The prime example being Stalin, of course, yeah. Maybe they could've done better in WWII if he hadn't gotten rid of most everybody capable of leading an army.
Having heard about the Vietnam war, this is one country that I *wouldn't* have objections to the U.S. arming. If China invaded, they would fight like hell.
What makes 7th Day Adventists outliers? I skimmed the Wikipedia article and the only thing that really stuck out was the millennial stuff, and how big a deal is having different unactionable opinions about the future, really?
(actually curious)
P.S: Okay, so they're kosher, anti-alcohol, etc., but that's not so abnormal.
I think I agree more and more with whoever said, "Anyone who wants to be political leader should under no circumstances be allowed to." (or something to that effect)
If you don't accept the initial premise, that's fine by me. I was trying to respond to Luckyo in a relatively evidence-supported manner and HornWumpus comes in with the equivalent of saying "Nuh-uh!" Granted, he followed that up with an actual logical argument, which is good. Since then, you've just been crabbing at me because you don't like the God I may or may not accept. Good for you, but this is going nowhere.
I didn't start the topic. I just accepted the established line of thought, and then you refused to do so. Are you offering some sort of useful conclusion based on the premise that Jesus didn't exist?
You are perfectly free to engage me in this conversation when it's actually the point of discussion. It's annoying as hell that there are just certain topics that are impossible to discuss here on Slashdot without getting bogged down in the same old eternally rehashed shouting matches.
And please explain to me directly why my statement was hypocritical. I have heard that term overused to the point that I'm about ready to start reflexively punching in the face anyone who says it in my presence.
Yes, I was aware of the point, which was why I was trying to avoid veering off-topic into an argument about whether Jesus really existed. I'm not disagreeing with your main point(s), I was just commenting on one factual* issue originally.
Islam was originally a pretty much directly Arabic thing anyway, so drawing a distinction between Arabic and Muslim for the veil seems rather iffy. The more I read about Muslim doctrine (speeches Mohammed gave, usually), the more I find that he stole pretty much every single idea from some other religion he had run across at some point, which proves your point eminently. Even the reason that (as far as I'm aware) they want control of Jerusalem as a holy place is due to a legend of how Mohammed got taken up into heaven that sounds like a pretty direct mishmash of a couple Biblical stories. What rankles me is that nobody is fighting Islam to claim their two holy(est) cities, Mecca and Medina, yet they want to take away Judaism's only holy city, Jerusalem.
* As much as we can expect in this topic, obviously.
If I wanted a debate about Jesus' historicity, I would fucking ask for one. Can't we ever just accept the basic premise of the conversation that he did exist and leave the smug postreligious wankery out of it?
I was trying to point out that while some groups hated being separated (segregation), other groups insist on separating themselves into smaller and smaller groups because each smaller level of new government can't seem to grasp the concept of not ragging on some arbitrary ethnic/religious group. People are dicks in general.
I would be very interested to see your source for this. My first guess would be that you're going off a "they went down to Bethlehem in the the Xth month" passage, and I seem to recall that (waaaay) back in the day many calendars got out of sync with the seasonal cycle, to the point where they had to drop weeks or even months to make it line up again, in which case that seems like a shaky basis of evidence.
The Chronography of 354 AD contains early evidence of the celebration on December 25 of a Christian liturgical feast of the birth of Jesus. This was in Rome, while in Eastern Christianity the birth of Jesus was already celebrated in connection with the Epiphany on January 6.
Slashdot Mirror
Because what we really need in scientific textbooks is emotionally charged wording...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
Where are you getting "paleo" from? A Ctrl+F in the article itself didn't even find it.
The prime example being Stalin, of course, yeah. Maybe they could've done better in WWII if he hadn't gotten rid of most everybody capable of leading an army.
Clearly, due to their abilities to get millions of Americans to vote for them, they were all idiots surrounded by idiots.
FTFY :)
Having heard about the Vietnam war, this is one country that I *wouldn't* have objections to the U.S. arming. If China invaded, they would fight like hell.
And again, please note, this is for a nuclear war between countries that don't have many nuclear weapons.
India has nukes.
Yeah, because it's not like everybody had been practicing appeasement and just looking the other way whenever he did something ridiculous. Oh wait...
So you're saying they'll be first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes? :)
Yeah, unless it's a resurgence of a previous movement, isn't every reactionary group "neo" by definition?
What makes 7th Day Adventists outliers? I skimmed the Wikipedia article and the only thing that really stuck out was the millennial stuff, and how big a deal is having different unactionable opinions about the future, really?
(actually curious)
P.S: Okay, so they're kosher, anti-alcohol, etc., but that's not so abnormal.
I think I agree more and more with whoever said, "Anyone who wants to be political leader should under no circumstances be allowed to." (or something to that effect)
I was halfway willing to suspend disbelief until I got to the part about reverting gender rolls. Yeeeaahhhhh...okay, they're idiots.
If you don't accept the initial premise, that's fine by me. I was trying to respond to Luckyo in a relatively evidence-supported manner and HornWumpus comes in with the equivalent of saying "Nuh-uh!" Granted, he followed that up with an actual logical argument, which is good. Since then, you've just been crabbing at me because you don't like the God I may or may not accept. Good for you, but this is going nowhere.
I didn't start the topic. I just accepted the established line of thought, and then you refused to do so. Are you offering some sort of useful conclusion based on the premise that Jesus didn't exist?
You are perfectly free to engage me in this conversation when it's actually the point of discussion. It's annoying as hell that there are just certain topics that are impossible to discuss here on Slashdot without getting bogged down in the same old eternally rehashed shouting matches.
And please explain to me directly why my statement was hypocritical. I have heard that term overused to the point that I'm about ready to start reflexively punching in the face anyone who says it in my presence.
Yes, I was aware of the point, which was why I was trying to avoid veering off-topic into an argument about whether Jesus really existed. I'm not disagreeing with your main point(s), I was just commenting on one factual* issue originally.
Islam was originally a pretty much directly Arabic thing anyway, so drawing a distinction between Arabic and Muslim for the veil seems rather iffy. The more I read about Muslim doctrine (speeches Mohammed gave, usually), the more I find that he stole pretty much every single idea from some other religion he had run across at some point, which proves your point eminently. Even the reason that (as far as I'm aware) they want control of Jerusalem as a holy place is due to a legend of how Mohammed got taken up into heaven that sounds like a pretty direct mishmash of a couple Biblical stories. What rankles me is that nobody is fighting Islam to claim their two holy(est) cities, Mecca and Medina, yet they want to take away Judaism's only holy city, Jerusalem.
* As much as we can expect in this topic, obviously.
If I wanted a debate about Jesus' historicity, I would fucking ask for one. Can't we ever just accept the basic premise of the conversation that he did exist and leave the smug postreligious wankery out of it?
You definitely shouldn't have the technology if it makes you more likely to hurt others.
Why should you plan? ... Technology doesn't save the ignorant, which is what you are, especially without a plan.
Especially if your GPS dies while you're going through a seedy-looking neighborhood...
I was trying to point out that while some groups hated being separated (segregation), other groups insist on separating themselves into smaller and smaller groups because each smaller level of new government can't seem to grasp the concept of not ragging on some arbitrary ethnic/religious group. People are dicks in general.
Considering all the bits of Georgia (the country) that keep trying to split off, apparently people *want* to govern themselves.
In the bible, Christ was born in spring.
I would be very interested to see your source for this. My first guess would be that you're going off a "they went down to Bethlehem in the the Xth month" passage, and I seem to recall that (waaaay) back in the day many calendars got out of sync with the seasonal cycle, to the point where they had to drop weeks or even months to make it line up again, in which case that seems like a shaky basis of evidence.
C- M-v C-w
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#History
The Chronography of 354 AD contains early evidence of the celebration on December 25 of a Christian liturgical feast of the birth of Jesus. This was in Rome, while in Eastern Christianity the birth of Jesus was already celebrated in connection with the Epiphany on January 6.
Let's adapt by drowning all major cities which lie on the sea shore.
Duh, just build some Pressure Domes. At least until we can get the World Council to vote on that solar shade in another 20 years...
Space travel! Let's go settle on some other worlds we can fuck up.
Well, 1/3rd is perfectly representable as long as you're storing it in base 3... ;)