|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 29, 2009 5:27:09 GMT -5
Yes, but taking away their special rights is religious persecution. According to a recent study, six out of ten of them are. I would have thought more of them would turn out to be agnostics or atheists like one of my friends did. I feel the need to point out that "Christianity" is basically a bandwagon thing. It means whatever the person wants it to. To be a Christian, you don't have to read the Bible, adhere to the Bible, or any of that shit. Essentially, belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ makes you a Christian. After that, you can fuck with things as much as you want. One of the few things I agree with Christian Fundies on. However, I do not agree that any Fundie who talks about "Christians in name only" is the real deal. Even the belief in the divinity of Jesus is not necessary for being a Christian. There is a reasonable historical argument that the divinity of Jesus was in fact not an original doctrine of Christianity. It was certainly not universal - this would be one of the points establishing Orthodoxy at the first Council of Nicea, with those not adhering considered (at best) schizmatic. One can believe that Jesus was a man whom God chose as his Son and be a Christian (Adoptionism). One can believe that Jesus was the Messiah and that the Messiah was always a man and never God and be a Christian (Ebionism, some other forms of Messianic Judaism). One can believe in a metaphorical Son of God idea and still be a Christian. I personally am willing to accept even "Jesus was a man who was very in touch with God, and that made him a great preacher and leader, and that helped people including me to know about God" or even "Whether or not Jesus was in touch with God or even a real person, I find what is taught about Jesus to be my main moral guidepoint" as Christian. That is probably pushing it a little bit in a way that accepting Adoptionists, Ebionites, etc. as "Christian" is not (and really, that is not pushing it at all), but a non-zero number of self-identifying Christians believe something along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 29, 2009 5:08:14 GMT -5
The actual article was a little scanty on details, and other news articles that I found had similarly vague blurbs. I cannot find whether they were asked to leave before being arrested. If not, then I think the action was inappropriate. As the park was rented out, it was a private event, and as such the organizers could bar anyone they felt like. However, unless it was significantly different than other similar events I have seen, and they actually had tickets for entrance to the whole park or something like that, anyone was probably able to just walk onto the premises. It could only really become trespassing if they came on, were told to leave the event, and then refused. Unless the police officer was on one hell of a powertrip (not impossible, but unlikely) he would not have resorted to actually arresting them unless they had been advised to leave and/or cease "preaching" and then refused. Or were somehow causeing a major public disturbance by their presence when he showed up unaware of any other details (in which case it would have been done more to protect them before things escalated any further). Your typical police officer assigned to a public event like this is very cognizant of the applicable laws and is not in any hurry to get the department into a needless lawsuit. I would have to hazard an informed guess that they were asked by actual police officers to refrain from their activity at the event. After being asked/warned they then tried to argue their "rights" with said officers, as if anyone, ever, wins an argument with the police in the field. They were then arrested and charged... That is how I see it as most likely happening anyway, perhaps I am wrong but I sincerly doubt it. I have seen it happen way too many times from the protesters side to expect that it happened much differently. They don't generally arrest you before telling you to cease and desist/move-on... I also find it likely that they were asked to leave before being arrested, but I couldn't find any articles that specified such. I do differ with you on one point - I do not find it at all unlikely in just about any situation that a police officer is on a serious power trip. My anecdotal evidence is contrary to yours in the realm of police behavior towards protesters. Of course, either of our personal non-random selection of evidence could be a fluke. However, it is extremely easy to find credible news stories from a vast number of locales which demonstrate police officers being on random power trips. I don't think I have enough evidence to even tentatively conclude that most police officers are, or that it is more likely than not that a random one will be, but I feel confident in concluding it's not particularly rare. So, in conclusion, I'm inclined to agree with you about the most likely scenario, but I find a scenario including inappropriate use of authority somewhat unlikely rather than very unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 29, 2009 5:00:12 GMT -5
Please watch this video so that you have some understanding of what the term "open-minded" means. Also, I'm having a very hard time understanding pretty much anything you write. Could you try to put a little more effort into communicating your thoughts coherently? I just saw that video yesterday. I enjoyed it. It reminded me greatly of an ex I had who tended to believe it just about anything. She repeatedly got pissed at me for setting up double-blind experiments to test her crazy assertions. I really wasn't even doing it to prove her wrong and LOL. I was all "Maybe that's true. If it is, we can do this thing and predict X and Y." On the other hand, I had another friend who also tended to believe just about everything who enthusiastically encouraged me setting up double-blind tests of his crazy assertions. And there are a few things that I have to say I cannot dismiss out of hand because the (thrown together) experimental evidence did not contradict the ideas, and constituted unlikely-but-not-impossible results if one was expecting the outcome to merely be statistical randomness.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 29, 2009 3:14:26 GMT -5
The actual article was a little scanty on details, and other news articles that I found had similarly vague blurbs. I cannot find whether they were asked to leave before being arrested. If not, then I think the action was inappropriate. As the park was rented out, it was a private event, and as such the organizers could bar anyone they felt like. However, unless it was significantly different than other similar events I have seen, and they actually had tickets for entrance to the whole park or something like that, anyone was probably able to just walk onto the premises. It could only really become trespassing if they came on, were told to leave the event, and then refused.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 29, 2009 3:02:17 GMT -5
So... can someone give the executive summary of this person's previous trolling attempts? Was it that transparent and ridiculous? Also what's the deal with him having like 800 posts under the new account?
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 27, 2009 23:47:08 GMT -5
No that's the sign someone sold their soul to something for power. Ironbite-most of the Phelps people have that same look. No, I have a friend who is a recovering crack head, I've seen him on crack, I *know* the look of someone who's cracked-out. She has it. So... extrapolation from a single datum?
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 27, 2009 4:15:44 GMT -5
I started House of Leaves a few days ago.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 27, 2009 2:27:10 GMT -5
I have given in to the urge to quote Bible verses, with no commentary or interpretive text whatsoever, in contexts appropriate to the conversation at hand. Let's see how long the account lasts.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 27, 2009 1:09:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 25, 2009 23:47:21 GMT -5
YouTube comments are even more of the asshole of the internet than 4chan is.
Of course, I sometimes bother to make reasonable statements to people's inanity on there, but if you don't go in knowing that it's about as likely to get a reasonable response on YouTube as on RR, you're setting yourself up to lose all of your hair.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 25, 2009 7:20:50 GMT -5
I wouldn't call fundies a small group by any means (well, maybe by some means, if we have a set definition of what's considered large), but they are certainly a minority. I don't think being against gay marriage is enough to classify someone as a fundy. Wanting gays treated as inferior, second class people most certainly makes them a part of that bigoted 'vocal minority' people insist all anti-gay bigots belong to. This minority somehow gets 19 states to ban any union for gays at all. Ontop of 13 that ban gay marriage and arent gonna provide an alternative. So thats 32 out of 50 states that consider gays inferior, VS 13 states, only 6 of which actually consider them equals. 32 vs 13 seems like a pretty clear majority to me, in America at least christians are the majority and the outcome of 32 elections says the majority of them are bigots that are supposed to only be found in a vocal minority. Ah, I have never heard that people against gay marriage are a "vocal minority". I have heard, and think that it's true, that fundamentalists are a vocal minority of Christians. "Biblical literalists", people that think gays are actually evil or possessed by demons or the like, I believe are a vocal minority. Unfortunately, the people who think that same sex relationships just really aren't as special and shouldn't be as protected or at least called the same thing as straight relationships I do not believe are a vocal minority at all. I assume there is a religious element to most of such beliefs, though it is probably underplayed by the element of sheer cultural momentum, though the latter is really not specifically distinguishable from the religious aspect thereof.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 25, 2009 5:08:31 GMT -5
Your not seeing how essential and fundamentally needful the view of women as property is to the radical muslim mindset and philosophy. It is the true backbone of their creed and the source of most of their converts, if it is not denied to them they continue to grow. You continue to ask how taking some of their power over women away hurts them as if it was a completely seperate issue. It isn't... Actually, it has been asked how banning burquas takes the power over women away, and proposed that it does not. Could you clarify the reason you view banning burquas (for example) as taking some of the power over women away? It seems that everyone in the argument is in agreement that taking away the power over women is completely necessary, even if they are not intimately aware of the situation in France in particular, for human rights purposes. So the question it seems that an answer is called for is: How could (hypothetically) banning the burqua reduce the power that is being exercised over oppressed immigrant women in the radical immigrant community? And a particular point that should be addressed is who would be held legally responsible for violations of the ban, and could the punishment meted for the violations (again hyothetically) be set up to reduce the power wielded over women? Opponents of the idea have stated they envision the proposed punishment for the proposed violation of the proposed ban being imposed on the burqua-wearer, thus punishing the victim of the oppression rather than the oppressors. Is there another view of how this could be done, or could you draw the line between holding the women legally responsible and not punishing the victims of the oppression? (This is leaving aside the fact that oppressed groups often play an integral part in the oppression, for a variety of sociological reasons. Women who are the victims of FGM often seemingly of their own beliefs insist on FGM for their daughters. This does not diminish their victimized status for me sociologically speaking, but it increases the complexity of solving the victimization as a society. Analogously for something more relevant in the U.S. and less relevant in France, but demonstrating the universality of the issue, mothers in Quiverfull families fully participate in teaching their daughters that they should grow up and themselves bear as many children as possible at the expense of all else. I continue to view the women in such relationships and families as victimized by the mindset - but it is not a simple matter of swooping in and saving them from an oppressive system.)
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 25, 2009 0:36:10 GMT -5
*Ahem* Yeah I knew when I made this their'd be people pointing out all the people they know who dont match this description, but it doesnt change the facts about how the 'fundies' have far to much support to be written off as just a tiny group. The several states that overwhelmingly passed bans on ANY equality for gays shows that they are most certainly not a minority. I wouldn't call fundies a small group by any means (well, maybe by some means, if we have a set definition of what's considered large), but they are certainly a minority. I don't think being against gay marriage is enough to classify someone as a fundy.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 24, 2009 12:09:43 GMT -5
" I believe actual historians have no evidence to suggest that the original united Kingdom of Israel that encompassed this territory actually existed historically. " Huh? There is plenty of evidence by "actual historians" that an Israel existed. I belive there is no evidence that the Biblican Kindom of Israel ever occupied all of the land that the Bible claims that it did. This included all of or almost all of current Israel/Palestine, Syria, and Jordan, and parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jun 24, 2009 1:02:25 GMT -5
I finished watching the video after posting the article, and they actually still assume a correct geological model for where to look for the oil as far as depth goes. They're just relying directly on Biblical prophecy as to where geographically they are looking. I'm not sure if that is more or less stupid. Probably about the same. Does the Bible even mention that kind of oil? Where the hell are they getting this from, some sort of Bible code bullshit? Apparently from Genesis 49:25 "... the Almighty, who shall bless thee with... blessings of the deep that lieth under..."They are interpreting "blessings of the deep that lieth under" as oil. Of course, even just looking at the context of that ONE VERSE shows you "the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb" So it's pretty clearly saying "God's going to bless you in all sorts of stuff!" and it's using "blessings of heaven above" and "blessings of the deep that lieth under" as opposed poles for demonstrating how God's supposed to bless them in all ways. I don't believe any of the Bible has any sort of factual worth, but even if you do, that's a really stretchy interpretation.
|
|