Nazis are the enemy.

Post Reply New Topic

I'd say that the 'thiesm' in pantheism is problematic for me if it should turn out, say, that animism's real but that there's no such thing as 'God'.

it begs the question: are "spirits" Gods/gods in a fulsome sense, fully qualified to take on the Theism label?

That might be a list of philosophic and linguistic atrocities rather than actual things. While I'd trust the Ars Goetia and Ars Almadel more than I'd trust the Bible on empiricism I'd trust both even less than having the same things examined with the scientific method and without the need to push what may actually exist through a filter of conceptual things that may never have existed. IMHO we have absolutely no clue what we mean when we use terms like spirits, Gods, or angels and it gets even more incestuous when we start trying to talk about people's abduction experience and then attempt to separate out alien on (alleged) nuts-and-bolts spaceship from angel or archangel.

For the boiling pot of nonsense it is I can completely understand why most scientists want to go near it, at the same time I think our culture is getting big enough that we really have to start asking questions about things like how egregore mechanics effect culture and, similar to ideas like dumping salt in the ocean somewhere to slow down global warming, ask questions as to whether there are similar places to inject ideas or efforts to decrease the quality or flammability of the fuel that's empowering a particular fire. We can't fight fires at the surface anymore because they spread too easily and the perceived medicine usually far worse than the problem it was intended to fix.

My wife and I, along with a friend, had attended a BLM demonstration at the Spokane courthouse, and I can affirm that the crowd was indeed multi-racial. Absent was any of the so called "reverse racism," or any violence. In fact, when some psycho started screaming at the speakers, he had been invited up to speak - which he did. That hardly sounds anything like how BLM is portrayed by the right. And I simply don't believe Spokane is the only exception to the rule of how BLM behaves.

Here's tons of videos from blm rallies that show differently. I remember one from Portland where leader told everyone to basically buy guns and kill cops. Then there's others saying every black person needs to kill 1-2 white people so all whites would be dead.

All life's matter. Blm implies black life's matter more. I also disagree with their every black person is innocent victim mentality.

Those BLM demonstrators who say such reprehensible things are their own worst enemy, and are only counterproductive.
As for the name, Black Lives Matter: the implication is, black lives matter, too. The fact of the matter is cops have been getting away with harassing and killing blacks with impunity for years. They used to believe there were no such things as black serial killers, but that was only because no one cared about blacks who ended up dead, making one wonder how many black serial killers had gone free to kill again and again because the police were never looking for serial connections between black murder victims. Yes, all lives matter, but that truth hasn't been applied to black Americans for far too long.

No BLM leader ever said such things. If a random black person spouts craziness, someone will put it on YouTube and label it BLM.

Sorry if you can't handle that some leaders In Blum are extremist. You turn a blind eye and wish to believe every single left leaning person is a wonderful angel who does nothing ad and never will. And all right leaning people are horrible monsters who can never do anything good.

I do not lie. I find it hard enough to keep gifts secret

That level of escalation makes no sense. I accused you of consistently spreading lies in your posts, and you responded by mischaracterizing my entire personality and existence? It's too absurd to even make me feel insulted. Worst. Mindreader. Ever.

If you have any credible source, even any vaguely credible source that any leader in BLM, down the local organizer of an official BLM action or a speaker at any official BLM event has ever advocated violence against white people or police in general, bring it on. Show me. You don't have any evidence, because it has never happened.

Are all leftist saints? Of course not. I personally know abusive hippies, tweeker communists, and other proper douchebags on the left. I consider them a proportional part of the group, not representative nor exceptions. Likewise, I had a close acquaintance and respected peer in grad school who had gotten his Bachelor's from Liberty University. He is a YEC, as well. I would absolutely trust him to have my back in a rough situation, and keenly enjoyed our debates. I should actually try to get back in touch with him.

THANKS EVERYONE FOR CONSISTENTLY MISCHARACTERIZING ME AND MY MOTIVES. I crossed a threshold just now, and it no longer bothers me all that much. Good tactic at first, has now backfired. Seriously, thank you.

When you put it that way your stance suffers considerable credibility issues. These aren't at all difficult to find.



If I wanted to be this hard-headed I could tell you that the alt-right torch march a couple Fridays ago was a publicity stunt where the media grabbed a few racist nuts and tried to smear the alt-right. I'd never do that because I'd feel completely dishonest, I can't really relate to white identitarians past some desire to have some amount of resepct for European achievements and contributions, I can't think of a good reason why I'd even want to expose myself to making something up or flat out denying things that happened which five minutes on Google could disprove me on, and that bit of a thought exercise makes my sympathy for this kind of mental-blocking in other people decrease considerably.

You can try to make a point that yes, there are radicals and nuts in BLM but they're a fringe segment and Fox News and the conservative media love them the way that the left-wing portions of the media loved finding the one racist t-shirt or sign at a Tea Party rally or at the various Berkeley events. Actually make that case though and try to talk about the aspects of BLM that you think are helpful, where you see them trying to repair the black community, where you see them also criticizing black on black crime, and pretty much everywhere you can think of them showing displays of self-analysis and good critical thinking that will improve the situation of African Americans as a whole. Detailing the problems that they take seriously and are working to solve helps make that case. If you're trying to make a case that it's a squeaky-clean movement rather than an ideological polyglot or that it's 1/100 of 1% who are engaged in supremecy and hate speech against whites, the police, etc.. I'm sorry but its just not credible and the only way you could make it credible is really doing your homework and making a convincing argument rather than telling people that you think they're just blathering propaganda created by anti-BLM people. For cherry-picked data and video there's just a bit too much of it to go around.

This incident, if I have the correct one, involved people coming from an Al Sharpton speech which was not part of the BLM rally happening elsewhere. The film is from NYC, right? I don't know what the video proves except my point. Someone filmed black people saying some vile things, and labeled it #BLM. It proves nothing, except the prevalence of confirmation bias.

It's almost like the slogan is a response to certain lives being devalued more than others.

Didn't the Klansmen tell you? Anything any black person does wrong is explicitly the fault of Black Lives Matter, regardless of how involved or uninvolved they actually are.
Black sovereign citizen opens fire on police? #BLMsfault
Multiple high school athletes (including at least one black student) commit sexual assault against a fellow student? #BLMsfault
Father of one of the rapists shoots the judge who sentenced his son? Post it with me now: #BLMsfault

I don't consider BLM any kind of fringe or radicals. Their platform makes sense, and they make every effort to ensure that people who represent them advocate for non-violence.

I feel confident that if someone can produce a named activist speaking as a representative of BLM and advocating violence, I can find a senior BLM organizer who disavows their actions and has had them removed from their position. A Democracy Now interview with the founders addressed this topic in depth, but I can't find it. I assume that Amy had them on to talk about something else, but asked about their knowledge of and actions regarding a film where some black marchers in NYC or Brooklyn chanted about dead cops. They reaffirmed their commitment to non-violence. They praised the actions of the Dallas PD in protecting the marchers from the assassin, and drew very sharp lines to exclude anyone who initiates violence or promotes violence from their organization.

Are there enough people in some cities in the US who have had friends or relatives unjustly killed by the police to form an angry march and say what they really think? Almost surely, given the number of black men unjustly killed by the police. Does that make what they said right or fair? Of course not. I can understand their motivation for saying it, and rebuke them for saying it in a way that discredits the fight for equal treatment under the law. Angry people often lack sophistication. *cough*

Last edited by jrjones9933 on 25 Aug 2017, 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Beautiful.

Pretty much, even if you were right about something - even by accident - you'd never be able to muster enough self control to make a coherent case to anyone. It's insults first, middle, and last.

I'll do my own reading on this and not bother talking to you guys anymore about it because I can't learn a thing from this kind of dialog, other than who just can't hack reasoned discussion.

tech, you kind of had this coming.