patrick.net

P N Dr Lo R says

curious2 says

When your family and friends wither and die at the same age as their ancient Roman predecessors 2,000 years ago

it means they're being too sexually promiscuous.

No, some of the ancient Romans lived past 90, as few Americans do today. It means there's been too little progress in research since then.

P N Dr Lo R says

By the way, can you remember a world without AIDS?

As you wrote, the virus has been around for a long time, probably longer than a century. It originated in Africa, and spread due to travel. The first known American fatalities occurred in the 1950s. So, unless you're well over 100, you can't remember a world without AIDS.

Perhaps if there had been more research sooner, there might be more people around who could remember the world of more than 100 years ago. That's religion for you: as with the Taliban destroying the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, and ISIL/Daesh destroying the Roman structures in Palmyra, they want to control history, and replace it with whatever fiction suits them. Curing disease, and enabling people to live long enough that they can actually remember the past and recognize charlatans selling the same garbage in a different language, progress doesn't suit the religious agenda. Charlatans prefer to maintain stagnation that they can control, rather than progress, which they cannot predict and thus cannot control.

curious2 says

So, unless you're well over 100, you can't remember a world without AIDS.

Then, apparently you can't because you know what I mean. It wasn't a death causing plague killing a specific community until 1981, but you know that. It's always someone else's fault rather than the fools who finally brought it into fruition with the proper environment. The term AIDS wasn't even coined until probably 1984 or 1983--it was called the "gay cancer" early on.

P N Dr Lo R says

I'd hang her like she was ultimately disposed of.

So you would violate your own god's commandments and morality. That proves my point that Christianity does not encourage morality.

Killing someone in order to defend others is sometimes necessary. It is never necessary to kill someone who has been captured and imprisoned. And it is never a moral decision to do so.

Morality Score
Atheists 1
Christians 0

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

The only threat to our freedoms in this day and age is Islam

That is a foolish statement. Not only is Islam not the only threat to our freedoms, it is not even one of the major threats to our freedoms. The NSA is far more of a threat to your freedoms than any dumbass terrorist could ever be.

Since when does the NSA execute cartoonists for drawing cartoons?
Since when does the NSA execute people over some blasphemy?
Since when does the NSA throw gays out of tall buildings?
WTF is wrong with you? Are you delusional?

Dan8267 says

That proves my point that Christianity does not encourage morality.

And guess what, I've finally gotten to be ad hominem and that's fine with me.

Strategist says

Since when does the NSA execute cartoonists for drawing cartoons?

I didn't say they did. But the NSA certainly does infringe upon people's rights including by violating wiretapping laws, activating cameras remotely, perving on teenage girls, and reducing the security of our information infrastructure.

All of human history has told one lesson: power corrupts especially if left unchecked. Only a fool would trust the NSA.

P N Dr Lo R says

that's fine with me.

You're still wrong. And you still demonstrate that Christianity does not encourage people to be moral or kind.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

Since when does the NSA execute cartoonists for drawing cartoons?

I didn't say they did. But the NSA certainly does infringe upon people's rights including by violating wiretapping laws, activating cameras remotely, perving on teenage girls, and reducing the security of our information infrastructure.

Seems mild compared to what Islamists are capable of. Besides, most of those so called violations are necessary to protect us against Islamists. I'm all for it.

Strategist says

Seems mild compared to what Islamists are capable of. Besides, most of those so called violations are necessary to protect us against Islamists. I'm all for it.

As I've said, if America is to fall it will be from within.

Dan8267 says

You're still wrong.

No, Irma was dull and 40ish and got what she deserved. She should have had Hubba Hubba 1944 written on her forehead. They could have played a Frank Sinatra red Columbia, one with the slightly off-center spindle hole that made it even drearier, and that would have bored her to death instead of hanging.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

So let's say that Jaycee's dad knows "something" that could save a lot of lives, a major terrorist attack, but he won't tell you even under torture. Would you rape Jaycee in front of him to get him to talk? That's the moral question.

My answer is hell no. What's yours?

I would torture the dad, not the girl.

So are you saying you would rape the dad and not the girl?

curious2 says

I'll close with an example. Neil Patrick harris is married, and the couple have two children. If "normalizing" that family looks like demographic suicide to you, then you are suffering from "theory induced blindness," and a backfire effect, so further comments from me would be a waste of time, causing you to dig in rather than open your eyes. I'll end with a photo:

They dress their son better than I dress myself.

Strategist says

We don't live in a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao country. We live in the 21st century America. Get real.

The belief that a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao could not rise in the 21st century is absolutely idiotic, foolish, and dangerous. Do you think that anyone expected a Hitler to rise in Germany back in the 1930s?

Dan8267 says

The belief that a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao could not rise in the 21st century is absolutely idiotic, foolish, and dangerous

These autocratic fantasies you dream up are truly terrifying in scope and ruthlessness!
You are hardly the first to recommend banning all religion from a society. Dictators from Stalin to Pol Pot have tried the same thing with tragic and horrific results. Usually they are atheists like yourself, and this is why atheists are trusted slightly less than child molesters. When there is no basis for morality, an individual may rationalize ANY act as not only permissible but right and mandatory. This has also been proven again and again. Religion may have been responsible for its share of zealots and their crimes, but it's been the one thing that cements people as a civilization and not a motley collection of barbarians each striving for individual pleasure. When nothing matters then nothing matters. I'm truly puzzled as to how you can't understand this basic concept. You seem smart enough in other areas.

@patrick seems like Dan is using the ad hominem thing here to escape an argument that is damaging to his thesis. I really don't see how it's ad hom? Or even an attack on him. It's just observation on the results of his autocratic fantasy.

CBOEtrader says

two children

The little boy is going to throw up when he looks back at that picture when he's 20 even if he were in a straight family.

Waitup says

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

So let's say that Jaycee's dad knows "something" that could save a lot of lives, a major terrorist attack, but he won't tell you even under torture. Would you rape Jaycee in front of him to get him to talk? That's the moral question.

My answer is hell no. What's yours?

I would torture the dad, not the girl.

So are you saying you would rape the dad and not the girl?

Yup. With a hammer.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

We don't live in a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao country. We live in the 21st century America. Get real.

The belief that a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao could not rise in the 21st century is absolutely idiotic, foolish, and dangerous. Do you think that anyone expected a Hitler to rise in Germany back in the 1930s?

In N Korea, Middle East, Africa, we already have the Hitler types. But in America......no way. No one would vote for them.

Strategist says

No one would vote for them.

1. You cannot be certain someone won't become a tyrant once he gains power.
2. You cannot guarantee that freedoms and liberty won't atrophy with time.
3. Germany devolved into Nazism damn quickly, in less than a single generation.
4. There is nothing magical about America. Human nature is the same here as it is everywhere else.
5. Any nation in which a large part of the population accepts torture, isn't that far away from Nazism.
6. Any nation that prosecutes whistle blowers opens itself up to becoming just like the Soviet Union.

Once again, only a fool thinks its impossible for his country to become deteriorate into tyranny.

curious2 says

The Romans built the greatest empire the world had ever seen, and the empire lasted more than 1,000 years.

Actually, that would be the ancient Persians, meaning the Zoroastrians ones, prior to the Islamic invasion circa 700AD.

For that 1.5 millennia before that, Persia had Zoroastrianism, which was monotheistic, and it had an empire, stretching from the Sudan, to near the border of modern day China. That's as multicultural, as one can get, at least for ancient times.

So this idea that Christianity, was this so-called helper of the post Pax Romana era, is a myth imposed by idiot thinkers like Mr "P N Dr Lo R" dickwad, who really doesn't know his history.

The western Empire had fell, because it had outsourced its perimeter defenses to barbarian armies, not because some Patricians in Rome, were having sex.

And finally, in the end, Odacer and Theodoric, both of whom were foreign powers, fought over the throne, creating the final split, which had the eastern Empire around Constantinople and Rome (the western side), forever split apart.

Yet, the great P N Dr Lo R doesn't know this. Instead, he claims that the Empire had fallen, because a bunch of ppl were having sex. What a Puritanical BS artist.

Shit, these Romans were having sex and orgies, even before Julius Caesar's times. And thus, if the religious dictum was true, then the Roman Empire would never have come into existence by virtue of God, killing these adulterous Romans, during the days of the Republic!

Rin says

The western Empire had fell, because it had outsourced its perimeter defenses to barbarian armies, not because some Patricians in Rome, were having sex.

And because it overexpanded, which was largely due to Christians wanting to spread their vile religion to the "barbarians". Religions are imperialistic.

Dan8267 says

Rin says

The western Empire had fell, because it had outsourced its perimeter defenses to barbarian armies, not because some Patricians in Rome, were having sex.

And because it overexpanded, which was largely due to Christians wanting to spread their vile religion to the "barbarians". Religions are imperialistic.

In the end, Conan ... I mean the Barbarians, had his way with the Empire.

Dan8267 says

Christians wanting to spread their vile religion to the "barbarians"

Yay Christians!

Rin says

curious2 says

The Romans built the greatest empire the world had ever seen, and the empire lasted more than 1,000 years.

Actually, that would be the ancient Persians, meaning the Zoroastrians ones, prior to the Islamic invasion circa 700AD.

For that 1.5 millennia before that, Persia had Zoroastrianism, which was monotheistic, and it had an empire, stretching from the Sudan, to near the border of modern day China. That's as multicultural, as one can get, at least for ancient times.

The Persians did much better with Zoroastrianism than their descendants have done with Islam, but Rome was the greater empire, due to the amazing technology Rome built. Romans outsourced a lot of their military, and fell, partly because Christianity replaced Roman and Greek morality. Nietzsche would call it a switch from "master morality" to "slave morality." Roman virtues of strength and conquest got replaced by meekness ("the meek shall inherit the earth") and obedience ("Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.") Yuval Noah Harari wrote that ancient Greek and Roman achievements resulted partly from belief that impressing the immortal gods enabled humans to become immortal gods, and live forever on Mount Olympus or in the Pantheon. Constantine saw Christianity as potentially useful to him, and changed it to make it more useful to him, but humanity paid a terrible price for that.

BTW, Roman conversion to Christianity paved the way for the spread of Islam, which hijacked the Judeo-Christian tradition and swept rapidly east to conquer the Zoroastrians. Non-Christian Romans would never have surrendered so easily to Muslim barbarians claiming to represent the monotheistic Lord ("Al Ilah") of Abraham.

curious2 says

The Persians did much better with Zoroastrianism than their descendants have done with Islam, but Rome was the greater empire, due to the amazing technology Rome built. Romans outsourced a lot of their military, and fell, partly because Christianity replaced Roman and Greek morality. Nietzsche would call it a switch from "master morality" to "slave morality." Roman virtues of strength and conquest got replaced by meekness ("the meek shall inherit the earth") and obedience ("Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.") Yuval Noah Harari wrote that ancient Greek and Roman achievements resulted partly from belief that impressing ...

You may want to explain to the Puritannical P N Dr Lo R, that Romans having sex, didn't lead to the fall of the Empire.

Unfortunately, he's the type of dickwad, who believes that because Romans persisted in having orgies, that God had unleashed Attila and company onto the Empire.

Rin says

You may want to explain to the Puritannical P N Dr Lo R, that Romans having sex, didn't lead to the fall of the Empire.

I've tried, but he's now sacrificed nearly his whole life to his preferred charlatan. Never married, maybe even a virgin, "P N Dr Lo R" has no children or grandchildren to persuade him. Even Barry Goldwater began speaking out on behalf of equal rights for gay Americans after learning that he had a grandson who was gay. "P N Dr Lo R" remains stuck in Reverse.

@P N Dr Lo R, this might actually help you, to know that Cadillac advertising now includes gay couples and themes. They ran a beautiful ad during "When We Rise" on ABC TV. If you watch the show via ABC Go, which I highly recommend, you might see it. The ad includes a nostalgic look at Cadillacs over the years, including one much like your avatar.

Rin says

Attila

is probably the reason why the Hungarians set the age of consent at 12, though they've raised that recently. It's a long story, but he had a spectacular career, starting at age 12.

From another thread where I'd mentioned that there were ppl out there, who'd remembered their so-called past lives ...

P N Dr Lo R says

Rin says

recalls a past life,

And Christians are delusional?

You mean that it's not ALL ABOUT FAITH?

Seriously, when someone else injects an alternate spiritual belief, these born-again types try to fall back to objective reality as if Jesus is standing right next to them, during the discussion, lending his silent presence.

Once again, P N Dr Lo is a fucking hypocrite!

Show me the presence of Jesus, you fucking delusional liar!

curious2 says

preferred charlatan

Right out of Saul Alinsky: don't attack institutions, attack individuals. And who is your preferred charlatan?

curious2 says

Cadillac advertising

When my Cadillac was built, GM had 50% of the market. Today GM has less than 20% of the market and destroyed Pontiac and Oldsmobile in the process.

P N Dr Lo R says

When my Cadillac was built, GM had 50% of the market. Today GM has less than 20% of the market and destroyed Pontiac and Oldsmobile in the process.

And who'd been hammering on restoring American R&D and engineering since he'd joined his board ... it was Rin.

P N Dr Lo R says

Right out of Saul Alinsky: don't attack institutions, attack individuals. And who is your preferred charlatan?

You seem to rely heavily on a logical fallacy called "the appeal to authority." You deify your preferred charlatan and believe whatever he says because he said it. You demonize Saul Alinsky and attack whatever he said, because he said it. Neither gets you any closer to ascertaining the truth or falsehood of what either authority said.

If you want to understand the history of Rome, then read enough histories of Rome (including by contemporary Romans and professional historians) that you can begin to understand the major achievements, improvements, and failures. If instead you subjugate your intellect to a charlatan who makes you feel better (or less bad) about throwing away your own life, then you end up loving and spreading his lies instead of living truthfully. The Islamic State people love their charlatans' lies as much as you love your charlatan's lies, and that gets neither of you any closer to reality.

curious2 says

You deify your preferred charlatan and believe whatever he says because he said it.

First of all, this guy had never seen Jesus. In fact, his connection to him is removed by three layers of separation, along with 2000 years.

First of all, Jesus's connection to his so-called original 12 disciples .. a story which is vaguely referenced by one historian Josephus Flavius, who was really talking about John the Baptist. That's as close as one can get to some historical account. The rest is hearsay.

And then, Paul of Taurus, a man who'd only seen Jesus, as a vision on the road to Damascus. Much of today's Christianity is based out of Paul's travels and teachings throughout the empire.

Was he just another version of Joseph Smith? Or L. Ron Hubbard? Who knows?

P N Dr Lo R says

curious2 says

Cadillac advertising

When my Cadillac was built, GM had 50% of the market. Today GM has less than 20% of the market and destroyed Pontiac and Oldsmobile in the process.

Here you rely on two different logical fallacies: "cherry-picking" and what the Romans called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Detroit's "Big Three" lost share in the 1970s-90s due to rising oil prices favoring competition primarily from other countries, especially Europe and Japan. With regard to Japan, for example, Subaru began advertising to gay couples decades ago. GM started reaching out only one decade ago. By cherry-picking dates, you seem to imply a counter-factual belief, when in fact those dates don't tell you anything about the effect of advertising on sales.

Rin says

Paul of Taurus, a man who'd only seen Jesus, as a vision on the road to Damascus. Much of today's Christianity is based out of Paul's travels and teachings throughout the empire.

Was he just another version of Joseph Smith? Or L. Ron Hubbard? Who knows?

Paul of Tarsus (note spelling) was an enforcer for the Jewish priests who persecuted Christians but then converted to the growing Christian cult, probably because that enabled him to gain more fame and fortune for himself and especially his family. Such opportunistic conversions are commonplace. He reintroduced Jewish rules into the new Christian cult, thus accomplishing much of his original, repressive raison d'être on a larger scale. Repression and sacrafice are crucial motivators and tools of Abrahamic religions, as P N Dr Lo R illustrates chronically. Islam provides by far the worst examples: the continuing practice of child sacrifice, which they call "honor killings", and recently suicide terrorism. Christians might rather have forgotten Paul but Constantine and his chosen "Christians" at the Council of Nicaea found Paul useful because he said to obey TPTB placed over you, unlike other Jews who had previously resisted Hadrian.

curious2 says

Rin

Someone who no one wants to marry and can only get sex by paying for it?

curious2 says

preferred charlatan

Right out of the Soviet Union--the atheists would stand outside churches before atheism became official and mock worshippers as they left--earning them martyrdom in God's kingdom.

You seem to rely heavily on a logical fallacy

And so what. Why are you so offended by my religious beliefs unless you think they're true? Sixty years ago it would have been routine and unquestioned and no one cared what unbelievers thought anyway. We had daily Bible readings over the PA system in school followed by a short devotional and a few seconds of silence before we ate our noon meal. I wouldn't exchange it for anything, I thought it was wonderful. We thought atheists were nuts and I still do. What kind of country to do you want, to recreate communist Russia?

curious2 says

P N Dr Lo R says

Why are you so offended by my religious beliefs unless you think they're true?

1. 2000 years of rape, murder, and mayhem.
2. Laws that restrict freedoms without justification.
3. The most vocal Christians are pro-torture and pro-death-penalty.
4. The brainwashing of children.
5. The derailing of education with misinformation.
6. Whitewashing history.
7. Corruption of the courts.
8. Prosecution of free speech.
9. Dehumanization of others.
10. Attacks on secularism.
11. Promoting lies.
12. Attacks on science and truth.
13. Endangering mankind with climate change denial.

I could go on, but those are the main things.

P N Dr Lo R says

Why are you so offended by my religious beliefs unless you think they're true?

Your religious beliefs are false. I don't recall claiming to be offended by them, do you have a link?

Calling them "Christian" does not make them so; try reading Luke and John instead of only Paul. Your comments about HIV, which spread primarily by heterosexual behavior, imply lesbians are god's chosen people. Gospel according to Cal: "And after the Africans converted to Christianity, Jesus did smite them with HIV, for worshiping Him. When wives did submit graciously to their husbands, Jesus smote them, and their children also. CAL'S PREFERRED CHARLATAN IS THE LORD, because Cal saith so."

Also, your gratuitous comments about Rin are unproved. At his age and pay grade, probably many women would like to get married to him. He pays them to go away quietly. Why are you so offended by that, unless you think he's right?

P N Dr Lo R says

Sixty years ago it would have been routine and unquestioned and no one cared what unbelievers thought anyway. We had daily Bible readings over the PA system in school followed by a short devotional....

Was that a public school? The unbelievers and non-Abrahamic believers have the same right to the equal protection of the laws as the people who call themselves Christian (and who twist that doctrine as too many Texans do). Government brainwashing might explain your false certitude, but illustrates the problem rather than excusing it. The 1st Amendment prohibited the federal government from respecting an establishment of religion, and the 14th applied that to the states also.

curious2 says

Also, your gratuitous comments about Rin are unproved. At his age and pay grade, probably many women would like to get married to him. He pays them to go away quietly.

www.youtube.com/embed/77rJ8VLj2-c

That's not why you pay a prostitute. You don't pay her for sex, you pay her to leave afterwards.

curious2 says

Also, your gratuitous comments about Rin are unproved. At his age and pay grade, probably many women would like to get married to him. He pays them to go away quietly.

In fact, during 2016, I'd turned away a visiting scholar from Chile ... you know, that very cultured woman with all the academic, vocational, and cultural achievements.

Unfortunately, she'd turned up too late in my life. If I'd met her let's say some 8+ yrs ago, things might have been different.

Today, I'm done with that stuff.

I don't mix business and pleasure. She was a part of an institute and thus, my firm was trying to arrange philanthropy, between her place of work and our clients.

Rin says

In fact, during 2016, I'd turned away a visiting scholar from Chile ... you know, that very cultured woman with all the academic, vocational, and cultural achievements.

Rin, I defer entirely to you about your life choices, but while P N Dr Lo R is on about comments being supposedly offensive, might I please suggest giving the pluperfect a break? English has at least a dozen verb tenses, no need to get married to just one...

BTW, P N Dr Lo R, though I've mentioned the pluperfect before, that doesn't imply that I secretly think it's always the right tense to use. To the contrary, I'm sure it isn't.

curious2 says

Rin says

In fact, during 2016, I'd turned away a visiting scholar from Chile ... you know, that very cultured woman with all the academic, vocational, and cultural achievements.

Rin, I defer entirely to you about your life choices, but while P N Dr Lo R is on about comments being supposedly offensive, might I please suggest giving the pluperfect a break? English has at least a dozen verb tenses, no need to get married to just one...

I got it, you're a U Chicago type, however, when one uses the 'had', several times, it's about tossing that experience onto the back burner.