zedvictor4

Well the general focus used to be the Slave Trade.....But now it's roughly the period between 1950 and the present. 

Migration and social evolution has always been difficult.

And different sides of the equation had a tendency to only see their own side of the equation....Which was to be expected.

Intolerance is a two sided state of mind.....Though unfortunately were expected to accept that it has only ever been one sided.

Myths are developed and recorded human exaggerations Poly.

Just like shaman.

And spirit realms etc.

But what ever floats ones boat.

And I like the new avatar.

I've a penchant for those sort of kiddies picture book images.

No, an MGB is a classic British Sports Car.

Top of the morning to ya Doc.

It's all word play Trade.

Blah blah for sure.

Tell the gullible that they must repent and they will.

From almost total nihilism to the acceptance of a GOD principle, is a big compromise.

And saying sorry is not quite the same as the religious concept of repentance.....As you well know.

I would agree.

But unpredictably predictable is  a completely different kettle of fish to; predictably unpredictable, which was the phrase that Trade used.

I would suggest that to find something obvious, implies that something is logical.

Predictably unpredictable also implies a certain level of logical understanding.

Nonetheless...What is the difference between predictably unpredictable and predictably predictable.

So I would further suggest that if someone is predictably unpredictable, then they are also predictably predictable.

In so much as their unpredictability is predictable.

And GODS can represent a million things.

And the notion of repentance doesn't register with me at all.

Did Faux reincarnate as 949havoc?

I'm not so sure Stephen.

How seriously hate crime against "White" people in the U.K would be regarded.....Would depend upon the  ethnic origin of the "White" person.

We're currently going through a sort of payback phase.

And of course, gender would also be an important factor.

Good.

I'm pleased that you find my output obvious.

That implies that my output  is logical and therefore expressed accurately.

As I suggested previously.......You seem to have developed a more pragmatic approach to ideological issues.

The measure can only be my database and how it manages information.

Everything at some point must be input and assessed.

You need to clarify that statement.

Because as it stands, it could be contradictory.

To be honest,  logical consistency is missing.

Of course, no one is a Muslim as no one is a Christian.

We are all human beings and apply various labels to ourselves, relative to inherited packages of data.

A lot of which emanated from a time of religious fervour and ideology that was extremely popular a couple of thousand years ago.

The machinations of ongoing human migration saw/sees the regional development of various schools of religious thought.

All really based upon the premise, that if you teach your children nonsense, then they will likely as not grow up believing in nonsense.

Well stated Poly.

I regard and assess data and output as I see fit.

The imagination is boundless.

So replace MGB with Gandalf the Grey.

And:

6. Therefore Gandalf the Grey exists.

Easy Peasy Doc.

The existence of thoughts is an interesting thought for sure.

Nontological Argument

1. It is not possible that a Maximally Great Being exists

2. If it is not possible that an MGB exists, then an MGB doesn't exist in any possible world.

3. If an MGB doesn't exist in any possible world, then it doesn't.

4. If an MGB doesn't exist anywhere, then it doesn't.

5. Ditto.

6.Therefore Ditto.

MGB: Figment of the imagination.

Sound: What Doc was bound to say.

Ontological Argument: Archaic Bullshit Ben.

One was merely discussing the processes by which data is acquired, stored, perhaps modified and perhaps transferred.

The concepts of theism and atheism are but relative data arrangements.

As are your own wackier than the normal wacky theistic data arrangements.

Keep up the good work Poly....It brightens my day.

Good Morning Trade.

Dart quiet at the moment.

So allowing  you the benefit of my wisdom.

I would suggest, that since we started exchanging data on Debateart. We have both modified and relaxed our approach to the subject of religion and associated philosophy.

Would you agree?

I am certainly more certain that it is impossible to be certain of anything.

And you seem to be more openminded,  and as a consequence, your narrative output appears to be less certain.

Have a nice day.

I questioned everything and concluded that there were no verifiable facts or truths relative to material existence.

Only a variety of hypotheses.....Developed fairly recently, by a fairly recently developed sentient organic structure.

Though we evolved a few billion years too late, to do anything other that speculate more or less wildly.

And I concluded that floaty about blokes and nailing people to posts was more than less wild.

Modern science  offers a more pragmatic approach to the subject, though still relies upon a theoretical conclusion.

And of course there is always the question of where did the floaty about bloke suddenly appear from.

To suggest otherwise is to defy logic and  propose the biggest fallacy of all.

Exactly Trade.

It can mean anything one wants it to mean.

Though I'm not sure that Jesus spoke in English.

And as I keep reiterating:

Jesus may or may not have been a real person, though I concede that it is possible that there was a real person who did fit the bill.

Nonetheless, we have no way of knowing what said person might have uttered.

All that we have is second, third, fourth, fifth hand accounts, variously recorded and translated, eventually into English.

And all subject to the vagaries of time and the tendency of humans to exaggerate.

Any conditioned theist will say what any conditioned theist is conditioned to say.

It's the nature of the beast.

Doesn't prove the existence of deities though.

Just proves that people can/will repeat verbatim anything that they are taught/compelled to repeat verbatim.

Covid  and therefore Covid vaccines, get all the press that they need.

So why pay advertising companies?

Stay safe.

Everyone is selectively moral.

Even "Pro Lifers".

What's new?

Exactly my point.

The court procedure is irrelevant.

The gun that took two lives is the relevant issue.

Weapons effect Poly.

Don't doubt it for a minute.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but perhaps not quite so dramatically.

I certainly dislike the Nanny State syndrome, and I'm not quite sure how we arrived at this point. I'm more inclined to think that it is in fact, an inevitable result of material evolution, whereby technological and therefore social  expectation is exceeding the capability of the masses.

I think that you are probably like me....Somewhat old school, sort out my own life, and ask for nor expect anything from others.

1984 might have been somewhat premature, but I think that George Orwell's prophecy, eventually won't be to far short of the mark.

When by your reckoning, was the beginning of time Poly?

Do you have a clock GOD amongst your list of deities?

One assumes that to become a theist, one must have previously been an atheist Poly.

Sort of a logical progression, as it were.

And as for bitterness....Have you ever heard the expression.....The pot calling the kettle black.

It's good to end on agreement Doc.

Well...It's undeniably a presumption that Rittenhouse's life was in danger.

But Rittenhouse's gun undeniably took two lives.

Your argument is undeniably false.

The majority of people could probably be described as being some sort of group think ideolog. 

#22

Well stated.

I propose RationalMadman.

Who will second this?

Only rapists when judged by todays standards.

Things were a bit different back in the day.

Twas the norm.

For sure.

Inherited data.

The transfer of "sense".

Or non-sense.

You choose Doc.

Though stone throwers are just stone throwers, and have probably always been nothing more than the stone throwers.

Being in GODS image.

Means GODS being in our image.

After all, it was us that came up with the idea in the first place.

It's not a chicken and egg conundrum.

Undeniably true Doc.

Though as we discussed on a previous occasion, the modern "troubles" are fuelled as much by criminality, as by cultural differences.

The majority are probably happy to coexist peacefully.

The small minority do not see benefit in peaceful coexistence. And unfortunately the mob is easily roused.

Those hurling bricks at the Police these days, are generally testosterone fuelled under twenties.....Most of whom probably lack any accurate knowledge of Irelands history.

It's just us and them politics again Doc.

Kyle and Joseph....Same old shit.

A. You can't kill someone from a hundred meters away with a rope, and you'd be damn lucky to do it with a knife. Similarly you would need to be damn quick to run away from a gun.... Guns are designed to be effective remote killing machines.

B. "The target is subject etc"......Obviously.

C. I have handled firearms in a military capacity.......I can remember the first time I fired live rounds from an SLR. I certainly experienced a  sense of power, fear and an intense need for self control.

The weapons effect is a known psychological phenomena, which we will all be subject to. How an individual manages such emotions will depend upon a variety of factors.

D.

That's all right then?

Guns can't decide or do anything.....Someone does or doesn't pull the trigger. 

But hey whatever can be used for the gun lobby propaganda, right? 

Regards.

As I said to ILikePie5....Nice but impossible.....You've got what you've got and no collective will to do any different.

Shared intent then....Guns just make it easy.....Though unpremeditated defence would be more luck than judgement, even for the best gunslinger.....Though my previous comment was with regard to any method of murderous intent, in relation to homicide rates.....And of course, random killings is random killings and guns make this modus operandi very easy.

But as I said the issue isn't intent per se.....The issue is guns.....Devices designed with specific outcomes in mind.

And of course the psychological effect that the handling of weapons induces, especially guns......Known as the weapons effect.....Seemingly a day to day aspect of the collective U.S. consciousness......Guns make you feel powerful and therefore safe.....Same as the other person though......A false sense of security as it were, based upon an acquired sense of insecurity.

So you survive and John Doe cops it....So what....Same difference as far as the neutral observer is concerned.....And there's millions of  people in the U.S that won't give either you or John Doe a second thought.

Nice but impossible.

Humans aren't programmed to be that sensible.

Democracy is an inherited and modified state of mind, which started in Greece and generally moved North and West, plus a few colonial outliers.

You're not taking social evolution into account.

And nowadays "Patriot" doesn't quite mean the same as it once did.

You and others probably just want things the way that you want them....But even you and them will never completely agree.

So you either have something that is reasonably democratic....Or something that is unreasonably monocratic.

Spot on Poly.

That's what I keep telling theists.

So when has the U.S. ever seriously attempted to regulate firearms?

There are no real comparisons to be made.

And for sure, if someone is intent on killing you, they will do so.

Murderous intent isn't the issue though.

Well....U.S. Taliban history is a debate in itself.

And no, I'm never much of a celebrant.

Though I do think that Joe made a very wise decision to pull out.

History should have told you that you would ultimately achieve nothing.

The U.S. originally went there as a knee jerk reaction to the twin towers, and was chasing ghosts ever since.

And who is celebrating?....It's was all there in black and white.....Forgotten and now confined to history....So move on.

I will need to think about that statement Doc.

Haven't the time this morning.

You are perhaps aware of my views on religious labelling.