to place the wording in the context of the psychological meanings as would most likely have been the true case per instance of a quoted and compared text.
I shall give an example. There was a sacrifice listed of 'twelve golden Ormerods', and IIRC mice, I may be wrong about that mice bit, I would have to check and lack the inclination, but the term has thought to be functionally equivalent to the modern word or modern derivatization of an old english word meaning 'a buboe', a buboe being the festering infective and infected lymphatic node abscesses that formed in armpits, groin especially, could range in size from a golf ball to that of a large orange, which must have been, and occasionally still BE a most agonizing, horrendous, shockingly traumatizing way to die horribly, even as dying horribly goes generally, (hence of course the 'horrible' bit:P) and inconjunction with that of mice, whilst the association with FLEAS was not then known, rat plagues of plague rats were known, the rats overrunning the place suddenly behaving uncharacteristically, because they were infected and dying (if its any consolation, the plague rat is an unwitting victim also, and the fleas too, die, because the bacterium Y.pestis (Y for the genus name Yersinia, named for its discoverer and early researcher, Yersin) which causes bubonic plague, they would leave the dark and the dank places to flood out in masses, to die in agony themselves. Whilst the fleas feeding on a plague infected source of blood die as the bacteria specialize in replicating within the gut, eventually it blocks the gut, causing necrosis, and rapid death, because they cannot feed the fleas are driven to the depths of starvation and desperately bite and bite and bite in a frantic attempt to feed but are unable to do so, the gut blockage causes blood intaken by the fleas to be vomited back forth through their salivary gland(s?..I don't know how many of them a Xenophylla cheopsis possesses anatomically speaking. The finer points of flea anatomy are not something I have ever had need to study biologically underneath my 'scope, plaguey or no plague. I think I could do it with micromanipulators but there is no value to doing so for me since I only need to know how the pathogenic organisms they are able to spread can be picked up, disseminated and avoided their having done the latter_. although if given a flea on an uninfected 'scope slide to examine it would prove a distraction for a moment, of course, but that is merely because I wish to observe the microscopic, the submicroscopic and indeed even the most funtamental elements making up the basic particles such as protons, neutrons, neutrinos if I could ever even hope to do that, which I concede is beyond the tech level, or rather the tech SCALE that it would take to detect even a single neutrino of a single flavour (temporarily, as neutrinos are thought to be able to oscillate between electron, muon, tau, positron, antimuon and antitau neutrino flavor states in their ghostly, extraordinarily penetrating form of radiation since it interacts so little with matter. It is possible to do, scientifically, but neutrino detectors for instance of this day and age involve such things a a MASSIVE underground cavern, filled full of millions and millions and millions of gallons of for instance, perchloroethylene solvent, just to detect a SINGLE one, in six months or a year coming from the sun, that fusion reactor capable of spilling out acting like a point source of quadrillions of neutrinos over a fraction of a second. So no, those elementary fundamental forces I can only read and celebrate the beauty of the endeavour. Even focussed energetic particle beams on targets we can't do better, when we know when and where. Not that we can produce the output of the sun in a flux-pumped or flux-pumped compression generator, only analyse whats left behind after one slips through and slightly, slightly slightly couples, ephemerally and evanescently to physical atomic matter). I'd be happy if I were able to split atoms, in induced, non-exponentially decaying fission, I.e not in a chain reaction of fissile isotopes of elements, but of those that can be split by the technique just not propagate a destructive energetic release, rather, to yield measurable frequencies of radiation types, and channel those, to subject them to accelerator physics etc, simply to possess and use the instrumentation, and indeed self build the likes of cellphone gamma radiation spectrophotometers, UV-(near ultraviolet)-vis spectrophotometry, and IR-band specs, so I can look at subatomic particles and do my own learning, off my own back, not necessarily for any gain materially, not for myself should a discovery of interest come ever to my beloved laboratory sanctum sanctorum, my true home is the laboratory, and my laboratory can just as well be a walk in the natural areas, measuring, observing and KNOWING things which I did not previously, and what is most important to me, even if these things be known, to have come TO know them, through the sweat pouring from my unshirted back, the tears in my eyes of effort, and the fact, as, whilst I am egosyntonic with myself largely, and not overprone to the stuffing of my ego, It exists, It will exist, and whilst it is nothing to what drives me personally, psychologically to wish to do this and to do what I may, where I may in all fields that I can put the tech together, someone giving me a truly meant compliment of 'well done' does, I will not deny, make me feel nice, and I think this a good thing. If I get a gold star, so to speak, (preferably in a useful Au radioisotope or nuclear metastable isomer, if gold forms any, never read up to check in the case of gold (like the equivalents, such as one used in medical imagery, of the radioactive element technetium (as 99Tc, it corms a nuclear isomer called Tc99m, extracted for imaging purposes from a 'technetium cow, a radioactive molybdenum based device that continually generates the 99Tc metastable nuclear isomer, for medical radioimaging purposes)
Iikewise, I'd love to have the proper facilitated means allowed to me one day to actually safely handle the quite radioactive isotopes of uranium, but to do it, I'd be even happier than that could make me as a gift, if I had to literally go out prospecting from surveys and find a deposit of ore myself, to hack it out of the earth with a pick, or blasting if needs be, but a pick even more, to carve it from the rock, take it to the facility in question and thence reduce it to yellowcake, enriched natural uranium ore, refine it to pure uranium metal, convert to a volatile gaseous state such as uranium hexafluoride, then BUILD the separators to separate the isotopes, play with different designs, and then try to improve on the actual technology. Than if I were to be presented with yellowcake and machinery, chemicals, other than the fundamental acids, bases etc. I would wish to literally fabricate every laser driver, every fluxpumped tunable dye laser, every lense, every turbine blade and put it together myself to build the separator, (centrifuges...lol, just lol man, centrifuges. I'd use a modified principle like a calutron. Indeed no radioactivity needed, separation of low-level radioactivity from naturally occuring potassium 40 present in natural cosmogenic potassium minerals and imaging by spectrophotometry, or even of two nonradioactive isotopes of any element, but thats just me, I like to do it that way because I gain a greater net quantity of knowledge) for the reason that the act of knowing, and possessing that knowledge because it is itself the fruit of mine own labours, and correspondence projects with other folk who hunger as I. It is, it is an intoxicating, and utterly without possibility of 'de-tox' haha, addiction, and basic need, as are food and drink upon my table. Just like a crackhead and his crack, knowing, and having that knowledge so I may educate others who seek knowledge in the sense of arming them with the weapons of the psyche, in that they may then go forth and seek as I, if that is their true desire. I just...love knowing. And I cannot stop. I don't, if I tell the blunt truth, know HOW to stop, and were I to know that, it would not induce me to stop, it is as traumatic to my psyche as severe heroin withdrawals (which when I had a choice and was not stuck on opiates as medication, I actually did indeed do, knowingly producing a physical dependence and then treating it, because I had to know what it was like, not from a text book, but because I ran the data-collection upon my own wetware, I thus had an intimate understanding of it and its processes yet more after yet more reading. I do HAVE limits. Paramount is no infliction of cruelty. I possess the means to give or withold my own consent to and from myself, if I deem it fit, and thus I will not lift a blade unto an animal save in acute necessity owing to defense of my person, or the aim I consider most noble of all, to render suffering of that animal a nonentity. (Such as when I went in and operated on a crow, after it had been blasted with a shotgun, and almost killed. I could offer little else, but food, water, calming cadence of soothing voice, I fed it by hand and gave water drop by drop by drop, from my own fingertip, and I stayed awake so I could make repeated medical observations and make sure that bird was alright. Did the same for another wee sparrow or starling once, that I found stunned, and had to dash out in front of a car to save. And the SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sweet baby hedgehog foundling, not newborn but so young it would not have survived a week longer I do not believe, so I took the special little tiny mite in, an kept him warm and snuggly an cozy all winter long, checking repeatedly to make sure it did not enter aestivation, from which it woul not return alive. Fed, watered, lots of love showered upon his softly spiky self (the distribution allows them to be comfortably held by human hand, as no one spine or spine cluster takes the pressure to drive it in, the bed of nails principle in operation) And his life, saved.
-
Actually it is important in a thologogian perspective, if considering a formal study (I.e one which takes data and formally compares it, to do a..code dig, and decompile from source. Checksum included. Because our modern words used in e.g the KJV, and the probably more accurate greek texts and latin Vulgate, of the etymology of wording, and the ACTUAL equivalent meaning in the original aramaic. And to apply a scientific, logical approach to place the wording in the context of the psychological meanings as would most likely have been the true case per instance of a quoted and compared text.
I shall give an example. There was a sacrifice listed of 'twelve golden Ormerods', and IIRC mice, I may be wrong about that mice bit, I would have to check and lack the inclination, but the term has thought to be functionally equivalent to the modern word or modern derivatization of an old english word meaning 'a buboe', a buboe being the festering infective and infected lymphatic node abscesses that formed in armpits, groin especially, could range in size from a golf ball to that of a large orange, which must have been, and occasionally still BE a most agonizing, horrendous, shockingly traumatizing way to die horribly, even as dying horribly goes generally, (hence of course the 'horrible' bit:P) and inconjunction with that of mice, whilst the association with FLEAS was not then known, rat plagues of plague rats were known, the rats overrunning the place suddenly behaving uncharacteristically, because they were infected and dying (if its any consolation, the plague rat is an unwitting victim also, and the fleas too, die, because the bacterium Y.pestis (Y for the genus name Yersinia, named for its discoverer and early researcher, Yersin) which causes bubonic plague, they would leave the dark and the dank places to flood out in masses, to die in agony themselves. Whilst the fleas feeding on a plague infected source of blood die as the bacteria specialize in replicating within the gut, eventually it blocks the gut, causing necrosis, and rapid death, because they cannot feed the fleas are driven to the depths of starvation and desperately bite and bite and bite in a frantic attempt to feed but are unable to do so, the gut blockage causes blood intaken by the fleas to be vomited back forth through their salivary gland(s?..I don't know how many of them a Xenophylla cheopsis possesses anatomically speaking. The finer points of flea anatomy are not something I have ever had need to study biologically underneath my 'scope, plaguey or no plague. I think I could do it with micromanipulators but there is no value to doing so for me since I only need to know how the pathogenic organisms they are able to spread can be picked up, disseminated and avoided their having done the latter_. although if given a flea on an uninfected 'scope slide to examine it would prove a distraction for a moment, of course, but that is merely because I wish to observe the microscopic, the submicroscopic and indeed even the most funtamental elements making up the basic particles such as protons, neutrons, neutrinos if I could ever even hope to do that, which I concede is beyond the tech level, or rather the tech SCALE that it would take to detect even a single neutrino of a single flavour (temporarily, as neutrinos are thought to be able to oscillate between electron, muon, tau, positron, antimuon and antitau neutrino flavor states in their ghostly, extraordinarily penetrating form of radiation since it interacts so little with matter. It is possible to do, scientifically, but neutrino detectors for instance of this day and age involve such things a a MASSIVE underground cavern, filled full of millions and millions and millions of gallons of for instance, perchloroethylene solvent, just to detect a SINGLE one, in six months or a year coming from the sun, that fusion reactor capable of spilling out acting like a point source of quadrillions of neutrinos over a fraction of a second. So no, those elementary fundamental forces I can only read and celebrate the beauty of the endeavour. Even focussed energetic particle beams on targets we can't do better, when we know when and where. Not that we can produce the output of the sun in a flux-pumped or flux-pumped compression generator, only analyse whats left behind after one slips through and slightly, slightly slightly couples, ephemerally and evanescently to physical atomic matter). I'd be happy if I were able to split atoms, in induced, non-exponentially decaying fission, I.e not in a chain reaction of fissile isotopes of elements, but of those that can be split by the technique just not propagate a destructive energetic release, rather, to yield measurable frequencies of radiation types, and channel those, to subject them to accelerator physics etc, simply to possess and use the instrumentation, and indeed self build the likes of cellphone gamma radiation spectrophotometers, UV-(near ultraviolet)-vis spectrophotometry, and IR-band specs, so I can look at subatomic particles and do my own learning, off my own back, not necessarily for any gain materially, not for myself should a discovery of interest come ever to my beloved laboratory sanctum sanctorum, my true home is the laboratory, and my laboratory can just as well be a walk in the natural areas, measuring, observing and KNOWING things which I did not previously, and what is most important to me, even if these things be known, to have come TO know them, through the sweat pouring from my unshirted back, the tears in my eyes of effort, and the fact, as, whilst I am egosyntonic with myself largely, and not overprone to the stuffing of my ego, It exists, It will exist, and whilst it is nothing to what drives me personally, psychologically to wish to do this and to do what I may, where I may in all fields that I can put the tech together, someone giving me a truly meant compliment of 'well done' does, I will not deny, make me feel nice, and I think this a good thing. If I get a gold star, so to speak, (preferably in a useful Au radioisotope or nuclear metastable isomer, if gold forms any, never read up to check in the case of gold (like the equivalents, such as one used in medical imagery, of the radioactive element technetium (as 99Tc, it corms a nuclear isomer called Tc99m, extracted for imaging purposes from a 'technetium cow, a radioactive molybdenum based device that continually generates the 99Tc metastable nuclear isomer, for medical radioimaging purposes)
Iikewise, I'd love to have the proper facilitated means allowed to me one day to actually safely handle the quite radioactive isotopes of uranium, but to do it, I'd be even happier than that could make me as a gift, if I had to literally go out prospecting from surveys and find a deposit of ore myself, to hack it out of the earth with a pick, or blasting if needs be, but a pick even more, to carve it from the rock, take it to the facility in question and thence reduce it to yellowcake, enriched natural uranium ore, refine it to pure uranium metal, convert to a volatile gaseous state such as uranium hexafluoride, then BUILD the separators to separate the isotopes, play with different designs, and then try to improve on the actual technology. Than if I were to be presented with yellowcake and machinery, chemicals, other than the fundamental acids, bases etc. I would wish to literally fabricate every laser driver, every fluxpumped tunable dye laser, every lense, every turbine blade and put it together myself to build the separator, (centrifuges...lol, just lol man, centrifuges. I'd use a modified principle like a calutron. Indeed no radioactivity needed, separation of low-level radioactivity from naturally occuring potassium 40 present in natural cosmogenic potassium minerals and imaging by spectrophotometry, or even of two nonradioactive isotopes of any element, but thats just me, I like to do it that way because I gain a greater net quantity of knowledge) for the reason that the act of knowing, and possessing that knowledge because it is itself the fruit of mine own labours, and correspondence projects with other folk who hunger as I. It is, it is an intoxicating, and utterly without possibility of 'de-tox' haha, addiction, and basic need, as are food and drink upon my table. Just like a crackhead and his crack, knowing, and having that knowledge so I may educate others who seek knowledge in the sense of arming them with the weapons of the psyche, in that they may then go forth and seek as I, if that is their true desire. I just...love knowing. And I cannot stop. I don't, if I tell the blunt truth, know HOW to stop, and were I to know that, it would not induce me to stop, it is as traumatic to my psyche as severe heroin withdrawals (which when I had a choice and was not stuck on opiates as medication, I actually did indeed do, knowingly producing a physical dependence and then treating it, because I had to know what it was like, not from a text book, but because I ran the data-collection upon my own wetware, I thus had an intimate understanding of it and its processes yet more after yet more reading. I do HAVE limits. Paramount is no infliction of cruelty. I possess the means to give or withold my own consent to and from myself, if I deem it fit, and thus I will not lift a blade unto an animal save in acute necessity owing to defense of my person, or the aim I consider most noble of all, to render suffering of that animal a nonentity. (Such as when I went in and operated on a crow, after it had been blasted with a shotgun, and almost killed. I could offer little else, but food, water, calming cadence of soothing voice, I fed it by hand and gave water drop by drop by drop, from my own fingertip, and I stayed awake so I could make repeated medical observations and make sure that bird was alright. Did the same for another wee sparrow or starling once, that I found stunned, and had to dash out in front of a car to save. And the SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sweet baby hedgehog foundling, not newborn but so young it would not have survived a week longer I do not believe, so I took the special little tiny mite in, an kept him warm and snuggly an cozy all winter long, checking repeatedly to make sure it did not enter aestivation, from which it woul not return alive. Fed, watered, lots of love showered upon his softly spiky self (the distribution allows them to be comfortably held by human hand, as no one spine or spine cluster takes the pressure to drive it in, the bed of nails principle in operation) And his life, saved.
Jesus FUCK!! Have you ever heard of TL;DR??
-
Jesus FUCK!! Have you ever heard of TL;DR??
Oh, i dunno. it's a bit like reading Jaques Derrida. He went on a bit too.
-
Jesus FUCK!! Have you ever heard of TL;DR??
Oh, i dunno. it's a bit like reading Jaques Derrida. He went on a bit too.
Sometime Lestat is like a long winded, smarter version of Randy.