ADVERTISEMENT

There aren't too many things that could get me to vote for Clinton....

I disagree with Rock on most topics, but I agree with Doug, he would not do this.
 
I disagree with Rock on most topics, but I agree with Doug, he would not do this.

I'm afraid you guys are all mistaken: I'm still me, here at 4119 E 42d Place in the Indian Territory. None of you know me nearly as well as you think you do; for that matter none of you actually know me at all, in my incarnation as a person. And CoH, you don't have a clue, despite the fact that you've actually talked to me, though you pretty clearly weren't listening.

I have not in fact been conked on the head by a golf ball; due to my illness I don't play a lot any more. I just got conked on the head by organized religion once too often, but the views I'm expressing here, admittedly in a somewhat malicious attempt to rattle the bars on the monkey cage, are ones I've long held. I'll bet a buck Rock recognized my style.

My source of morality is observation of the real world, CoH, the process of observing how human beings actually operate and what serves the interest of our species of mammals and what doesn't. That strikes me as at least more-or-less objective, and I find the suggestion that any morality resting on a primitive superstition and the views of a psychotic Big Sky Daddy as having any objective underpinnings risible in the extreme.

The idea that primitive, violent superstitions with the blood of billions on their hands are somehow deserving of a respect that no other body of thought merits, and that those who withhold it must perforce be insane, would be equally risible if it wasn't so appalling, and I agree with Richard Dawkins that it has no support in either logic or morality, but is simply an attempt to put criticism of such foolishness beyond the discussion and criticism to which we subject everything else. Notwithstanding such attempts heresy and related offenses remain victimless crimes, which is way more than can be said for organized religion.
 
I'm afraid you guys are all mistaken: I'm still me, here at 4119 E 42d Place in the Indian Territory. None of you know me nearly as well as you think you do; for that matter none of you actually know me at all, in my incarnation as a person. And CoH, you don't have a clue, despite the fact that you've actually talked to me, though you pretty clearly weren't listening.

I have not in fact been conked on the head by a golf ball; due to my illness I don't play a lot any more. I just got conked on the head by organized religion once too often, but the views I'm expressing here, admittedly in a somewhat malicious attempt to rattle the bars on the monkey cage, are ones I've long held. I'll bet a buck Rock recognized my style.

My source of morality is observation of the real world, CoH, the process of observing how human beings actually operate and what serves the interest of our species of mammals and what doesn't. That strikes me as at least more-or-less objective, and I find the suggestion that any morality resting on a primitive superstition and the views of a psychotic Big Sky Daddy as having any objective underpinnings risible in the extreme.

The idea that primitive, violent superstitions with the blood of billions on their hands are somehow deserving of a respect that no other body of thought merits, and that those who withhold it must perforce be insane, would be equally risible if it wasn't so appalling, and I agree with Richard Dawkins that it has no support in either logic or morality, but is simply an attempt to put criticism of such foolishness beyond the discussion and criticism to which we subject everything else. Notwithstanding such attempts heresy and related offenses remain victimless crimes, which is way more than can be said for organized religion.
Well.......Good luck to you, eternity is a long time!
 
Well.......Good luck to you, eternity is a long time!
Actually eternity is timeless, if I understand my physics correctly, but since none of us will be around forever, and our universe itself has a sell-by date, your point seems, well, off-point.
 
I'm afraid you guys are all mistaken: I'm still me, here at 4119 E 42d Place in the Indian Territory. None of you know me nearly as well as you think you do; for that matter none of you actually know me at all, in my incarnation as a person. And CoH, you don't have a clue, despite the fact that you've actually talked to me, though you pretty clearly weren't listening.

I have not in fact been conked on the head by a golf ball; due to my illness I don't play a lot any more. I just got conked on the head by organized religion once too often, but the views I'm expressing here, admittedly in a somewhat malicious attempt to rattle the bars on the monkey cage, are ones I've long held. I'll bet a buck Rock recognized my style.

My source of morality is observation of the real world, CoH, the process of observing how human beings actually operate and what serves the interest of our species of mammals and what doesn't. That strikes me as at least more-or-less objective, and I find the suggestion that any morality resting on a primitive superstition and the views of a psychotic Big Sky Daddy as having any objective underpinnings risible in the extreme.

The idea that primitive, violent superstitions with the blood of billions on their hands are somehow deserving of a respect that no other body of thought merits, and that those who withhold it must perforce be insane, would be equally risible if it wasn't so appalling, and I agree with Richard Dawkins that it has no support in either logic or morality, but is simply an attempt to put criticism of such foolishness beyond the discussion and criticism to which we subject everything else. Notwithstanding such attempts heresy and related offenses remain victimless crimes, which is way more than can be said for organized religion.


Well, in that case I acknowledge my mistake. My recollection of your style connected with some elements of some of your posts (the use of "L" when referring to Ladoga, for example), but I don't recall you ever being caustic for the sake of being caustic; that's more my speed. ;) (Among others here, of course.)

I'm glad to know you're alive and kicking, Buzz . . . and just as glad to know that I need to pay attention so I can stay of of the way when you're kicking like a mule.

That said, I'm going to ask you about last week's mass shooting in Charleston; do you think that some victims' families' forgiveness of the shooter, and other victims' family members' remorse for not being able to forgive as of yet, is a rational response? A natural response? Or an unusual response under the circumstances? Do you think that response is something that would be made by folks without a religious belief? Would you agree or disagree that religion's influence has made it more likely that generally (not just the Charleston folks), victims' families' focus would be on forgiveness rather than revenge? Just curious . . .

. . . for the record, my observations of people - which I assert is at least as more-or-less objective as yours - indicates that religious people are generally (but not exclusively or in all individual instances) more likely to be generous with others than non-religious people, particularly in very difficult circumstances.

One more thing: would you differentiate among religions? Would fundamentalist Christians and Catholics be more likely to draw your ire (because of their social conservative politics, for example) than say mainline Protestants and Buddhists? I'm curious if yours is a blanket condemnation or more nuanced than your statement above seems to be.
 
I'm afraid you guys are all mistaken: I'm still me, here at 4119 E 42d Place in the Indian Territory. None of you know me nearly as well as you think you do; for that matter none of you actually know me at all, in my incarnation as a person. And CoH, you don't have a clue, despite the fact that you've actually talked to me, though you pretty clearly weren't listening.

I have not in fact been conked on the head by a golf ball; due to my illness I don't play a lot any more. I just got conked on the head by organized religion once too often, but the views I'm expressing here, admittedly in a somewhat malicious attempt to rattle the bars on the monkey cage, are ones I've long held. I'll bet a buck Rock recognized my style.

My source of morality is observation of the real world, CoH, the process of observing how human beings actually operate and what serves the interest of our species of mammals and what doesn't. That strikes me as at least more-or-less objective, and I find the suggestion that any morality resting on a primitive superstition and the views of a psychotic Big Sky Daddy as having any objective underpinnings risible in the extreme.

The idea that primitive, violent superstitions with the blood of billions on their hands are somehow deserving of a respect that no other body of thought merits, and that those who withhold it must perforce be insane, would be equally risible if it wasn't so appalling, and I agree with Richard Dawkins that it has no support in either logic or morality, but is simply an attempt to put criticism of such foolishness beyond the discussion and criticism to which we subject everything else. Notwithstanding such attempts heresy and related offenses remain victimless crimes, which is way more than can be said for organized religion.

Wasn't listening?

Do you mean your eternal quest is not find and eat the perfect cinnamon roll?

Relativity is fine for physics, but morality?

Best to Suzy.
 
Wasn't listening?

Do you mean your eternal quest is not find and eat the perfect cinnamon roll?

Relativity is fine for physics, but morality?

Best to Suzy.
I no longer believe the perfect cinnamon roll exists, sad to say. I'll pass on your greeting when SWMBO returns from the golf course (which is why I'm here more-or-less working). Hope your riding thing is still going good.
 
Well, in that case I acknowledge my mistake. My recollection of your style connected with some elements of some of your posts (the use of "L" when referring to Ladoga, for example), but I don't recall you ever being caustic for the sake of being caustic; that's more my speed. ;) (Among others here, of course.)

I'm glad to know you're alive and kicking, Buzz . . . and just as glad to know that I need to pay attention so I can stay of of the way when you're kicking like a mule.

That said, I'm going to ask you about last week's mass shooting in Charleston; do you think that some victims' families' forgiveness of the shooter, and other victims' family members' remorse for not being able to forgive as of yet, is a rational response? A natural response? Or an unusual response under the circumstances? Do you think that response is something that would be made by folks without a religious belief? Would you agree or disagree that religion's influence has made it more likely that generally (not just the Charleston folks), victims' families' focus would be on forgiveness rather than revenge? Just curious . . .

. . . for the record, my observations of people - which I assert is at least as more-or-less objective as yours - indicates that religious people are generally (but not exclusively or in all individual instances) more likely to be generous with others than non-religious people, particularly in very difficult circumstances.

One more thing: would you differentiate among religions? Would fundamentalist Christians and Catholics be more likely to draw your ire (because of their social conservative politics, for example) than say mainline Protestants and Buddhists? I'm curious if yours is a blanket condemnation or more nuanced than your statement above seems to be.

Not sure how to answer you re the Charleston thing, Sope. Here's what I know about forgiveness, which comes, like so much else, from SWMBO: forgiveness is a gift you give yourself. Trying in my fumbling way to follow that advice I always try to forgive, but I have to admit I do still keep score, and those who trespass against me will probably be disappointed if they ask for help moving the body. Whether that's actual forgiveness I don't know.

I think there are religious sects and institutions, which tend to be described as "liberal" in bent, with which I'd have little complaint, at least comparatively, but their views are so attenuated that I'm not sure they qualify as religions. Buddhism, for example, doesn't really strike me as a religion at all.

As you know or may know, I tend to get interested, or perhaps over-interested in things, and when that happens I tend to waste a good bit of time that could have been devoted to playing Mass Effect in trying to understand them. A lot of the last decade was devoted to trying to get a handle on modern physics, and I'm currently working on the history of WWII, but a couple of years ago I decided I needed to know more than I did about the history of organized religion in the real world. I knew going in that religion was irrational by definition, and had a lot of historical blood on its hands, but what I found as I worked my way through the scholarly lit was was worse than anything I'd imagined. Any good that organized religion has done over the millennia is simply too small to measure when set against the evil its done, and continues to do. Once you surrender reason and embrace revelation all bets are off; if you think you've gotten the Word directly from the Big Guy anything you think he might want seems not only OK but laudable. Since we're basically still self-interested and semi-rational mammals, the results seem to me to be as predictable as they are unavoidable. Therefore any religion which features a personal god seems to me to be something we'd be way better off without.
 
I'm afraid you guys are all mistaken: I'm still me, here at 4119 E 42d Place in the Indian Territory. None of you know me nearly as well as you think you do; for that matter none of you actually know me at all, in my incarnation as a person. And CoH, you don't have a clue, despite the fact that you've actually talked to me, though you pretty clearly weren't listening.

I have not in fact been conked on the head by a golf ball; due to my illness I don't play a lot any more. I just got conked on the head by organized religion once too often, but the views I'm expressing here, admittedly in a somewhat malicious attempt to rattle the bars on the monkey cage, are ones I've long held. I'll bet a buck Rock recognized my style.

My source of morality is observation of the real world, CoH, the process of observing how human beings actually operate and what serves the interest of our species of mammals and what doesn't. That strikes me as at least more-or-less objective, and I find the suggestion that any morality resting on a primitive superstition and the views of a psychotic Big Sky Daddy as having any objective underpinnings risible in the extreme.

The idea that primitive, violent superstitions with the blood of billions on their hands are somehow deserving of a respect that no other body of thought merits, and that those who withhold it must perforce be insane, would be equally risible if it wasn't so appalling, and I agree with Richard Dawkins that it has no support in either logic or morality, but is simply an attempt to put criticism of such foolishness beyond the discussion and criticism to which we subject everything else. Notwithstanding such attempts heresy and related offenses remain victimless crimes, which is way more than can be said for organized religion.
I'm afraid you guys are all mistaken: I'm still me, here at 4119 E 42d Place in the Indian Territory. None of you know me nearly as well as you think you do; for that matter none of you actually know me at all, in my incarnation as a person. And CoH, you don't have a clue, despite the fact that you've actually talked to me, though you pretty clearly weren't listening.

I have not in fact been conked on the head by a golf ball; due to my illness I don't play a lot any more. I just got conked on the head by organized religion once too often, but the views I'm expressing here, admittedly in a somewhat malicious attempt to rattle the bars on the monkey cage, are ones I've long held. I'll bet a buck Rock recognized my style.

My source of morality is observation of the real world, CoH, the process of observing how human beings actually operate and what serves the interest of our species of mammals and what doesn't. That strikes me as at least more-or-less objective, and I find the suggestion that any morality resting on a primitive superstition and the views of a psychotic Big Sky Daddy as having any objective underpinnings risible in the extreme.

The idea that primitive, violent superstitions with the blood of billions on their hands are somehow deserving of a respect that no other body of thought merits, and that those who withhold it must perforce be insane, would be equally risible if it wasn't so appalling, and I agree with Richard Dawkins that it has no support in either logic or morality, but is simply an attempt to put criticism of such foolishness beyond the discussion and criticism to which we subject everything else. Notwithstanding such attempts heresy and related offenses remain victimless crimes, which is way more than can be said for organized religion.

I actually thought it was you, just from the style of your opinions, not just on this thread, but on the others also. But those guys knew you much better than I did ( from here). Anyway, welcome back!
 
I no longer believe the perfect cinnamon roll exists, sad to say. I'll pass on your greeting when SWMBO returns from the golf course (which is why I'm here more-or-less working). Hope your riding thing is still going good.

Riding thing is ongoing

I don't ride as far but I am a lot slower. Signed up for another week tour in 2016, which is quite an optimistic endeavor given we don't buy green bananas any more.
 
Actually eternity is timeless, if I understand my physics correctly, but since none of us will be around forever, and our universe itself has a sell-by date, your point seems, well, off-point.
Hijack..... How is your health? You referenced it above but didn't say much. If you don't want to share any more that's fine but I've wondered for a long time how you're doing. Somehow I lost your email address. I saw you on Yahoo Messenger one time and tried to contact you but you either didn't see my message or chose not to respond.
 
Riding thing is ongoing

I don't ride as far but I am a lot slower. Signed up for another week tour in 2016, which is quite an optimistic endeavor given we don't buy green bananas any more.

Sooo, no green bananas . . . are you becoming a member of the "Present Perfect" crowd that Noodle linked to the other day?;)
 
As to the missing e-mails, if you think you're gonna get any political traction with things like that you're dumber than Karl Rove, and he's pretty ****ing dumb. On the other hand, you don't sound much like a potential brain donor either.

What a bias, jealous statement. You may not like Rove, but to call him dumb is just idiotic. He got W elected twice over whomever you (or I) voted for. Let that set in for a second.
 
What a bias, jealous statement. You may not like Rove, but to call him dumb is just idiotic. He got W elected twice over whomever you (or I) voted for. Let that set in for a second.

Winning elections doesn't take brains; cleverness and manipulation are sufficient where there's enough money behind a candidate. Don't confuse brains with cleverness and manipulation, as they're not even remotely the same thing.

Rove is a short-term opportunist, not someone with a focus on good policy. Don't confuse success as the former with qualifications for the latter.
 
What a bias, jealous statement. You may not like Rove, but to call him dumb is just idiotic. He got W elected twice over whomever you (or I) voted for. Let that set in for a second.

You don't have to be smart to be able to lie and destroy your opponent's character/record. Thanks to Rove and his ilk we have the term "swiftboating" used to describe untrue political attacks. Pickens bankrolled the smear campaign, but everyone knows nothing happened without Rove's say so.
 
Winning elections doesn't take brains; cleverness and manipulation are sufficient where there's enough money behind a candidate. Don't confuse brains with cleverness and manipulation, as they're not even remotely the same thing.

Rove is a short-term opportunist, not someone with a focus on good policy. Don't confuse success as the former with qualifications for the latter.

Sure they are. Those that are "dumb" are incapable of manipulation and cleverness. Again, your personal bias is blinding the truth. I think Rove is as sleazy and sketchy as anyone, but I acknowledge that he is not "dumb".
 
Hijack..... How is your health? You referenced it above but didn't say much. If you don't want to share any more that's fine but I've wondered for a long time how you're doing. Somehow I lost your email address. I saw you on Yahoo Messenger one time and tried to contact you but you either didn't see my message or chose not to respond.

Not all that good, actually: I'm still dealing with that rare kidney disorder, which I'm told is neither curable nor really treatable, though it is manageable. Rather have had a nice club sandwich. Learning to play and build guitars, though, which is fun, and have plenty of time to do it, since I get almost no sleep any more. Anybody need a custom guitar:

edesping@sabcglobal.net
 
Sure they are. Those that are "dumb" are incapable of manipulation and cleverness. Again, your personal bias is blinding the truth. I think Rove is as sleazy and sketchy as anyone, but I acknowledge that he is not "dumb".

Nope. Folks who engage in cleverness and manipulation can most certainly be - and most often are - "dumb".

Cleverness and manipulation can provide only short-term advantages . . . and more often than not cause "dumb" results. Hence those who engage in cleverness and manipulation without brains are most certainly "dumb", as you're using the word. ( See, Mike Pence and the religious freedom bill fiasco, W's invasion of Iraq, and Democratic congressional leadership's defeat of the Obama free trade agreement).

Having a valuable, beneficial vision and the ability to implement that vision over the long haul for a lasting beneficial effect requires brains . . . and may require cleverness and manipulation in small doses for certain short-term exigencies in the course of achieving the vision. Many don't see the difference . . . Rove sure didn't. That's why he's considered "sleazy and sketchy" today, why W's presidency isn't much respected, and why Jeb's candidacy is rightfully viewed with skepticism and suspicion when he just might be the best qualified candidate out there.
 
What a bias, jealous statement. You may not like Rove, but to call him dumb is just idiotic. He got W elected twice over whomever you (or I) voted for. Let that set in for a second.
At 6 pm on election day 2012 KR sat on his fat ass in the Fox studio and proclaimed that Romney was gonna win comfortably. By that time those of us in the reality-based community had known for a month that Obama was gonna win comfortably and get well over 300 electoral votes.

As to getting Shrub elected, I'm not so sure he did that himself, and since historians are now moving towards seeing Shrub as possibly the worst American Prez of all time, as they should, I wouldn't offer up getting it done as proof of anyone's cleverness.
 
Not all that good, actually: I'm still dealing with that rare kidney disorder, which I'm told is neither curable nor really treatable, though it is manageable. Rather have had a nice club sandwich. Learning to play and build guitars, though, which is fun, and have plenty of time to do it, since I get almost no sleep any more. Anybody need a custom guitar:

edesping@sabcglobal.net

How much do you charge for a auditorium-sized Koa wood acoustic? SopeJr#1 mentioned that the other day . . . although I think he wants the Taylor.

You using any special electronics in yours?
 
Not all that good, actually: I'm still dealing with that rare kidney disorder, which I'm told is neither curable nor really treatable, though it is manageable. Rather have had a nice club sandwich. Learning to play and build guitars, though, which is fun, and have plenty of time to do it, since I get almost no sleep any more. Anybody need a custom guitar:

edesping@sabcglobal.net

What an interesting hobby.

I hope you are staying away from undocumented wood.

If you are ever in Phoenix, I think you would really enjoy the Musical Instrument Museum. The exhibits about the history and culture of string instruments from around the world is amazing. Surprising what people made those things out of.

Sorry to hear that your health problems keep on. Every day I learn again to appreciate how lucky we are to have relatively good health.
 
How much do you charge for a auditorium-sized Koa wood acoustic? SopeJr#1 mentioned that the other day . . . although I think he wants the Taylor.

You using any special electronics in yours?

I build from kits, mostly from <A HREFhttp://www.lmii.com>LMI</R>, which are fully customizable. A Kit based on Koa and Sitka spruce will run about $650, and I'd do one for $950. All loa will add a little, but a Koa top is an affectation; it doesn't add to the sound, and may subtract from itl.

I've got the molds for dread, 14-fret 000 and 12-fret 000; the 000 is about the size of Taylor's GA. Electronics can be custom-selected; for those who want onboard and leave it to me I tend to use Fishman.

The Taylor is nice, but the cheapest koa Taylor is around $2300, and the nice ones are in the $5000 range. I can build something that sounds better, since I individually voice my instruments, though the craftsmanship probably won't be as close to perfect.
 
What an interesting hobby.

I hope you are staying away from undocumented wood.

If you are ever in Phoenix, I think you would really enjoy the Musical Instrument Museum. The exhibits about the history and culture of string instruments from around the world is amazing. Surprising what people made those things out of.

Sorry to hear that your health problems keep on. Every day I learn again to appreciate how lucky we are to have relatively good health.

I build from kits, since I don't have room for a side-bending machine and a circular saw, and LMI and StewMac don't do woods that violate the Lacey Act. I mostly build from East Indian Rosewood, which has the advantages of being the best of the rosewoods you can currently get and also fairly affordable, since there's a lot of it around.

A friend of mine recently went to that museum while out if Phoenix for some health care (pretty good picker, who plays a nylon-string crossover I built for him) and said it was really good.

The health thing isn't that big a deal; I don't feel very good any more, but I feel better than dead, my brain still works about as well as it ever did, and I can still stumble around the golf course from time to time. Still finding the antics of my clueless species, including my own, a source of constant amusement. Can't wait to watch the 20165 election; looking forward to more high comedy from Karl Rove and the moronic blonde.
 
Not all that good, actually: I'm still dealing with that rare kidney disorder, which I'm told is neither curable nor really treatable, though it is manageable. Rather have had a nice club sandwich. Learning to play and build guitars, though, which is fun, and have plenty of time to do it, since I get almost no sleep any more. Anybody need a custom guitar:

edesping@sabcglobal.net
I am really sorry to hear that. :( Most of us don't appreciate good health until we don't have it. I've had health issues for a while but not near as serious as yours sound. I'm still able to get out and do most things. I've tried to learn to play a guitar a couple times....just don't have the patience and besides that my fingers won't bend the right way to make some of those cords.

BTW is that email correct... the sabcglobal.net ? I have an sbcglobal.net address but mine doesn't have the letter a in it. Thanks.
 
I build from kits, since I don't have room for a side-bending machine and a circular saw, and LMI and StewMac don't do woods that violate the Lacey Act. I mostly build from East Indian Rosewood, which has the advantages of being the best of the rosewoods you can currently get and also fairly affordable, since there's a lot of it around.

A friend of mine recently went to that museum while out if Phoenix for some health care (pretty good picker, who plays a nylon-string crossover I built for him) and said it was really good.

The health thing isn't that big a deal; I don't feel very good any more, but I feel better than dead, my brain still works about as well as it ever did, and I can still stumble around the golf course from time to time. Still finding the antics of my clueless species, including my own, a source of constant amusement. Can't wait to watch the 20165 election; looking forward to more high comedy from Karl Rove and the moronic blonde.

Well, um, which moronic blonde would that be? There are candidates and non-candidates who fit that description - female and otherwise.
 
I am really sorry to hear that. :( Most of us don't appreciate good health until we don't have it. I've had health issues for a while but not near as serious as yours sound. I'm still able to get out and do most things. I've tried to learn to play a guitar a couple times....just don't have the patience and besides that my fingers won't bend the right way to make some of those cords.

BTW is that email correct... the sabcglobal.net ? I have an sbcglobal.net address but mine doesn't have the letter a in it. Thanks.
Should be sbcglobal.net
 
Where she apparently lost her mind, and became a victim of worldviewism. Note to self: always always go where the evidence takes you.
 
Should be sbcglobal.net
Thanks.... are you still working or have you retired.... I don't recall how old you are.

My daughter recently moved to the Dallas/FW area but she works west of Oklahoma City a lot of times. Luckily she likes hot weather (since she's outside a lot). Have you been hit with any damage from all the tornadoes out that way? Seems like everytime I turn around there's a tornado out there somewhere.
 
Thanks.... are you still working or have you retired.... I don't recall how old you are.

My daughter recently moved to the Dallas/FW area but she works west of Oklahoma City a lot of times. Luckily she likes hot weather (since she's outside a lot). Have you been hit with any damage from all the tornadoes out that way? Seems like everytime I turn around there's a tornado out there somewhere.
I'm too ****ing old, but we haven't won powerball yet and my rich father is still with us, so I'm still working, as is SWMBO. We mostly don't mind, though; legal R&W is entertaining more than its not.

We haven't had a twister in our yard yet, but we've seen one. The major problem here in the foothills of the Ozarks at the moment is flooding, though: lots of rain over a period of maybe 3 months.
 
I'm too ****ing old.
I sure know that feeling.:) I've been retired for quite some time (since 2002) but still stay busy. I have a lot of jobs but none of them pay anything.:) Both my wife and I do a lot of volunteer stuff. A person can't just sit around. I get bored with TV in a hurry so there's lots of days that our TV isn't even turned on. My M-I-L is having major health issues now so that is taking up a lot of my wife's time so that means I have to take care of everything else.
 
Donald Trump as the Republican nominee is one of them.

Fortunately, I don't think he is serious, and I don't think he will get the nomination. Personally, I think he would be a very dangerous President.
Trump would be good to help get rid of govt waste. Politicians always talk about it,but nobody every does anything. The Donald would actually pinpoint the waste and find ways to cut it out.
 
Well, in that case I acknowledge my mistake. My recollection of your style connected with some elements of some of your posts (the use of "L" when referring to Ladoga, for example), but I don't recall you ever being caustic for the sake of being caustic; that's more my speed. ;) (Among others here, of course.)

I'm glad to know you're alive and kicking, Buzz . . . and just as glad to know that I need to pay attention so I can stay of of the way when you're kicking like a mule.

That said, I'm going to ask you about last week's mass shooting in Charleston; do you think that some victims' families' forgiveness of the shooter, and other victims' family members' remorse for not being able to forgive as of yet, is a rational response? A natural response? Or an unusual response under the circumstances? Do you think that response is something that would be made by folks without a religious belief? Would you agree or disagree that religion's influence has made it more likely that generally (not just the Charleston folks), victims' families' focus would be on forgiveness rather than revenge? Just curious . . .

. . . for the record, my observations of people - which I assert is at least as more-or-less objective as yours - indicates that religious people are generally (but not exclusively or in all individual instances) more likely to be generous with others than non-religious people, particularly in very difficult circumstances.


One more thing: would you differentiate among religions? Would fundamentalist Christians and Catholics be more likely to draw your ire (because of their social conservative politics, for example) than say mainline Protestants and Buddhists? I'm curious if yours is a blanket condemnation or more nuanced than your statement above seems to be.

I disagree quite a bit with the bolded part. Nothing in my life has shown me that religious people are more likely to forgive or focus on forgiveness. In fact I bet there is a direct correlation between death penalty supporters and religious faith. I see very little forgiveness in the death penalty (not to mention very little intelligence).

Having lived in a place in which 85% are either atheist or non religious, I see that religion has little to do with compassion, forgiveness or care about their neighbors. In fact I have seen just the opposite.
 
I disagree quite a bit with the bolded part. Nothing in my life has shown me that religious people are more likely to forgive or focus on forgiveness. In fact I bet there is a direct correlation between death penalty supporters and religious faith. I see very little forgiveness in the death penalty (not to mention very little intelligence).

Having lived in a place in which 85% are either atheist or non religious, I see that religion has little to do with compassion, forgiveness or care about their neighbors. In fact I have seen just the opposite.
In my experience, atheists are generally kinder and more generous than religious folks. I think it is because the assumption that this life is all anyone gets naturally leads to a greater respect for your life and others.
 
I disagree quite a bit with the bolded part. Nothing in my life has shown me that religious people are more likely to forgive or focus on forgiveness. In fact I bet there is a direct correlation between death penalty supporters and religious faith. I see very little forgiveness in the death penalty (not to mention very little intelligence).

Having lived in a place in which 85% are either atheist or non religious, I see that religion has little to do with compassion, forgiveness or care about their neighbors. In fact I have seen just the opposite.

That's a particularly ignorant post, Ziz . . . where you live has close to a couple of millennia's worth of development where the primary cultural influence has been a powerful Christian church. To establish your baseline comparison about what that area would otherwise be like today you'd have to go back to pre-Christian history and follow the likely development of that culture without Christianity . . .

. . . if you'd like an approximation of that type of societal story, you might read "How The Irish Saved Civilization". The first third of the book describes the pre-Patrick culture in great detail, including with some contemporary (I believe) literature. Besides, it's a helluva story . . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
That's a particularly ignorant post, Ziz . . . where you live has close to a couple of millennia's worth of development where the primary cultural influence has been a powerful Christian church. To establish your baseline comparison about what that area would otherwise be like today you'd have to go back to pre-Christian history and follow the likely development of that culture without Christianity . . .
Sope, you are really striking out a lot today. Go back to pre-Christian Europe? What nonsense is this? All Ziz said was that he finds he has good people around him, and they don't need religion to push them into being good. Trying to change the subject into some sort of civilization history lesson? That's weak sauce.
 
Sope, you are really striking out a lot today. Go back to pre-Christian Europe? What nonsense is this? All Ziz said was that he finds he has good people around him, and they don't need religion to push them into being good. Trying to change the subject into some sort of civilization history lesson? That's weak sauce.

You're an idiot - a high IQ, well-educated, sometimes well-spoken and well-though-through, but waaay too short-sighted idiot.

You studied religion for how long, and you can't even recognize its nearly two thousand years' of being the primary driver of European cultures effect on European cultures today - even so-called "secular" cultures?

You. Are. An. Idiot.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT