Cannibalism

[Karpatok]

It isn't RE who is lying ASHVIN He may be many things as are we all, but the one thing he never does is lie. You on the other hand always lie. Because you say you are going but you never damn just leave. You NEVER do what you say you are going to do!

• Tweet

[Chloe]

I sent Watson a Warning and he now has to limit himself to 1 Post per Day with any references to God, the Bible or Christianity in it.

  And love the smiley-dungeon!!    
 
Ashvin, it would be interesting to see what you can bring to diverse threads without quoting the bible.  What do you think, without the quotes?

I've had a quick look back at the start of the thread, at it seems to be Surly who suddenly, out of the blue, posted something unrelated to the thread, but related to you.         (OK, not spam, but still disruptive.  Probably a mistake?)

You wrote:

Then RE and others started asking me about the Genesis genealogies and lifespans, as well as other things in the Biblical accounts, so I responded. YOU GUYS are the ones who started attacking evangelical Christianity and opened the door for my defenses.

Yes, but you don't have to answer them!  You have the right to remain silent!

You wrote:

You asked me a bunch of questions about the Bible and science, and I gave you answers. Now that you don't like the answers (presumably because they threaten your established worldview), you are whining about there is too much spiritual debate on these threads

   Methinks I spy projection at least twice here ...  I notice you've made reference to cannibalism on the Picturing Christ thread, so presumably you do have something to add to a discussion on it.  It would have been more to the point (not to mention more courteous) on this thread if you'd said something similar here, instead of ignoring the original post, and contributing (repeatedly) only to the hijacking of it.   


WHD, thank you!               An answer that actually responded closely to the original post (not that the first two responses weren't interesting.)  You wrote:

Hunger can derange. Should food shortages arise, I've no doubt we will see cannibalism in America. Are we being primed for it? I think the zombie meme arose as a response to the office, the corporatization of the Western world, mindless consumers sitting at a desk all day, while their rulers play nuclear chicken. I think it has far transcended that, as the greatest consumers of the zombie meme are the very sort of people the zombie meme was designed to mock. I should know, I managed a Halloween store in the city where the zombie pub crawl began. Corporate types and students angling to be corporate types, mostly. The very sort of empty people, many of them, who might resort to eating each other, if they got hungry enough, not having much of an original thought in their heads otherwise.
I digress a little. If we are being primed for a zombie apocalypse, I'm sure the ruling class would like nothing more than for the people to direct their madness at each other, rather than up the hierarchy, as resource constraints weigh more heavily on humanity, which continues to grow at the shocking pace of 200,000 people A DAY. Widespread cannibalism would have the effect of whittling down our numbers real quick - solving the resource constraint problem - as people don't grow fast enough to make them livestock. Our relatively slow growth being due to our big brains. Oh, the irony.
Metaphorically, you could say that humans are already cannibalizing widely, insofar as heedlessly, we are devouring the body of the earth, of which our bodies are made, making the earth increasingly inhospitable for mammals, what with all the toxic shit we have insinuated throughout.
As for cannibalism becoming a culturally acceptable thing, human consciousness is capable of rationalizing ANYTHING. It's not near so far as most people think, from industrial feed lots for pigs, chickens and cows, where we feed them each other and in some cases their own kind, to industrial food recycling of humans, for humans.

I do think there may be a real attempt to make cannibalism 'acceptable'.  Or, rather, to manipulate us enough to make it seem 'natural'.  Eating dead animal flesh is a horrible thing; but we need the nutrients, so we don't think about the actual horror of it.  Cannibalism would certainly tie in with the industrialised, computerised 'new age'.  The old religions tied in very closely with the god of the harvest.  Now they're being deconstructed in an apparant attempt to do away with them.  No harvest; no god of the harvest - why?  Because the harvest is no longer the necessary nourishment?  In a place where the 'group' is the new 'religion', and 'all is one', there is an argument that it could be made to seem slightly logical to then consume - well, each other?  (Maybe not quite that, but you get my drift ..)

• Tweet

[RE]

That's fine, my one post per day will be links to my articles on my PC thread. As I've said before, I've never thought the DD forum to be anything worth participating in...

That's a core reason you get so much negative reaction to your posting.  You don't have RESPECT for the people here or what they think.  You just want to pontificate about your beliefs until everybody gets sick of it.  Pontificate on your own Blog.

its filled with arrogance, vitriol, animosity, bigotry and hatred. I pray God will penetrate your hardened hearts, but I'm done with that. Please enjoy your new concentration camp of groupthink and oppression that you laughably call a blog and forum...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/OqeKV2UYq1Q" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/OqeKV2UYq1Q</a>

Seems to get that way as soon as you start haranguing everyone with the Bible Thumping.  The intolerance of any belief other than your Fundyism tends to annoy people.

Anyhow, see you tomorrow. 

RE

• Tweet

[monsta666]

That's fine, my one post per day will be links to my articles on my PC thread. As I've said before, I've never thought the DD forum to be anything worth participating in... its filled with arrogance, vitriol, animosity, bigotry and hatred. I pray God will penetrate your hardened hearts, but I'm done with that. Please enjoy your new concentration camp of groupthink and oppression that you laughably call a blog and forum...

Karpatok, Ashvin and others, I know these things can be frustrating but please let us not resort to attacks on one another. You make good contributions to DD so even if we disagree let us respect each other enough so we do not to attack each other personally.

When I made my comment about changing the topic of conversation, I thought it was a question that could be answered without things degenerating into something mean spirited. Sure spiritual arguments are important but they are not everything and sometimes I think it pays to look at matters without a spiritual lens. There are many events from financial, ecological to political that are worth debating about and these can be debated on their own individual merits without the need for spiritual connections. It does pay to have a sound understanding of these topics before looking at the bigger picture.

Once we have grasped the knowledge of each area then perhaps we can connect to spiritual matters which will add the most substance to the argument but for the meantime may I suggest we engage in some reductionism? I think most posters here can see you are intelligent Ashvin so I think people would be keen to see your views on other topics.

I do think there may be a real attempt to make cannibalism 'acceptable'.  Or, rather, to manipulate us enough to make it seem 'natural'.  Eating dead animal flesh is a horrible thing; but we need the nutrients, so we don't think about the actual horror of it.  Cannibalism would certainly tie in with the industrialised, computerised 'new age'.  The old religions tied in very closely with the god of the harvest.  Now they're being deconstructed in an apparent attempt to do away with them.  No harvest; no god of the harvest - why?  Because the harvest is no longer the necessary nourishment?  In a place where the 'group' is the new 'religion', and 'all is one', there is an argument that it could be made to seem slightly logical to then consume - well, each other?  (Maybe not quite that, but you get my drift ..)

To be honest I have never really considered whether cannibalism would become more common or widely accepted as we go down the descent. I think if it ever got to the stage were it was seriously considered or practised widely then things would need to degenerate quite significantly. Since cannibalism is such a big taboo I think it can only be readily accepted from the younger generations were their beliefs are not so fixed and more malleable. Yes, we cannot discount the possibility that peoples' values could change suddenly in light of desperate circumstances but it must be pretty desperate for this to happen. In the initial stages of collapse I think much of the deaths will come from the young, old, sick and poor. Once those are gone there will be significantly more resources to cater for the rest. Once those remaining people begin to struggle for survival then maybe they will resort to cannibalism. But I do think if this is to come, it will come later rather than sooner.

• Tweet

[Chloe]

Right!  I'm posting this response again, as it got posted behind K.'s response to Ashvin (my fault, I ignored the 'warning' that something else had been posted.)   Karpatok, Ashvin and anyone else who responds to the squabble, this is a post about the danger of ACTUAL, LITERAL CANNIBALISM becoming socialised 'normality'( now there's a sentence I never thought I'd be writing).  STOP hijacking it with the ongoing quarrel between you two. (Or, if you can't do that, have the courtesy to at least mention the original post.) I thought you'd kind of made up on the Vile Nazi Stew thread?  Kiss and make up    OR TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE!  There's the equivalent of a hundred naughty steps here - go and fight it out there/in the playpen, if neither of you can offer anything constructive here.  High chairs and plastic cups and spoons available on request(!)   

RE, you wrote:

   I sent Watson a Warning and he now has to limit himself to 1 Post per Day with any references to God, the Bible or Christianity in it. 

Ha! And love the smiley-dungeon!!     
 
Ashvin, it would be interesting to see what you can bring to diverse threads without quoting the bible.  What do you think, without the quotes?
I've had a quick look back at the start of the thread, at it seems to be Surly who suddenly, out of the blue, posted something unrelated to the thread, but related to you.          (OK, not spam, but still disruptive.  Probably a mistake?)

You wrote: 

Then RE and others started asking me about the Genesis genealogies and lifespans, as well as other things in the Biblical accounts, so I responded. YOU GUYS are the ones who started attacking evangelical Christianity and opened the door for my defenses.

Yes, but you don't have to answer them!  You have the right to remain silent!

You wrote:
 

You asked me a bunch of questions about the Bible and science, and I gave you answers. Now that you don't like the answers (presumably because they threaten your established worldview), you are whining about there is too much spiritual debate on these threads.

Methinks I spy projection at least twice here ...  I notice you've made reference to cannibalism on the Picturing Christ thread, so presumably you do have something to add to a discussion on it.  It would have been more to the point (not to mention more courteous) on this thread if you'd said something similar here, instead of ignoring the original post, and contributing (repeatedly) only to the hijacking of it.   


WHD, thank you!                           
An answer that actually responded closely to the original post (not that the first two responses weren't interesting.)  You wrote:

Hunger can derange. Should food shortages arise, I've no doubt we will see cannibalism in America. Are we being primed for it? I think the zombie meme arose as a response to the office, the corporatization of the Western world, mindless consumers sitting at a desk all day, while their rulers play nuclear chicken. I think it has far transcended that, as the greatest consumers of the zombie meme are the very sort of people the zombie meme was designed to mock. I should know, I managed a Halloween store in the city where the zombie pub crawl began. Corporate types and students angling to be corporate types, mostly. The very sort of empty people, many of them, who might resort to eating each other, if they got hungry enough, not having much of an original thought in their heads otherwise.
I digress a little. If we are being primed for a zombie apocalypse, I'm sure the ruling class would like nothing more than for the people to direct their madness at each other, rather than up the hierarchy, as resource constraints weigh more heavily on humanity, which continues to grow at the shocking pace of 200,000 people A DAY. Widespread cannibalism would have the effect of whittling down our numbers real quick - solving the resource constraint problem - as people don't grow fast enough to make them livestock. Our relatively slow growth being due to our big brains. Oh, the irony.
Metaphorically, you could say that humans are already cannibalizing widely, insofar as heedlessly, we are devouring the body of the earth, of which our bodies are made, making the earth increasingly inhospitable for mammals, what with all the toxic shit we have insinuated throughout.
As for cannibalism becoming a culturally acceptable thing, human consciousness is capable of rationalizing ANYTHING. It's not near so far as most people think, from industrial feed lots for pigs, chickens and cows, where we feed them each other and in some cases their own kind, to industrial food recycling of humans, for humans.

I do think there may be a real attempt to make cannibalism 'acceptable'.  Or, rather, to manipulate us enough to make it seem 'natural'.  Eating dead animal flesh is a horrible thing; but we[/size] need the nutrients, so we don't think about the actual horror of it.  Cannibalism would certainly tie in with the industrialised, computerised 'new age'.  The old religions tied in very closely with the god of the harvest.  Now they're being deconstructed in an apparant attempt to do away with them.  No harvest; no god of the harvest - why?  Because the harvest is no longer the necessary nourishment?  In a place where the 'group' is the new 'religion', and 'all is one', there is an argument that it could be made to seem slightly logical to then consume - well, each other?  (Maybe not quite that, but you get my drift ..)

• Tweet

[Chloe]

My last response got lost behind K.'s latest blast at Ashvin. (My fault; I ignored the 'warning' another reply had been posted.)  And, when I tried to copy it, it got posted, of course, in the original spot.     
Karpatok, Ashvin and everyone else who's responded to their latest fight - IT'S INCREDIBLY RUDE TO HIJACK A THREAD LIKE THAT!  IF YOU MUST DO IT, AT LEAST HAVE THE COURTESY TO MENTION THE ORIGINAL POST!  Otherwise you've just turned it into another food fight.  Oh, well done ...     Maybe RE should consider some sort of 'naughty step'/boxing ring for the fights.  Oh wait  ....

Monsta666, you wrote: 

To be honest I have never really considered whether cannibalism would become more common or widely accepted as we go down the descent. I think if it ever got to the stage were it was seriously considered or practised widely then things would need to degenerate quite significantly. Since cannibalism is such a big taboo I think it can only be readily accepted from the younger generations were their beliefs are not so fixed and more malleable. Yes, we cannot discount the possibility that peoples' values could change suddenly in light of desperate circumstances but it must be pretty desperate for this to happen. In the initial stages of collapse I think much of the deaths will come from the young, old, sick and poor. Once those are gone there will be significantly more resources to cater for the rest. Once those remaining people begin to struggle for survival then maybe they will resort to cannibalism. But I do think if this is to come, it will come later rather than sooner.

Thank you for actually responding to the actual OP, as well as the fight.  In this place, that means you deserve a freakin' medal!!!!!  I hope you (and WHD) get carved up last!   
(No offence, RE!) 

My point would be: are 'they' mounting a pre-emptive strike?  How hard would it be to modify the human body so that we start to crave some sort of vit. only found in it?  And it would, from an evil p.o.v., be quite the solution ... As I wrote in my other post:  I do think there may be a real attempt to make cannibalism 'acceptable'.  Or, rather, to manipulate us enough to make it seem 'natural'.  Eating dead animal flesh is a horrible thing; but we need the nutrients, so we don't think about the actual horror of it.  Cannibalism would certainly tie in with the industrialised, computerised 'new age'.  The old religions tied in very closely with the god of the harvest.  Now they're being deconstructed in an apparant attempt to do away with them.  No harvest; no god of the harvest - why?  Because the harvest is no longer the necessary nourishment?  In a place where the 'group' is the new 'religion', and 'all is one', there is an argument that it could be made to seem slightly logical to then consume - well, each other?  (Maybe not quite that, but you get my drift ..)

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

Ashvin, it would be interesting to see what you can bring to diverse threads without quoting the bible.  What do you think, without the quotes?

Chloe,

What do you want me to say about cannibalism...? It is WRONG, under any and all circumstances. Why is it wrong? Well, I can't answer that question without being censored, apparently. Well it end up happening anyway in the near future? That's very likely. Why? Well, we can get into a lot of different theories and speculations about that, but I would rather rely on the extremely clear predictions of the... oh, wait, I can't say that "B" word without being censored.

That's the whole point - everything that relates to truth also relates to spirituality, because the latter is the ultimate truth. We can debate what spirituality is better than others, which is what Ka and I have been doing, but there is no use in discussing anything when we simply IGNORE the spiritual dynamics and implications.

Yes, but you don't have to answer them!  You have the right to remain silent!

True, I could... but isn't that kind of the point of a forum? To answer questioned posed to you. Don't get me wrong... I am very EAGER to talk about the Bible and Christianity with any opportunity I get... I would never deny that fact. The problem is when people erroneously accuse me of hijacking threads and disrupting the board, when they are the ones bringing up these issues in the first place. You can't hijack a thread by simply responding to questions or comments directed at you... I think that should be clear enough.

Methinks I spy projection at least twice here ...  I notice you've made reference to cannibalism on the Picturing Christ thread, so presumably you do have something to add to a discussion on it.  It would have been more to the point (not to mention more courteous) on this thread if you'd said something similar here, instead of ignoring the original post, and contributing (repeatedly) only to the hijacking of it.

You just pointed out it was Surly who made a comment to me about evangelical Christianity on this thread, yet now you again accuse me of "hijacking" it? How can you justify such an accusation? In my response to Surly, I even asked him why he was posting his comment on this thread, instead of somewhere else.

The only thing I partially instigated here was the discussion about evolutionary theory and how badly flawed it is. Actually, Ka made the point first, and I simply expanded on it. And I did all of that without preaching the Christian Gospel in any way, shape or form.   

• Tweet

[Chloe]

Sigh.  Oh, Ashvin ....  Swing and a miss, old chap ...

Either you genuinely don't get my point about not responding to the OP; or you're being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument.  Either way, that debate is clearly pointless ...

As for:

You can't hijack a thread by simply responding to questions or comments directed at you... I think that should be clear enough.

How do think threads get hijacked?  The hijack fairy?

Moving on: You wrote:

That's the whole point - everything that relates to truth also relates to spirituality, because the latter is the ultimate truth.

I'd agree with you there.  Again: just argue about which kind of 'spirituality'.  Which may be a little bit like fighting for peace ... 

I thought what you wrote about biblical references to cannibalism on the Picturing Christ thread was interesting (and apposite to this thread!)  It clearly shows that cannibalism can be seen as a 'viable' alternative.  It's been lurking around for millenia on the fringes of 'religion'.  And it's being mentioned again on a lot of conspiracy sites, zombie apocalypse, etc.

It's fine by me if you want to quote bible verse in a thread - as long as it's pertinent.  And doesn't take away from you yourself think (which may, at this point, be a bit like asking a fish what it thinks of water ...    ) 

As regards:

but I would rather rely on the extremely clear predictions of the... oh, wait, I can't say that "B" word without being censored.

Hah! Try that snarkiness in a real totalitarian state, and see how far it gets you ....!

• Tweet

[WHD]

I do think there may be a real attempt to make cannibalism 'acceptable'.  Or, rather, to manipulate us enough to make it seem 'natural'.  Eating dead animal flesh is a horrible thing; but we need the nutrients, so we don't think about the actual horror of it.  Cannibalism would certainly tie in with the industrialised, computerised 'new age'.  The old religions tied in very closely with the god of the harvest.  Now they're being deconstructed in an apparant attempt to do away with them.  No harvest; no god of the harvest - why?  Because the harvest is no longer the necessary nourishment?  In a place where the 'group' is the new 'religion', and 'all is one', there is an argument that it could be made to seem slightly logical to then consume - well, each other?  (Maybe not quite that, but you get my drift ..)

That science girl on HuffPost did a piece on whether or not cannibalism was healthy for you. Discussing it "rationally" can go a long way in making people stupid about it. I do not agree that eating animal flesh is a horrible thing, though, as to say so is to say our ancestors going far back as we care to think, were horrible. I think if I had lived among the plains tribes hunting buffalo, I would have thought it quite life-affirming, even joyous, and I don't think the buffalo had any kind of problem with it either, and mabye even found it as great an honor as the people did. 

Could it be made to seem logical to consume other humans? There are an abundance of people in America for whom life is a thing to be turned into plastic entertainments. If the utility of it can be justified - meanwhile, we would probably be eating those who smoke the flower of the most useful plant on the planet, instead of just throwing them in jail and taking away there voting rights.

btw - I'm all for a resurgence of the GREEN MAN god of the wood>Consort to the GODDESS. 

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

RE, I don't know if this my "one post" of the day or what, but I respectfully request you move all of Ka and my comments into another thread, and let us continue our discussion. If no one else is interested, then they don't have to visit the thread. And if they are, they can...

Now I will respond to Ka:

No, you said that Christianity is the only TOE that is adequate to the scientific evidence. I replied that my TOE is also adequate to the scientific evidence. Now you are saying that Christianity "will ultimately prove to be the only way to adequately understand reality through science". That is a different claim. But it is a claim, so I will now repeat why it is a bad one, and that is, that not all reality can be understood through science. Science is the development of theories about sensed reality. That which senses that reality is therefore not within the scope of science. Neither are the nature of God or Christ, or Christ's divine purpose in incarnating -- which is to say all that really matters with respect to Christianity in terms of salvation.

There is really not much disagreement here, Ka, because I never claimed that science is capable of explaining the full extent of reality. So, you are correct to say that we must resort to many other fields of knowledge to develop a true metaphysical TOE. BUT, science will always be a part of that TOE, and scientific findings cannot contradict the TOE. If they do, then either your scientific findings are incorrect, or you have not actually reached a true TOE. That was my point.

You are somewhat incorrect to suggest that science cannot get us to core Christian doctrines, though. The way it can do that is by providing credibility to the supernatural inspiration of the Bible. If the latest scientific research matches up very well with predictions derived from the Biblical texts, then it would be very difficult to explain such accuracy with any natural explanations. And, if the Bible is inspired by God, then we can also trust in the perfect accuracy of its core history and theology.

All the "evidence we have" necessarily presupposes uniformitarianism.

I don't think is a good word to use here. When I say the physical laws of the Universe have not changed, I mean the most fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong/weak nuclear), and the corollary laws associated with them, such as those of thermodynamics.  The best evidence we have for that immutability is from astronomy, where scientists directly observe the past (all the way back to the earliest moments of the Universe). If there was any change in those physical laws between then and now, they would definitely be able to detect such a deviation (not to mention, life would have not been possible, and therefore this discussion we are having).

Some people also talk about uniformitarianism in terms of historical developments in the formation and "evolution" of stars and planets and specific geological and biological developments on those planets. In that sense, I believe in a combination of uniformity and catastrophe, which I believe is the dominant view, and best explains the evidence we have from various fields of science (also meshes well with Biblical accounts).

Well, you're mixing things up here, as the date and place are not in the Bible. But in particular the bit "created fully-formed by God" is not, and cannot, be demonstrated through science. Hence this is not a scientific model.

That is not true, and you will see why if you read this article - http://www.reasons.org/articles/who-was-adam-an-old-earth-creation-model-for-the-origin-of-humanity

The core tenets of RTB's model are these, and they are directly taken from a comprehensive understanding of the Biblical accounts:

Humanity is traceable back to one woman and one man.
Humanity’s early population size was relatively small.
Humanity originated in a single location in or near the Middle East (the Garden of Eden).
Humanity’s origin occurred recently.
Humanity spread around the world from in or near the Middle East.
Human culture (which reflects the image of God) appears and expands explosively in the archeological record from the time of humanity’s origin.
Humans share anatomical, physical, biochemical, and genetic similarities with the extinct hominids, also with great apes and other animals.
Humans are behaviorally distinct (in ways that reflect God’s image) from the earlier hominids, the great apes, and other animals.

You must read the entire article to truly grasp what the scientific argument is, though.

I read your article, and none of the science in it provides a means to choose between your TOE and mine. Which is my point. Earlier you gave a couple of long quotes that seem to drive your thinking. The second starts with:

"Did man crawl his way into existence over millions of years? Or did he leap to two feet by supernatural design? Did humans emerge from amoebas or did a Creator intend for life to possess purpose, value, and meaning?"

The author goes on to show the first option is untenable (and I agree). But that does not imply the second option is true. See Surly's list in which this is called the fallacy of the false dilemma. In short, there is nothing you have referenced or said in your piece on your blog that provides scientific evidence for your TOE in preference to mine. Now I haven't read everything you have referenced, but I am confident in saying that there is no determining scientific evidence because of what I said above: that the differences between our TOEs lie outside of the scope of science.

Now you haven't really been exposed to the full nature of my TOE, but the remark I made earlier -- that rather than saying God creates this or that I hold that communities of spiritual entities do the creating -- can serve as a difference for our purposes. So if you have some scientific evidence that shows your TOE to be right and my wrong, please provide it. Otherwise, I don't see how you can maintain your original claim.

Well I have really have no idea whether your TOE can provide scientific predictions that are testable or not (I suspect not), but I know for a fact that mine can (see above). If all of those tenets listed above were to be proven true by the scientific evidence, in accordance with the Biblical models of humanity's origin, would that still be compatible with your TOE and, specifically, your view of the Bible?

• Tweet

[RE]

RE, I don't know if this my "one post" of the day or what, but I respectfully request you move all of Ka and my comments into another thread, and let us continue our discussion. If no one else is interested, then they don't have to visit the thread. And if they are, they can...

You are way over-budget already dude.  I'll be readjusting your priviledges later tonight.  No time right now.

If you wish to continue this discussion in real time with Ka, I suggest you copy/paste it over to the PC Forum and continue it over there.

RE

• Tweet

[Chloe]

Ashvin, you wrote:

RE, I don't know if this my "one post" of the day or what, but I respectfully request you move all of Ka and my comments into another thread, and let us continue our discussion. If no one else is interested, then they don't have to visit the thread. And if they are, they can...

Translation:  "Aw, let me keep playing wif my fwend, deepwy unfair Daddy ...  I said pwease ... (looks up winsomely; bats eyes): Look; I'm being all weasonable ...!"


You couldn't have emailed RE privately? No, of course not - that wouldn't let you grandstand ...       (I thought you said you were leaving this forum and never coming back. Again!  Isn't there something in the bible about your 'yes' meaning 'yes' and your 'no' - 'no'?  (That's not a hint for you to go ...)

RE said see you 'tomorrow'.  He underestimated you ...!

Note - there is nothing 'respectful' about continuing to hijack a thread when you've been asked not to.  Just to keep steamrolling on ...

You wrote:

Now I will respond to Ka:

       

It's like arguing with the Terminator robot ...!  Do you genuinely not understand how rude you are being?  Or do you just .. not care?  It's hardly (as has been pointed out to you ad nauseam) a good advert for fundie Christianity .... "You VILL listen TO ME.  WHENEVER AND WHEREVER I WANT YOU TO ....!"   

Don't anyone give Ashvin your home address - you're liable to be woken in the middle of the night by him standing patiently over you:  "Now, about that point we were discussing earlier ... "

THIS here is exactly why you've been restricted to ONE biblical debate only!  (GO, take note ..!)  (And RE - best of luck enforcing it!)       

WHD, you wrote:

That science girl on HuffPost did a piece on whether or not cannibalism was healthy for you. Discussing it "rationally" can go a long way in making people stupid about it. I do not agree that eating animal flesh is a horrible thing, though, as to say so is to say our ancestors going far back as we care to think, were horrible. I think if I had lived among the plains tribes hunting buffalo, I would have thought it quite life-affirming, even joyous, and I don't think the buffalo had any kind of problem with it either, and mabye even found it as great an honor as the people did.   Could it be made to seem logical to consume other humans? There are an abundance of people in America for whom life is a thing to be turned into plastic entertainments. If the utility of it can be justified - meanwhile, we would probably be eating those who smoke the flower of the most useful plant on the planet, instead of just throwing them in jail and taking away there voting rights.  btw - I'm all for a resurgence of the GREEN MAN god of the wood>Consort to the GODDESS. 

Discussing it "rationally" can go a long way in making people stupid about it.

   That's beautifully put!  Covers a lot in a nutshell!  If, for example, the news started showing descriptions of how shape-shifting reptilians really DID exist, all those who scoffed at it would start to - well, believe ...  And how do we know the Earth is round; gravity exists, etc etc (cover this in the particle physics thread?)

Re cannibalism - if you see everyone else doing it ... especially (or only) if you've been somehow genetically altered ...  Would the intrinsic revulsion still hold?  I like to think of course it would ... maybe just get pushed down into the subconscious ...?

I do not agree that eating animal flesh is a horrible thing, though, as to say so is to say our ancestors going far back as we care to think, were horrible

No, not 'horrible' - just as dependent on nourishment from flesh as we are.  Which is a genuinely horrible part of life on Earth (probably/possibly the worst part? That makes it, both actually and metaphorically, so hard to reach agreement/homeostasis/peace, etc?)

I don't think the buffalo had any kind of problem with it either, and mabye even found it as great an honor as the people did.   

   Seriously?!  The survival instinct not well developed in the buffalo?  Let's play a game ... you be the buffalo, and I'll be the hunter ...   

I'm sure you've got a genuine reason for saying that, though - I'd be interested to hear it ...

There are an abundance of people in America for whom life is a thing to be turned into plastic entertainments. If the utility of it can be justified - meanwhile, we would probably be eating those who smoke the flower of the most useful plant on the planet, instead of just throwing them in jail and taking away there voting rights

Ah - pot!  Personally, I think we should legalise all drugs (have a thread ready to go on that one); but I'm not a huge fan of pot, personally.  Do I detect a hint of bitterness towards the Govt's intransigent stand on it ..? 

btw - I'm all for a resurgence of the GREEN MAN god of the wood>Consort to the GODDESS. 

 
I must read up on that.    Care to elaborate here?! There was apparantly a woman whose brain cells were 'vibrating' (or something) at a slightly higher rate, and she saw 'elves' in her vineyard, who advised her on the best way to get the grapes - and it worked.  And there's the idea that we do see 'supernatural' things, but the brain can't handle it; so it goes to the subconscious ...

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

Chloe,

Yes, of course I'm "grandstanding". I never said that I thought the comments and threatened actions of people on this thread, including YOU, were anything less than despicable. That's exactly what they are, and you know it. Despite all of your hateful and condescending rhetoric, I have left you alone, and repeatedly requested RE to separate my REAL AND IMPORTANT discussion with Ka into another thread.

I don't want to interact with you, Chloe... why don't you get that? If you refuse to stop playing the innocent victim here and own up to your own false accusations against me, then the least you could do is STOP directing your silly and hateful comments at me. You are the one who keeps seeking attention from me like a little child. Keep having your discussion about the social acceptability of cannibalism or whatever, and leave me alone. Is that simple enough for you to comprehend? (rhetorical question, please don't respond...)

• Tweet

[Chloe]

Aaaaaand - some of Ashvin's true colours come out.  Re your insults, Ashvin - I do sincerely believe in projection.  So they tell me much more about you than they could ever say about me.  (It's pretty obvious how well they describe you!)  They also tell everyone who can see it just how little you understand true Christianity.

If you don't want to 'interact' with me, Ashvin, that is up to you.  Just stop hijacking my threads.

To lob all that abuse at me, and then say 'don't respond' - it's gutless.  Throw a verbal grendade, and then run away ... 

I will be praying for you.  You need it(!)

• Tweet

[RE]

Translation:  "Aw, let me keep playing wif my fwend, deepwy unfair Daddy ...  I said pwease ... (looks up winsomely; bats eyes): Look; I'm being all weasonable ...!"


You couldn't have emailed RE privately? No, of course not - that wouldn't let you grandstand ...       (I thought you said you were leaving this forum and never coming back. Again!  Isn't there something in the bible about your 'yes' meaning 'yes' and your 'no' - 'no'?  (That's not a hint for you to go ...)

To be fair, Watson ALSO PMed me.  I suggested he move his chats with Ka over to his own PC Forum.

I'll leave his permissions as is tonight and see if he has enough self discipline to limit himself to one post with the B-Word, C-Word or J-Word in them tomorrow.    And yes, euphimisms count.

RE

• Tweet