Author Topic: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?  (Read 613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4526
  • Darwins +292/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2017, 09:43:56 AM »
Well, I suppose everyone is entitled to their own views but DoL looking back into the much better past? I had better state at the onset that the chair I use (my avatar show it) wasn't invented until the turn of the century (maybe the later 90s). I would have to even go back to the 50s and 60s of my childhood since back that chair were steel, very heavy and very hard to use alone. I am happy with the advance society we have that make living my life possible. I have no idea why people would want to go back to the past.


There are, of course, various eastern European countries where life is not as advanced as the West so maybe DoL should move to one of them to enjoy life. I heard Bulgaria is running out of population - especially in the countryside - so maybe that would be a good place for DoL
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8740
  • Darwins +1098/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2017, 01:57:10 PM »
Yes, I like civilization and technology, DoL.  That does not mean I only see the pluses while ignoring the negatives, as you suggest.  Nobody is suggesting that civilization is perfect, or that it can't be improved.  But it is better - far better - than the past, especially the precivilized past you idolize.  But hey, if you want to live in the past, nobody is stopping you from it.  Buy yourself some land in Europe, make yourself an enclave where you and like-minded people can live the way you want.  Nobody's stopping you.

But what you don't get to do is try to make everyone else live in the past too.  You may be willing to live without technology and such, but I suspect you will find yourself in the minority in that regard.  Just as nobody is forcing you to live with technology, you don't get to force anyone to love without it.  Especially when you don't know how well that will work out.

You need to make sure it works before you try to go any further.  All the convincing arguments in the world won't help you there, and if it doesn't work, then you aren't in the position of having to figure it how to feed tons of people without the benefits of technology.

Also,you really need to stop using YouTube videos as substitutes for your own arguments.  You need to summarize the videos so that people know what you're trying to get them to watch.  Your argument needs to stand on its own, you can't prop it up with someone else's videos because of how easy it is to find flaws in their reasoning.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8740
  • Darwins +1098/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2017, 02:12:24 PM »
Need to put my green hat back on for a moment.

Death over Life, unsubstantiated accusations like your accusation of steering hurricanes to hit specific parts of America are completely unacceptable violations of the site rules and will not be tolerated.  Consider yourself warned.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4505
  • Darwins +436/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2017, 09:50:28 PM »
This video is why I tell the Democrats and the liberal left to take your climate change/global warming argument and shove it! You promote this when you promote civilization and globalization.

I’ll be happy to lose the airplanes, the air conditioners, the cars, the money, the "multiculturalism" and "diversity", the TVs and phones to reconnect with Nature, my people, my land, my culture, my family, and my religion!

That's a non-sequitur, that's not even true.

It also implies that you are right wing, which is the worst for the environment. If you cared about the environment, there aren't many reasons to vote right, unless you are doing head-spinning non-sequiturs. You seem to be mainly a propaganda outlet.

It's common for people who believe in weather modification, chemtrails, antivax to be head over heels confused. There are so many kinks in their logic, it takes a lump hammer to get things in basic shape to even have an argument.

You are at the point, now, where we can't even begin to have an argument with you.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 09:53:44 PM by Add Homonym »
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3522
  • Darwins +473/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2017, 02:03:38 PM »
This video is why I tell the Democrats and the liberal left to take your climate change/global warming argument and shove it! You promote this when you promote civilization and globalization.
Yet, any attempt to get you to propose an alternative solution ends in a circular argument. I explained, at length, several of the flaws built into your ideas about how to screw the government, and you never gave a coherent response to any of that. The question remains on the table - how would you get people to "buy in to" your ... perspective? And once you do that, how do you get them to follow your advice about what to do next?

Quote
I’ll be happy to lose the airplanes, the air conditioners, the cars, the money, the "multiculturalism" and "diversity", the TVs and phones to reconnect with Nature, my people, my land, my culture, my family, and my religion!
That's nice. For you, at least. Not everyone shares that view.

But let's get serious for just a minute. What is stopping you from giving up all of the things you claim you would be happy to give up, and from reconnecting in the ways you identify? Why are you not just going ahead and doing it? You sound quite committed to your conviction that yours is the most appropriate solution, so why have you not taken the steps to go live the way you keep saying you want to?

What are the perceived barriers that are keeping you from living out the dream you describe?


"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Online Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
  • Darwins +27/-22
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2017, 01:52:20 PM »
Need to put my green hat back on for a moment.

Death over Life, unsubstantiated accusations like your accusation of steering hurricanes to hit specific parts of America are completely unacceptable violations of the site rules and will not be tolerated.  Consider yourself warned.


That wasn’t an unsubstantiated accusation. That was sarcastic banter saying humans do not control the environment, like you presented when you were discussing as a participating member. Humans do not control the environment like you suggested we do. If we really did, I highly doubt those 3 Hurricanes would have even existed. It was simply showing you a flaw in your argument.

That's a non-sequitur, that's not even true.

It also implies that you are right wing, which is the worst for the environment. If you cared about the environment, there aren't many reasons to vote right, unless you are doing head-spinning non-sequiturs. You seem to be mainly a propaganda outlet.

I will strongly disagree on all points. On the leftist side of the argument, I only see “carbon” as the reason for the destruction of the environment, by “big corporations”. Then, the only solution that is offered is to “raise taxes” on everybody, calling it a “carbon tax”. That is nowhere near a reliable solution. All that does is force people to give away more of their money to the government. It will not stop carbon from being pumped into the air. It does not stop the desertification of our planet, nor it’s deforestation, nor the pollution of our air and lakes and water supply. Now, strictly disregarding the environment specifically, almost all, if not all, the platforms that the USA Democrats/Leftists preach about are in direct contradiction to environmental protection. The Democratic Party is the Globalist Party. Keeping things local is how you cut down on pollution and wasting resources. Lowering your living standard rather than trying to make everybody “equal” is how you combat these big corporations. The whole platform only pays lip service to protecting the environment, otherwise it is far more anti-environmental than the right-wing is, and they openly admit they don’t care. Take a look at the 2016 election map:

http://michiganradio.org/post/2016-election-echoes-another-tight-race-michigan

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/michigan/files/styles/x_large/public/201611/2016_election_results_map_1.jpg

Notice in the map on the second link, it’s the big polluting cities that voted for Hillary while the low-standard of living rural areas are the ones who voted for Trump. Yes, there are exceptions for both to the rule, but overall, it was the least polluting areas that voted Trump and the most polluting areas that voted Clinton.

It's common for people who believe in weather modification, chemtrails, antivax to be head over heels confused. There are so many kinks in their logic, it takes a lump hammer to get things in basic shape to even have an argument.

You are at the point, now, where we can't even begin to have an argument with you.

You are assuming I ascribe to any of those ideologies. Just because I am criticizing the left on environmental protection doesn’t mean I’m any of those.

But let's get serious for just a minute. What is stopping you from giving up all of the things you claim you would be happy to give up, and from reconnecting in the ways you identify? Why are you not just going ahead and doing it? You sound quite committed to your conviction that yours is the most appropriate solution, so why have you not taken the steps to go live the way you keep saying you want to?

What are the perceived barriers that are keeping you from living out the dream you describe?

What makes you think I am not doing this? I will say one of the biggest obstacles that is out of my control is government regulation. They have a very strict standard of how one is supposed to live in the country so that way it doesn’t “endanger the health of those who live there”.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17142
  • Darwins +342/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2017, 03:36:11 PM »
What makes you think I am not doing this? I will say one of the biggest obstacles that is out of my control is government regulation. They have a very strict standard of how one is supposed to live in the country so that way it doesn’t “endanger the health of those who live there”.

hmmm, what makes us think that?  Well, you using the internet and a computer is a good clue.

I grew up in a very rural area.  What are these supposed "very strict" standards by the gov't that prevent you from harming people?  And what do you want to do that would break these laws?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline shnozzola

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3059
  • Darwins +228/-2
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2017, 03:44:33 PM »
You are assuming I ascribe to any of those ideologies. Just because I am criticizing the left on environmental protection doesn’t mean I’m any of those.

Could we have a list of your ideologies, or the link here where you've discussed them.

   As for my views concerning the environment, and democrats, I disagree with your connecting democrats as a contradiction to protecting the environment.  See what the Trump admin wants to do with the EPA currently.  Clean water regulations in the US are generally in opposition to what the republican (business) party wants.  I vote with the democratic party because I want a strong EPA, and we must continue to enforce and improve environmental laws.  Sure, the democrats are not as sensitive as the green party, but we can work on that.


I live in the "Alabama" part of Pennsylvania, where republican voters applaud attempts to deregulate environmental laws that Obama put in place (see the Chesapeake Bay Initiative).


   Look at the idea of soil health and low tillage of farm land, and the increase of chemical herbicides to lower tillage.  There are several contradictions.  Yes, to say certain parties are on a certain side concerning the environment is simplifying the situation. 

   As for globalism, sorry DOL, that "ship has left the port".  Everything produced is from everywhere.  Your best bet is to move far off the grid, and be self sufficient.  Oddly enough, that view would fit in well in the villages with Africans, where even canned food goods is a fun curiosity, with water from the spring, fuel from cattle dung, wood, and corn stalks (that you have grown) used, and a communal  toilet in the nearest gully.  Hey, you'll never have to worry if Equifax loses credit card info, you'll be on a barter system!

Anyway, good luck.  The people living this way are having a lot more fun than people realize, and you will be warmly welcomed, even if you think your skin color makes you different (it doesn't   :)

edits, mostly grammar and spelling
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 04:00:33 PM by shnozzola »
We have guided missiles and misguided men.  ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Who cares if Kim Jung-Un gets a nuke. Nukes don’t kill people, people kill people.”

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3522
  • Darwins +473/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2017, 08:27:55 PM »

But let's get serious for just a minute. What is stopping you from giving up all of the things you claim you would be happy to give up, and from reconnecting in the ways you identify? Why are you not just going ahead and doing it? You sound quite committed to your conviction that yours is the most appropriate solution, so why have you not taken the steps to go live the way you keep saying you want to?

What are the perceived barriers that are keeping you from living out the dream you describe?

What makes you think I am not doing this? I will say one of the biggest obstacles that is out of my control is government regulation. They have a very strict standard of how one is supposed to live in the country so that way it doesn’t “endanger the health of those who live there”.

Connect the dots for me please, because I sure can't see it. How is "government regulation" the "biggest obstacle" that is stopping you from giving up all the things you just said you'd be happy to give up?
Quote
I’ll be happy to lose the airplanes, the air conditioners, the cars, the money, the "multiculturalism" and "diversity", the TVs and phones to reconnect with Nature, my people, my land, my culture, my family, and my religion!
How is you giving up these things somehow out of your control due to government regulations?
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8740
  • Darwins +1098/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #38 on: September 17, 2017, 03:26:32 AM »
That wasn’t an unsubstantiated accusation. That was sarcastic banter saying humans do not control the environment, like you presented when you were discussing as a participating member. Humans do not control the environment like you suggested we do. If we really did, I highly doubt those 3 Hurricanes would have even existed. It was simply showing you a flaw in your argument.
It did not come across as "sarcastic banter", Death over Life, it came across as an accusatory statement.  I suggest next time that you want to use sarcasm, that you make sure to note that it is intended to be sarcasm.

Edited to clear up an ambiguity.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 02:45:25 PM by jaimehlers »
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8740
  • Darwins +1098/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2017, 03:45:59 AM »
By the way, I stand by what I said - we do control our environment.  Every building, every road, every crop, every pipe, and all the other things we build are intended to control our environment.  The roof over your head that keeps the weather out, the heating/AC that you use to keep yourself comfortable, the artificial lighting that you use to see when it's otherwise too dark, even window shades or curtains to keep excess light out, they are all intended to control our environment.

The extreme example you came up with, from who knows where, doesn't mean that we don't control our environment.  It means that we don't fully control it.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4505
  • Darwins +436/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #40 on: September 18, 2017, 10:34:44 AM »
I will strongly disagree on all points. On the leftist side of the argument, I only see “carbon” as the reason for the destruction of the environment, by “big corporations”. Then, the only solution that is offered is to “raise taxes” on everybody, calling it a “carbon tax”. That is nowhere near a reliable solution. All that does is force people to give away more of their money to the government.

You don't understand tax. If they get lots of money from a carbon tax, equilibrium will cause them to be less desperate to raise some other tax.

Quote
It will not stop carbon from being pumped into the air.

Said the person from the country that drives Hummers and has real cheap fuel. You also don't bother insulating your fridges to any extent, or using recent inverter air conditioners with a COP of 5.5

Carbon tax can also be put into mitigating strategies. You are propagandizing, and I also can't see why you have picked out greenhouse gasses to criticize the left. You are mainly stomping around and hoping you score a point somewhere.

Quote
It does not stop the desertification of our planet, nor it’s deforestation, nor the pollution of our air and lakes and water supply. Now, strictly disregarding the environment specifically, almost all, if not all, the platforms that the USA Democrats/Leftists preach about are in direct contradiction to environmental protection. The Democratic Party is the Globalist Party. Keeping things local is how you cut down on pollution and wasting resources. Lowering your living standard rather than trying to make everybody “equal” is how you combat these big corporations. The whole platform only pays lip service to protecting the environment, otherwise it is far more anti-environmental than the right-wing is, and they openly admit they don’t care. Take a look at the 2016 election map:

Environment shouldn't be left or right. In the past, the left has been very dirty. The reason why the environment platform has been recently taken by the left, is that the right don't appear to give a shit.

The Democrats are 50%+ funded by right wing donors hedging their bets. Look at the donor list. The Democrats are more right wing than any other country's right wing. USA has been dragged right by Gerrymandering and its corrupt electoral system. You get a right wing fruitcacke in charge for 8 years, followed by a hamstrung Democrat that can do nothing, or just pass Republican bills.

Quote
otherwise it is far more anti-environmental than the right-wing is,

Whatever you say. You are practically a god with alt-right facts. Why would I argue with you?

I keep seeing people who appear left wing, who have been heavily confused by alt-right drivel.

What's causing huge problems with housing and over-consumption is the low interest rates. That was done by Greenspan, who was an Ayn Rand fan. He didn't bother regulating the banks, so they crashed. Then he said he "might" have been a bit wrong. That's the "right" for you. The left wing is characterized by being pessimistic.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 10:46:55 AM by Add Homonym »
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8740
  • Darwins +1098/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #41 on: September 19, 2017, 04:30:41 PM »
It should say something that I started out as a Republican, of all things. A right-of-center one, at that.  Yet I am now a Democrat, some twenty years later, desire the documented tendency of people to become more conservative as they get older.  Much of that has been recognizing how corrupt the Republicans have become[1].  But almost as much has been the fact that the Democrats have also been pulled rightward by this save prices.

Please don't waste it time with this alt-right propaganda blaming "the left" for all problems.  If you want to know what the real problem is, it's that there isn't really a 'left' in this country anymore, at least not an organized one.
 1. "trickle-down economics" and "tax cuts" as the answer to any problem, made worse by the addition of the "tea party" which has driven it further and further rightward, and that's just scratching the surface
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 04:44:58 PM by jaimehlers »
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Online Death over Life

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
  • Darwins +27/-22
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2017, 07:52:13 AM »
   As for my views concerning the environment, and democrats, I disagree with your connecting democrats as a contradiction to protecting the environment.  See what the Trump admin wants to do with the EPA currently.  Clean water regulations in the US are generally in opposition to what the republican (business) party wants.  I vote with the democratic party because I want a strong EPA, and we must continue to enforce and improve environmental laws.  Sure, the democrats are not as sensitive as the green party, but we can work on that.

The EPA is corrupt. The problem stems from the same solution the Democrats have always hammered on, if only the government could do more. What the Democrats are doing is a precursor to socialism, which is a precursor to communism. They feel that humans are incapable of fixing the environment, which is why we “need” the EPA to begin with. In all reality, it is a waste of money because as any government institution, it is either corrupt, or subject to corruption.

   Look at the idea of soil health and low tillage of farm land, and the increase of chemical herbicides to lower tillage.  There are several contradictions.  Yes, to say certain parties are on a certain side concerning the environment is simplifying the situation. 

As I said, that is from agriculture, the very life-force of civilization. Neither party will tackle the problem because doing so will destroy civilization and many people will die. Both parties would rather turn the land into a desert so that way when there is no land no longer suitable for agriculture, almost everybody will die instead of many people. So, Democrat/Republican, same thing.

   As for globalism, sorry DOL, that "ship has left the port".  Everything produced is from everywhere.  Your best bet is to move far off the grid, and be self sufficient.  Oddly enough, that view would fit in well in the villages with Africans, where even canned food goods is a fun curiosity, with water from the spring, fuel from cattle dung, wood, and corn stalks (that you have grown) used, and a communal  toilet in the nearest gully.  Hey, you'll never have to worry if Equifax loses credit card info, you'll be on a barter system!

Anyway, good luck.  The people living this way are having a lot more fun than people realize, and you will be warmly welcomed, even if you think your skin color makes you different (it doesn't   :)

edits, mostly grammar and spelling

Yes it has “left the port”, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that globalization is an unsustainable lifestyle and it’s going to crash soon. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that depleting the Earth’s non-renewable finite sources for comfort isn’t going to last forever. It isn’t hard to see that humans are creating a system where eventually life on this planet will be unsustainable for anybody and most of the population will die.

As for Africa, as I have said many times before, I agree with the simpler lifestyle, but that is not my land, and those are not my people. Africa is for Africans. That is their land and I have no right to invade their land and take it for myself. So as nice as the offer sounds, I do not belong in Africa. I would be classified as an invader. I just wish the Arabs in Europe and the Mestizos in USA thought the same way.

And I disagree with you that I won’t be judged for my skin color in Africa. Just look at the white genocide going on in South Africa, simply because they are white!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_farm_attacks

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476

https://www.inquisitr.com/2752043/farm-murders-and-genocide-mocked-by-some-south-africans-while-south-africa-records-fifth-straight-year-in-farm-murder-increase/

Connect the dots for me please, because I sure can't see it. How is "government regulation" the "biggest obstacle" that is stopping you from giving up all the things you just said you'd be happy to give up?

How is you giving up these things somehow out of your control due to government regulations?

Because I have to waste money and resources to create and maintain a home that is “up to code” and “up to regulations”. Take for example, a septic tank. I won’t need one of those at all, so having one is simply going to be a huge waste of money. Our building codes require a sewage system, so instead of creating a home that has only the necessities that are needed, I have to create a home that is far more expensive, only so that way it won’t be condemned as unfit to live in. It’s just like the health care law. It’s nothing more than a waste of money and resources. Now instead of getting insurance when you need it, you now have to constantly have it, thus draining your money and your resources and straining the average Joe out even further.

By the way, I stand by what I said - we do control our environment.  Every building, every road, every crop, every pipe, and all the other things we build are intended to control our environment.  The roof over your head that keeps the weather out, the heating/AC that you use to keep yourself comfortable, the artificial lighting that you use to see when it's otherwise too dark, even window shades or curtains to keep excess light out, they are all intended to control our environment.

The extreme example you came up with, from who knows where, doesn't mean that we don't control our environment.  It means that we don't fully control it.

When you said environment, I thought you meant Nature, hence the hurricanes comment. I see you are actually talking about confined living spaces inside buildings. Environment is just one of those words with multiple meanings. We do control that kind of environment, but we need high tech in order to do so.

You don't understand tax. If they get lots of money from a carbon tax, equilibrium will cause them to be less desperate to raise some other tax.

That is how taxes are SUPPOSED to work! That is not how taxes actually work. What they do is they skim the top off the taxes and put it in their pocket. Then they just waste the money on useless junk and stuff that is meant to break down so thus they create a system where they need more tax money, and then they push legislature so that they can take more money away from us via taxes, only to need more. It’s a very vicious cycle that needs to be stopped, not exacerbated.

Said the person from the country that drives Hummers and has real cheap fuel. You also don't bother insulating your fridges to any extent, or using recent inverter air conditioners with a COP of 5.5 

Implying what country I live in actually makes a difference in my argument. For supposing to be logical, everybody just keeps on churning the ad hominem logical fallacy and non sequitur fallacies.

Carbon tax can also be put into mitigating strategies. You are propagandizing, and I also can't see why you have picked out greenhouse gasses to criticize the left. You are mainly stomping around and hoping you score a point somewhere.

That doesn’t solve the issue, nor does it curb pollution. You are defending the indefensible.

Environment shouldn't be left or right. In the past, the left has been very dirty. The reason why the environment platform has been recently taken by the left, is that the right don't appear to give a shit.

The Democrats are 50%+ funded by right wing donors hedging their bets. Look at the donor list. The Democrats are more right wing than any other country's right wing. USA has been dragged right by Gerrymandering and its corrupt electoral system. You get a right wing fruitcacke in charge for 8 years, followed by a hamstrung Democrat that can do nothing, or just pass Republican bills.

Once again, the left only pay lip service to environmentalism. All their platforms, ideologies, and strategies are completely against environmentalism. The right-wing unfortunately doesn’t give a shit, but their platforms, ideologies, and strategies support environmentalism as a lifestyle.

I have been telling everybody on here for quite a while to follow the money. Thank you for listening. Now, I’d like for you to find the similarities with these companies. As for the whole “USA has been dragged right” nonsense, I remembered 8 years ago, the Dems has the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and even the Supreme Court for 2 years at least, and they just did nothing. The country going right is just an excuse. Maybe perhaps if they had done their job better when they had the office, they would still be in office instead of losing almost 1,000 seats since Obama became President.

Whatever you say. You are practically a god with alt-right facts. Why would I argue with you?

I keep seeing people who appear left wing, who have been heavily confused by alt-right drivel.

I didn’t know the Truth was alt-right? Cool to me. I don’t need the “alt-right” sources. I can look at the facts and determine for myself that this is the Truth. Look at the counties, who voted Trump and who voted Hillary. It was the big, nasty, polluting cities that voted Hillary and Democrats while it was the small towns and rural populations who don’t pollute that much who voted Trump.

What's causing huge problems with housing and over-consumption is the low interest rates. That was done by Greenspan, who was an Ayn Rand fan. He didn't bother regulating the banks, so they crashed. Then he said he "might" have been a bit wrong. That's the "right" for you. The left wing is characterized by being pessimistic.

Since you are saying I’m “alt-right” even though I’m not. You touched a very important piece of the puzzle. I did a quick little search on Greenspan, and yep, you guessed it! I always find it funny when people always point out names, once I do my research, the suspicion I have is factual. Read it for yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

Of course Greenspan isn’t going to regulate the banks. I wonder why?

It should say something that I started out as a Republican, of all things. A right-of-center one, at that.  Yet I am now a Democrat, some twenty years later, desire the documented tendency of people to become more conservative as they get older.  Much of that has been recognizing how corrupt the Republicans have become[1].  But almost as much has been the fact that the Democrats have also been pulled rightward by this save prices.
 1. "trickle-down economics" and "tax cuts" as the answer to any problem, made worse by the addition of the "tea party" which has driven it further and further rightward, and that's just scratching the surface

Well, the Democrats have rigging elections (Hillary vs. Sanders), Embezzlement (Sanders lawsuit with the banks), Pedophilia (Anthony Weiner), Misuse of classified information (Hillary, Weiner, Abedin), supporting terrorism (Aiding ISIS in the Middle East, giving the parents of the Orlando Night Club shooter a platform to speak with Hillary, Antifa), murder/incitement (killing Gadaffi, Benghazi), and were the ones who created identity politics that is now biting them in the ass (Obama, BLM, Antifa) and don’t forget, baling out the same banks that they rail on against (Obam’s bailout in 2008) etc.

So, although I don’t like the Republicans either, to say they are more corrupt than the Democrats is just laughable. They are both corrupt yes, but the left has far more under their belt. In addition, history is not on the Democrat’s side either.

Please don't waste it time with this alt-right propaganda blaming "the left" for all problems.  If you want to know what the real problem is, it's that there isn't really a 'left' in this country anymore, at least not an organized one.

Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels? That’s your platform ultimately. See how well your platform is working in Western Europe right now (it’s not). Look at what happened to the 1/2 of Europe that was under the “left” after WWII. They are even more conservative and nationalistic than the USA is. The last thing we need is more of the “left”. That isn’t alt-rigth propaganda like you put it. That’s just simply opening my eyes and seeing the world for itself.

Look at the state of California what turning it blue did. It’s no longer a part of the USA pretty much. It’s now another form of Mexico, complete with the third-world hellhole status. It didn’t clear up racism, it exacerbated it. Just ask all the black people who were murdered at the hands of the illegals and the drug lords there. Just ask all the millions of people who left California. I don’t see any city thriving under liberalism. I just see they declare bankruptcy instead like the cities in California did and like Detroit, Michigan did. Those that don’t, like Chicago or New York are some of the most corrupt cities in the entire USA. Speaking of California, they aren’t into infrastructure like they claim since they allowed that Oroville dam to almost collapse. Don’t forget, it was that liberal leftist Mayor who told Houston not to evacuate, thus probably leading to the death of a few Texans. And to top it all off, I love how everybody claims that the people on the right are “anti-American” when it’s liberals and leftists and illegal immigrants who are burning the US flag and even waving the Mexican flag in the USA.

And for the coup de grâce, even if the left were to take over, the left is just going to turn around and eat itself like it’s already doing right now. You cannot be the party of tolerance, diversity, Black supremacy, Mexican supremacy, feminism, Islam, and LGBT without infighting among each group going on. There is far to much cognitive dissonance going on in order for the left to be viable in the USA at all.

Sorry. People are waking up, and they aren’t buying into what you are selling.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6738
  • Darwins +485/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2017, 08:05:27 AM »
DoL - please can you respond to posts on an individual basis rather than aggregating them.  To bulk up responses like the above makes it (a) hard to follow the individual conversations, and (b) difficult to use the quote function to respond.

If two people have made essentially the same point, which you intend to respond to with one answer, then it is acceptable to combine their quotes in one response (for example, (potentially) to have answered shnozzola and jaimehlers points on "environment" in the same post.).  Combining all responses as you have done here means your response jumps from subject to subject, making it difficult to follow the threads of your arguments.

Thank you for your compliance in this.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline YRM_DM

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1218
  • Darwins +413/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2017, 09:44:10 AM »
Just curious... how did this all derail from pantheons making more sense than monotheism into this weird, Grizzly Adams, lifestyle chat?

I could go back and read it but the conversation is painful.
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3522
  • Darwins +473/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #45 on: September 20, 2017, 10:06:39 AM »
Connect the dots for me please, because I sure can't see it. How is "government regulation" the "biggest obstacle" that is stopping you from giving up all the things you just said you'd be happy to give up?

How is you giving up these things somehow out of your control due to government regulations?

Because I have to waste money and resources to create and maintain a home that is “up to code” and “up to regulations”. Take for example, a septic tank. I won’t need one of those at all, so having one is simply going to be a huge waste of money. Our building codes require a sewage system, so instead of creating a home that has only the necessities that are needed, I have to create a home that is far more expensive, only so that way it won’t be condemned as unfit to live in. It’s just like the health care law. It’s nothing more than a waste of money and resources. Now instead of getting insurance when you need it, you now have to constantly have it, thus draining your money and your resources and straining the average Joe out even further.

First, that entire response is nonsense - did you even read my post? As if such things as houses and septic tanks don't already exist - there's no need to start from scratch.

Oh, and you're also just plain wrong. Again.

But your response - conveniently - snipped YOUR specific remarks, which you then  - conveniently? - failed to address. I'm talking about the SPECIFIC things YOU said you would happily walk away from. Here they are, again, from your post #26:
"I’ll be happy to lose the airplanes, the air conditioners, the cars, the money, the "multiculturalism" and "diversity", the TVs and phones to reconnect with Nature, my people, my land, my culture, my family, and my religion!"


Go build a tiny house off grid and you can live exactly the way you claim to want to, for very little money and with very little "government interference". You can even skip the septic system if you want to - composting toilets are a thing. For that matter, you could go live in a treehouse in the woods with the same mentality. By all means, get back to Nature and cut yourself free of the government. Generate your own power, filter your own water, and clear your own paths.

You carry on about a problem, but do absolutely nothing to solve it. You insist that you want to live a certain way, then bitch about the government not "allowing" you to do so. You've clearly done absofuckinglutey no research on how to get to what you say you want. I think you're just complaining for the sake of complaining; there are plenty of ways you could "live out your dreams" and the only obstacle that actually exists is YOU.

Get your ass out there and live free DoL!

Why are you wasting time here, arguing with us, rather than putting your time and energy into solving YOUR problem?
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17142
  • Darwins +342/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #46 on: September 20, 2017, 11:17:32 AM »
DOL is certainly an example of why we have gov't to keep very ignorant and pathetically selfish people from harming themselves and others.

the poor thing has no idea how much rural and small towns pollute and who depend upon all of the industry around cities to exist.  He does seem to live under a rock with his amazing ignorance about the most basic things.

Quote
All their platforms, ideologies, and strategies are completely against environmentalism.

more false claims with nothing to support them, all harvested from wannabee Nazi websites because all he claims are nothing but alt-right lies.  DOL does one thing well.  He is a walking talking example of how very ignorant and gullible some people can be, and pulls in all of the ignorance into one tidy package.  The truth isn't alt-right, so that's how we know how to consider your nonsense. 
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 11:25:06 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17142
  • Darwins +342/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #47 on: September 20, 2017, 02:24:57 PM »
well, it got derailed right about here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,30726.msg723545.html#msg723545

I'm still waiting for DOL to show that his definition of god is anything more than a symbol for ocean like the word "ocean" is a symbol for ocean and essentially meaning less since we already have words for oh, things really freakin' large bodies of water that that are the size of continents or larger (there really is no tight definition). 

what he almost sounds like he is trying to claim is pantheism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism) , but is too wrapped up in his ideas of some magical superior "European" culture that doesn't exist to realize that.  Pantheism gets rid of a lot of problems of polytheism and monotheism, but it does nothing more than redefine a god to the natural universe and nothing more.  No divinity, no transcendence, etc.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4526
  • Darwins +292/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #48 on: September 20, 2017, 03:27:28 PM »
As the thread starter, I sort of gave up when the thread was derailed. I think it had done all it was going to, though. A pantheon of gods certainly does allow the blame for the bad things in the world to be put on some deities and the good things credited to others so it works, in my opinion better than monotheistic religions in this way at least.


DoL has his own thread to talk about his stuff as well as a debate thread so, maybe, he will confine himself to those.....
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8740
  • Darwins +1098/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Do pantheons make more sense that monotheism?
« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2017, 02:58:21 AM »
Well, the Democrats have rigging elections (Hillary vs. Sanders), Embezzlement (Sanders lawsuit with the banks), Pedophilia (Anthony Weiner), Misuse of classified information (Hillary, Weiner, Abedin), supporting terrorism (Aiding ISIS in the Middle East, giving the parents of the Orlando Night Club shooter a platform to speak with Hillary, Antifa), murder/incitement (killing Gadaffi, Benghazi), and were the ones who created identity politics that is now biting them in the ass (Obama, BLM, Antifa) and don’t forget, baling out the same banks that they rail on against (Obam’s bailout in 2008) etc.
You should be aware that every single one of those accusations can be laid at the feet of the Republicans as well, and far more justifiably.  For example, the egregious gerrymandering being committed by Republican officials all over the country - not simply the sort of thing which originally coined the term "gerrymander", but intentionally writing (and rewriting, and rewriting) districts to reduce the effect of voting by minorities in 'red' states as much as possible.  These districts have actually been found to be unconstitutional and yet the rewritten districts do exactly the same thing.  Whatever you might think of the DNC's actions during the most recent primary, they weigh far less heavily than the outrageous district vote-rigging being perpetrated by Republicans all over the country for decades.

I am quite sure that I can easily find Republican examples of all of the other things that you rail against above.  For example, I can think of at least two examples where Republican politicians have unveiled deep-cover agents - specifically, Valerie Plame being uncovered by Richard Armitage in 2003 and the Israeli deep-cover agent being exposed by Trump himself.  And more to the point, I am also quite sure that at least some of the things you mentioned have been seriously exaggerated.  For example, there were something like five or six Republican committees on Benghazi, none of which ever produced anything meaningful.

Quote from: Death over Life
So, although I don’t like the Republicans either, to say they are more corrupt than the Democrats is just laughable. They are both corrupt yes, but the left has far more under their belt. In addition, history is not on the Democrat’s side either.
I beg to differ; I can name at least three enormous political scandals that were perpetrated by Republicans without even batting an eyelash.  McCarthyism (perpetrated by Joseph McCarthy, a Republican senator from the post-WWII period), Watergate (perpetrated by Richard Nixon, a Republican president), and Iran-Contra (perpetrated by Ronald Reagan, a Republican president - with the investigation grinding to a halt after administration officials destroyed a large number of documents).  I have no doubt that there have been (and are) corrupt Democrats in positions of power, as well, but you cannot honestly tell me that "the left" has far more under its belt.  Not considering that the former two led to a severe decline of Republican political power for decades, and the latter seriously damaged Reagan's reputation, though at least he was smart enough to admit it after a while.

Quote from: Death over Life
Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels? That’s your platform ultimately. See how well your platform is working in Western Europe right now (it’s not). Look at what happened to the 1/2 of Europe that was under the “left” after WWII. They are even more conservative and nationalistic than the USA is. The last thing we need is more of the “left”. That isn’t alt-rigth propaganda like you put it. That’s just simply opening my eyes and seeing the world for itself.
*shakes head*  This sounds like pure propaganda, DoL - the same sort of crap that McCarthy was spewing eighty years ago.  Also, I beg to differ; the Soviet bloc resembled liberalism about as well as a carrot resembles a kiwi.  It should tell you something that much of the Soviet bloc is now conservative and nationalistic, considering that the Soviet Union ended up a whole lot more conservative than you would probably care to admit.  Orwell depicted this pretty well in Animal Farm, where the pigs ended up in the same positions of power as the humans they replaced, to the point where they ended up selling other animals to the humans outside their farm in order to make money.

Quote from: Death over Life
Look at the state of California what turning it blue did. It’s no longer a part of the USA pretty much. It’s now another form of Mexico, complete with the third-world hellhole status. It didn’t clear up racism, it exacerbated it. Just ask all the black people who were murdered at the hands of the illegals and the drug lords there. Just ask all the millions of people who left California. I don’t see any city thriving under liberalism. I just see they declare bankruptcy instead like the cities in California did and like Detroit, Michigan did. Those that don’t, like Chicago or New York are some of the most corrupt cities in the entire USA. Speaking of California, they aren’t into infrastructure like they claim since they allowed that Oroville dam to almost collapse. Don’t forget, it was that liberal leftist Mayor who told Houston not to evacuate, thus probably leading to the death of a few Texans. And to top it all off, I love how everybody claims that the people on the right are “anti-American” when it’s liberals and leftists and illegal immigrants who are burning the US flag and even waving the Mexican flag in the USA.
And this is pretty much total nonsense.  I don't even know where you're getting all of this, but you need to do better research.  California, by itself, represents more than an eighth of the economy of the entire USA - hardly a feat that could be accomplished by a third-world hellhole.  Given how clearly wrong this is, I have no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt on any of these other statements, certainly not without some pretty strong supporting evidence.

But let's take the actions of Houston mayor Sylvester Turner.  Yes, he refrained from giving an evacuation order - to a city of more than two million people.  I suspect he wanted to avoid history repeating itself, considering that the last time a Houston mayor ordered an evacuation of that city before a hurricane, a mere twelve years ago, more than half of the hundred or so people who died did so as a direct result of the evacuation.  Personally, I find that to be a much more credible reason for this decision than that he was "leftist".  But that wouldn't have fit the anti-leftist diatribe that you wrote, would it?

Quote from: Death over Life
And for the coup de grâce, even if the left were to take over, the left is just going to turn around and eat itself like it’s already doing right now. You cannot be the party of tolerance, diversity, Black supremacy, Mexican supremacy, feminism, Islam, and LGBT without infighting among each group going on. There is far to much cognitive dissonance going on in order for the left to be viable in the USA at all.
This is perhaps the only thing you've said at all recently that even comes close to making rational sense.  I happen to agree that the Democratic party has too many groups under its umbrella, and that's going to have to change.  I also don't want "the left" (not that this is a particularly meaningful statement) to take over.  If there's one thing history has shown us, it's that one-party rule never ends well.  There's a reason this country was made with checks and balances, with the government intended to be divided against itself.

Quote from: Death over Life
Sorry. People are waking up, and they aren’t buying into what you are selling.
Would this be the same people who voted for Trump and are now getting thrown under the bus by him?  I suspect a lot of them are privately feeling a lot of buyer's remorse over the results of the election but don't want to admit it.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.