tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2589018622045692929..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Propaganda, Mockery, and Following the ArgumentVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55286657898265658282012-11-24T07:58:30.384-07:002012-11-24T07:58:30.384-07:00Papa: Victor, you have to admit, the claim that yo...Papa: Victor, you have to admit, the claim that your God, if he would exist, would have done such and such?<br />Victor: So even if God existed, he couldn't do that?<br />Papa: Well that's the thing Victor,, your God doesn't exist. And another thing. This argument isn't circular. Because if it were circular, well, it isn't.<br /><br />I am so glad you continue to give us new insights in the mind of an idiot.WilliamMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027976392120409931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14193605336758300282012-11-24T03:57:53.546-07:002012-11-24T03:57:53.546-07:00"Are you telling me that God, if he existed, ...<i>"Are you telling me that God, if he existed, would not have the power to cause all of these things?"</i><br /><br />But that's my point. .... if he existed..... if, if if ...an unhinged presupposition with no founding in actuality, with no founding in "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of it" [All Reference Libraries]. No one has demonstrated one scintilla of evidence of its existence. [Theists are extraordinarily quick to rationalise its non-appearance for any number of reasons, all unsubstantiated.] And as we go forward from here, the concept of the 'supernatural' becomes ever more increasingly unlikely. It was fine, as a placemarker, when there were no other or alternative forms of explanation. But that is no longer the case, and religion is being shown to be less and less about the reality of supernaturalism together with the existence of spectral numens, to being so much more as simply a purely cultural phenomenon and social artefact.<br /><br />The crux of this discourse is that nothing, <b>nothing</b> of an evidentiary nature has been offered, let alone discovered [heaven forbid], that supports the likelihood of what it is that precedes the preposition, 'if'. All of the stuff after 'if' is philosophically possible, like your, <i>"... [<b>if</b>] he existed, would [he] not have the power to cause all of these things?"</i>. But this only works 'if' there were a reasonable, supportable and widely acknowledged proposition for a spectral numen on the table. Only christians think the 'if' is a jesus the christ, others think the 'if' is a giant water serpent or python of the Dreamtime; still others think it is Cthulu and to others, Allah; still yet many others avow with their lives that the 'if' is Ganesha, the elephant-headed god. I'm not sure if we bundled up all these spectral numens and lumped them together, that it would constitute proof of a supernatural being. And if it was, the next question then would be, which of all these representations is the correct and only true manifestation?<br /><br />Surely Victor, you can appreciate the reason, logic and substance of the position I put. <br /><br />So in responding to your query, I would simply say that your question is moot. It is unconditionally hypothetical. A hypothetical is not a good hook on which to hang one's whole life. Belief in a hypothetical phantasm is jejune and a great waste of human intellect. You are clearly a very intelligent man but your belief in such ideas is not predicated on your intelligence. It is driven either by visceral emotional need, or is a product of unbreakably strong social and community allegiance. It is akin to Newton, having discovered the laws of motion, and great contribution to humankind, then squanders the rest of his life in the pursuit of alchemy.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61087774907302295052012-11-23T22:23:39.450-07:002012-11-23T22:23:39.450-07:00Furthermore, not too many people have been reading...Furthermore, not too many people have been reading Plato clearly for in his dialogues, Socrates and Plato make a distinction between True philosophy and what was going around them. The sophists were not philosophers. Protagoras can be said to be an atheist when he states that "Man is the measure of all things". Socrates and Plato take Protagoras to task. Socrates and Plato both emphasized the difference between true philosophy and faux philosophy. <br /><br />So there is such a thing as charlatanism in the field of philosophy. True philosophy is done by God-fearers. This was part of what Socrates and Plato were getting at by placing the adjective "true" before the word philosophy. (This is also part of my unpublished work "Why no Atheist can be a philosopher".)<br /><br />Socrates and Plato make that distinction. A lot of people "think" they are engaging in philosophy, but they are nothing but charlatans. W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58047165952426398752012-11-23T21:04:29.299-07:002012-11-23T21:04:29.299-07:001. The revivification of a three-day dead putresce...<b>1. The revivification of a three-day dead putrescent corpse,<br />2. Virgin birth<br />3. Talking snake<br />4. Water to wine<br />5. Physical bodily levitation into the blue beyond</b><br /><br />1. The idea that we are related to all living things, including cockroaches and bacteria (sounds like some New Age feel-good shit),<br />2. The idea that the universe began from a tiny little speck (what?),<br />3. The idea that all matter is ultimately composed of infinitesimally tiny, vibrating strings (strings? Why not loops? Why not triangles?),<br />4. The idea that Anna thinks Bob's passing spaceship is shorter, and Bob thinks Anna's spaceship is shorter, yet <i>both are right</i> (are you kidding me? You just said two contradictory things!),<br />5. The idea that the presence of a massive object curves the space around it (are you saying that space curves around this soup can in front of me).<br /><br />All of these, are, at face value, ridiculous ideas. It doesn't matter a tiny bit that there's "evidence to support them". Clearly many Christians believe that your list of ridiculous facts have evidence to support them also. So what's your point?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18820964518467342152012-11-23T19:56:16.485-07:002012-11-23T19:56:16.485-07:00Are you telling me that God, if he existed, would ...Are you telling me that God, if he existed, would not have the power to cause all of these things?Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42044866535812143872012-11-23T19:35:07.818-07:002012-11-23T19:35:07.818-07:00Just as a follow-up, Victor:
1. The revivificati...Just as a follow-up, Victor:<br /><br />1. The revivification of a three-day dead putrescent corpse,<br />2. Virgin birth<br />3. Talking snake<br />4. Water to wine <br />5. Physical bodily levitation into the blue beyond, etc etc<br /><br />you have to admit, they really are exquisite candidates for parody, satire and mockery. That is why the 'Life of Brian' was such a resounding success. It was really funny because the material it worked with was so out there, really preposterous and was ripe for lampooning. That is the nature of religious belief in the current post-Christian context.<br /><br />Have you seen Bill Maher's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcDt5TRsGys" rel="nofollow">'Religulous'?</a> It is truly revelatory in the truest sense of the word. Indeed, Maher's review of religion is mostly a serious one, posing many questions about why it manifests in the community in such bizarre and curiously incongruous ways that it does; from snake handling in the Appalachia's to drinking blood at the eucharist.<br /><br />The sum of the believer commentary on this thread does not for one moment advance the notion that one should take seriously any discourse about religious content with theists.<br /><br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64837878206836951912012-11-23T16:00:44.773-07:002012-11-23T16:00:44.773-07:00>Ben Yachov, if you look in the Oxford Dictiona...>Ben Yachov, if you look in the Oxford Dictionary of twenty volumes, the authority on the English language, you will find that originally racism only meant<br /><br />>"that there were differences amongst the races". <br /><br />Dude you don't believe black people should be allowed to vote because of their race.<br /><br />Nuff said.<br /><br />Fuck off!Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33186282686075411612012-11-23T15:33:26.512-07:002012-11-23T15:33:26.512-07:00and two, we are not entirely rational robots, unaf...<b>and two, we are not entirely rational robots, unaffected by biases, etc, </b><br /><br />Indeed we are not, but why make it worse by engaging in ridicule when doing rational discourse? In rational debate we try our best to act like "rational robots". In theory, this means sometimes having to abandon certain philosophical positions or maneuvers if they're found wanting.<br /><br /><b> in cases (all of them?) where ideas have consequences it's probably negligent to not bundle our rationales in packaging that increases the likelihood that they should be more effectively spread.</b><br /><br />This is a dangerous move to make. If the ends justify the means, why even bother to follow rules of logic in debate? Why bother with reason when emotional rhetoric is orders of magnitude more effective in persuading people and getting the consequences you want?<br /><br />All ideas indeed have consequences, but the chamber of rational analysis, argument and debate should remain sacrosanct. If people want to engage in propaganda, they should be honest about it. Although I suppose dressing up your propaganda as something which isn't propaganda is a great form of propaganda as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23029791305747163372012-11-23T15:04:32.403-07:002012-11-23T15:04:32.403-07:00Ben Yachov, if you look in the Oxford Dictionary o...Ben Yachov, if you look in the Oxford Dictionary of twenty volumes, the authority on the English language, you will find that originally racism only meant <br /><br />"that there were differences amongst the races". <br /><br />Now, let us take the opposite. Let's us, with logic, look at Yachov's statement "Racism is a ...nutbag belief". So what Yachov is saying is that there is no such thing as racial differences. <br /><br />So we have "There are racial differences".<br /><br />And we have "There are NO racial differences". <br /><br />Which statement is true?<br /><br />Now, what is the definitiono of Truth? Apostolos Makrakis, an Orthodox theologian, states, "Truth is the Faithful representation of reality". <br /><br />---A Faithful Representation of Reality---That is Truth.<br /><br />Who has the Truth? Now, I've been attacked for being a "racist". A racist is one who "knows that there are racial differences". Only black skin is on an Sub-Saharan African. Slant eyes are only the property of Asians. You don't have Swedes showing up with slanted eyes do you? Are there not physical differences? <br /><br />So to acknowledge physical differences makes one a racist? That is the Truth is it not?<br /><br />A philosopher ONLY concerns himself with Truth---ONLY with reality. What is the reality?<br /><br />And so who are the commentators here attacking the "knowledge of racial differences"?<br /><br />What is Philosophy? Or is philosophy just ideology? Is there a difference between Philosophy and Ideology? There is. On a philosophy blog, we are calling atheists philosophers and we have commentators attacking others for "knowing that there are racial differences". Wow, how intelligent do we look.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-342350831691014452012-11-23T15:02:16.443-07:002012-11-23T15:02:16.443-07:00This is too funny. It is premisses, dear Watson, ...This is <i>too</i> funny. It is premisses, dear Watson, that back up conclusions, not one's "wealth of learning". (I am, by the way, far more learned than you, having actually completed university, knowing more languages, and being far better read.) And it is evidence that backs up premisses. You have presented 'evidence' for your expertise, and I have trashed it. You haven't published anything worth noticing by the academe; so, so what if you're published? Anyone could publish in some no-name-not-even-second-rate-journal too, but that doesn't mean that they're a qualified expert. You're credentials (the premise of your supposed expertise) come crashing down and thus, so does your "knowledge." You are a hack, sir. You aren't even worth my time. <br /><br />My credentials, Mr Wheeler--my "wealth of knowledge"--are inherent in my ability to out-argue you. You have proven yourself to be a rank amateur, unable to keep up with the discussion. It is <i>you</i> who are lacking in substance. I doth bring real meat for the chili, you don't even bring onions.<br /><br />Strangely, you captured part of the point of my analogy, viz., that one can be a musician and not play the cello, and yet you failed to understand it. (By the way, what does "Dan's logic of analogy is flawed" mean? Did you perhaps mean "the logic of Dan's analogy is flawed"?) And you call yourself a scholar! If I were to transpose your argument into my music analogy, your argument would be: 'believing in God' is necessary to 'being a philosopher', just like 'playing the cello' is necessary to 'being a musician'. You're argument confuses sufficient and necessary conditions, and is thus a fallacy. My analogy is meant to demonstrate <i>that</i> point.<br /><br />Mr Wheeler, you have proven yourself to be an incapable opponent. I'm through with trashing your pathetic arguments. Fuck off.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64335117651052433112012-11-23T14:58:45.164-07:002012-11-23T14:58:45.164-07:00Maybe Dan is right & I should have a little fu...Maybe Dan is right & I should have a little fun too?<br /><br />>Plato talked about people like this, constant debaters and disputers who really have no real knowledge. Dan and Yachov are in this class of men.<br /><br />It's like listening to Paps blather on about the Dunning-Kruger Effect.<br /><br />Wheeler BTW defended Paps as an "intelligent" poster.<br /><br />Just saying.........Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62958492237188128952012-11-23T14:14:21.774-07:002012-11-23T14:14:21.774-07:00In order to judge whether your critique is justifi...In order to judge whether your critique is justified or not, one needs to look at the critiquer. Dan attacked my credentials. I posted my credentials. I then pointed out my use of learning through the years by my referencing good outstanding books, and a scholarly journal. Dan has shown nothing. He has NOT shown his credentials nor has he proven himself in his posts. <br /><br />Plato talked about people like this, constant debaters and disputers who really have no real knowledge. Dan and Yachov are in this class of men. <br /><br />But in order to take Dan's critique seriously, Dan has to show gravitas in his posts and his wealth of learning to back up his conclusions, his critique. He has shown neither; he has no substance. If you are going to talk the talk, you should be able to walk the walk. He has no substance. <br /><br />"Believing in God' is necessary because it is in the word "sophia". Dan is comparing apples and oranges. True not playing the cello does not automatically mean one is not a musician....if he is playing another instrument. And here is Dan's mistake, in order to be a musician, one must play some kind of instrument competently. There are many people who are not musicians because they do not play a single instrument. Dan's logic of analogy is flawed. <br /><br />To believe in God is a necessary condition to doing philosophy because Sophia, in the word philosophy, means borrowing the wisdom of God. Furthermore, why don't Philosophers just call themselves "Wise" or Wisemen. Because the "philo-" in the word philosophy means to love something outside oneself. So in both cases of the connotation of the word "philo....sophia", requires a God who is the holder of Wisdom outside of any human being. W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90956578456811815112012-11-23T13:55:01.365-07:002012-11-23T13:55:01.365-07:001.) Wait: In order to critique, I need to quote so...1.) Wait: In order to critique, I <i>need</i> to quote something? Once again you think that something ('quoting', in this case) that isn't necessary to a concept is indeed necessary to that concept (in this case, 'critiquing'). I can <i>critique</i> without <i>quoting</i>, just like I can exercise without running; I needn't <i>run</i> to exercise, just like I needn't <i>quote</i> to critique. Someone as "learned" as you should certainly know <i>that</i>.<br /><br />2.) Yes, I did prove you wrong. Remember when you said that atheists couldn't be philosophers, and then I said that 'believing in God' isn't necessary to the idea of 'being a philosopher', just like 'playing the cello' isn't necessary to the idea of 'being a musician'? That was me proving you wrong.<br /><br />3.) You're a hack because you don't know anything. What's more, you don't know that you don't anything. You can tout your publishing record all you want, you're still delusional.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61768264689469761162012-11-23T13:25:01.883-07:002012-11-23T13:25:01.883-07:00>Has anyone here engaged in ridicule against so...>Has anyone here engaged in ridicule against some ideas and then decried ridicule against his or her own ideas solely for the reason that ridicule isn't okay?<br /><br />Is there a moral difference between believing in YEC or Positivism on the one hand vs Racism, Holocaust denial & or NAMBLA on the other?<br /><br />I think there is.<br /><br />I have no problem with Dawkins ridiculing "Scientific Young Earth Creationism" & defending Evolution using both good science and reason. More power to him. But of course ridiculing all religion without reason & ignoring or dismissing philosophy is irrational. Which is why Dawkins is such a twonk.<br /><br />I personally have no problem with ridiculing a Gnu Atheist's incoherent Positivist arguments against religion or their uncritical unexamined materialism using reason and philosophy to point out their errors along with some ridicule.<br /><br />But of course Rascism, Holocaust denial and NAMBLA are nutbag beliefs by definition.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53325857010902883922012-11-23T13:19:17.379-07:002012-11-23T13:19:17.379-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89871262691227386422012-11-23T13:15:39.966-07:002012-11-23T13:15:39.966-07:00From my unpublished treatise on "Why no Athei...From my unpublished treatise on "Why no Atheist can be a philosopher":<br /><br /><i>At the end of the Phaedrus, Socrates says that "...the epithet [of wise] is proper only to a god". (278d) Socrates continues that a man who pursues this wisdom, who seeks a "knowledge of truth", "would be a "lover of wisdom", a philo-sophier. Wisdom belongs to God only! Men who are seekers of truth, seek this Wisdom, hence, borrow it from God. They in a sense, do not make philosophy, but borrow wisdom from God himself. <br /><br />Heraclitus said, "Only Zeus is wise". (DK B32, quoted in Wikipedia article "Heraclitus") Only a God has wisdom for 'god' by essence is a perfect being and therefore a perfect being would be all-knowing, would have all knowledge. Heraclitus is a philosopher for he holds that only God has wisdom. In this line, Heraclitus amplifies this point when he says "Law involves obeying the counsel of one." (Harris, #83) And in this line, he elaborates, "Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to acknowledge that all things are one." (Harris, #118) Right here, Heraclitus denies that a man has wisdom. Wisdom is outside man. A man must listen to the Logos; which is "…the intelligence which steers all things, through all things." (Harris, #120) There is one Logos which Heraclitus does not make up, is not created by him, but where one must adopt that which is hidden in the cosmos. In these quotes, Heraclitus is making the same case that Socrates makes.</i><br /><br />Philosophy is the seeking of the Wisdom of God. That wisdom of God is found in Nature, (q.v. <a href="http://www.henrymakow.com/christ_the_logos_the_font_of_g.html" rel="nofollow">Christ the Logos the font of Greek Philosophy</a>)<br /><br />I stand by my words. No Atheist ever, at any time, can be a philosopher. A philosopher is literally a "Lover of the Wisdom from God".W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55588179666311898912012-11-23T13:08:32.377-07:002012-11-23T13:08:32.377-07:00In all my comments, look at all the books I've...In all my comments, look at all the books I've quoted in this thread. Does any of my detractors quote or reference from a book, or a scholarly journal article?<br /><br />No. <br /><br />Compare and Contrast is a great learning technique. Compare and contrast my posts with Dan's and Yachov's. Compare and Contrast my "credentials" with Dan's and Yachov's "credentials". They quote nothing and reference nothing nor profer any proverb nor maxim. Who has the learning here. I have referenced three books, referenced a scholarly journal. Referenced my own published work. I have quoted from Antiquity, and pointed to historical reality around the Globe. I know the real, original natural law and can quote maxims and proverbs from memory. <br /><br />Dan wants to critique but he doesn't quote anything. Does he prove what I have said or written wrong? No. <br /><br />I have not published in a "prestigious" journal. Because I have not been published in a "prestigious journal", on that basis I am a hack. Wow. Has Dan referenced any article refuting any bad scholarship on my part? No. Any article refuting my conclusions? No. But I'm a hack. On what basis does Dan critique? Has he had any article published talking about philosophy?<br /><br />When philosophy is so interconnected to politics has Dan written any article on politics? He has not proferred anything nor has he presented his credentials for the basis of his judgements.<br /><br />I have published both in the realm of political science and philosophy and in the Natural Law. The consistency between the three show the Truth in which I speak. I can speak truth because I am not decieved in Political Correctness. Modern Academia is full of Polical Correctness and can NOT write the truth. <br /><br />Like begets Like. <br /><br />Let the readers of this thread judge aright. Who has proved himself. My two detractors have not quoted from any person of stature nor have referenced any book or article. I, on the other hand, have done it all. My examples of my writings and my posts show my expertise. W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12242706209149367492012-11-23T12:43:21.107-07:002012-11-23T12:43:21.107-07:00Surely, such a stand-out, self-trained scholar as ...Surely, such a stand-out, self-trained scholar as Mr Wheeler would have attracted the notice of other big name intellectuals in his field. His work, however, has not attracted the kind of attention that someone who "overturned 400 years of nonsense" would have. The reason he is published at all probably has more to do with the lack of a real vetting process over at Markoulakis Publications, not because he is a stellar scholar. I hardly think he could publish in more prestigious academic journals, like <i>Greece and Rome</i>. He is, in effect, a meretricious, delusional nobody--clearly jealous of the academic establishment--and the credentials which he touts so highly are collectively worth less than a steamy pile of shit. However, I'll gleefully continue on, because I'm having fun thumping this racist scumbag. Get ready for round two, you miserable piece of shit.<br /><br />So far, I exposed Mr Wheeler as hack and a racist, and I have successfully defended my charges. He is rightfully ignored by the academe, and I rightfully point out his stupidity. He is thus in ruins. However, he still maintains this piece of bad argument: "<i>I have written on the true origins of philosophy, therefore I can arbitrate who is and is not a philosopher</i>." He has invented some lame-ass criterion to help him pick who is and is not a 'real' philosopher. That is to say, he thinks that his criterion--'believing in God'--is necessary to the idea of a philosopher. But is it? No, for the same reason that 'playing the cello' isn't necessary to the idea of 'being a musician', or even necessary to the idea of 'knowing music'. Just as there are many ways for one to be a musician (Can you play the guitar, compose, or sing? Well done! You're probably a musician), there are many ways for one to be a philosopher.<br /><br />I have demonstrated that Mr Wheeler's exclusionary criterion is baseless and stupid. Coupled with the fact that he is also a disreputable, racist nodoby, he has no legs left to stand on. Ben: now I can tell him to "fuck off."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42002000798845677522012-11-23T12:37:34.561-07:002012-11-23T12:37:34.561-07:00"Yeah, I agree that ridicule in place of reas..."Yeah, I agree that ridicule in place of reason would be an unacceptable technique. I am pointing out two things: one, it's disingenuous and hypocritical to have employed ridicule against some ideas but then decry ridicule when the same technique is used on one of your treasured beliefs;"<br /><br />Simple question:<br />Has anyone here engaged in ridicule against some ideas and then decried ridicule against his or her own ideas solely for the reason that ridicule isn't okay?<br /><br />Because pointing out a hypocrisy that no one is engaging in is sort of pointless.WilliamMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027976392120409931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74610552874657750472012-11-23T12:27:39.493-07:002012-11-23T12:27:39.493-07:00Wheeler,
What part of "fuck off" do ya ...Wheeler,<br /><br />What part of "fuck off" do ya not understand?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76760990806013780722012-11-23T12:18:20.225-07:002012-11-23T12:18:20.225-07:00Hey Ben Yachov
"Tis meet that Greek rule bar...Hey Ben Yachov<br /><br /><b>"Tis meet that Greek rule barbarian"</b><br /><br />Makes me a Greek, not a nazi.<br /><br />Why does the word "goyim" exist in your language for?<br /><br />Hypocrite anybody? How about the Double Mind? "Don't look behind the curtian with the man pulling the levers".W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9747314146502765182012-11-23T12:11:33.485-07:002012-11-23T12:11:33.485-07:00Charles H. Cosgrove, wrote an article: "Did P...Charles H. Cosgrove, wrote an article: "Did Paul Value Ethnicity", published in <i>The Catholic Biblical Quarterly</i>, 68,2006. pg 270. <br /><br />In there he states: Many ancient people in Classical Antiquity were ethnocentric; i.e. the Ancient Greeks, the Hebrews (or Jews) and the Romans. Furthermore, they did not think it wrong to view their group as superior to others.<br /><br />It was NORMAL to think like that. Let's expand that around the globe. Is this Nazi? Is this some kind of Aryan junk, Aryan ideology? (as Ben Yachov would like you to think.)<br /><br />As Charles Cosgrove points out, it was NORMAL, Ubiquitous in Classical Antiquity to think you and your race were superior to others. Let's see...how about Japan and its Samuraii culture. Did they not think they were superior to all others?<br /><br />What about the Zulu? Did not the Zulu think and act like he was superior?<br /><br />What about the Aztecs? Did they not think they were superior?<br /><br />The whole existence and essence of the term "goyim" in the Hebrew Language like the term "barbarian" in the Greek connotes a superiority. <br /><br />Are the Jews Nazis? Are the Greeks Nazis?<br /><br />Now, St. Thomas Aquinas calls Aristotle "The Philosopher". Aristotle is the quintessential philosopher. Aristotle is truly a philosopher if there ever was one. <br /><br />Has Dan or Ben Yachov read Aristotle? Aristotle repeats a common Greek proverb, "Tis meet that Greek rule barbarian". <br /><br />Aristotle writes this <i>4."...for because the barbarians are more servile in their nature than the Greeks, and the Asiatics than the Europeans, they endure despotic rule without resentment."</i> (Politics, Aristotle, Book III, 9, sec.3; 1285a 20; Loeb, pg 249 )<br /><br />Is not Aristotle a racialist? If Aristotle, who is "The Philosopher" writes racialist stuff---are you condemning him? Do you strip him of the title of philosopher? Does not every body read Aristotle?<br /><br />Is Aristotle and the Greeks nazi? NO. Racial superiority was throughout Western Classical Antiquity in the Romans and in the Greeks. It was in the Middle East with the Jews. It was in Asia with the Japanese. In Africa with the Zulus and in Central America with the Aztecs who are the furtherest removed from the "Aryans". Are all these people Nazis? <br /><br />Or is it NORMAL human behavior? And is what PeeCee crowd engaging in social re-engineering? Is not social re-engineering immoral and unethical? Is not social re-engineering that attempts to undo or remake the Natural Order evil?<br /><br />Who is the real evil here? The Normal people, real philosophers that acknowledge this like Aristotle, or the Marxists and their propaganda of existential genocide?W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40925067104197965562012-11-23T11:44:38.928-07:002012-11-23T11:44:38.928-07:00Dan writes: To get back to the argument, Lindsay W...Dan writes: <i>To get back to the argument, Lindsay Wheeler assumes that he has the credentials and the credibility to tell professional philosophers whether or not they are 'real' philosophers. He can complain about my ad hominems all he wants, but they are relevant to this argument because he is appealing to his character. My argument is twofold: 1.) He doesn't have the credentials, viz., he is uneducated</i><br /><br />You know my name is in blue because there is a link that you can go to find out something about me. I know Dan's name is in blue to. Now, click on my name and you go to the Wordpress page on me. You get a cursory view. But on the left hand side it has "Webpage". Anyone can click on that and look at my "credentials". Not only do I have a small autobiography there but also a list of my published works. <br /><br />Dan asserts that I don't have any credentials? But who doesn't do the research? Did Dan click on any links and look at my bio, or the published works 4/5 of those he can read online for free, just one of them requires a subscription in order to access. Three of those articles were published by a peer reviewed journal in England. <br /><br />Dan asserts that I have no credentials. Those papers are my credentials. Each one of those papers overthrows everything that has been written on the subject! All the books you pick up call Sparta an Oligarchy. All the reference books you pick up. I prove them all wrong. All the commentators of Aristotle consider his mentioning of "mixed government" and "Ideal" government that never existed in history. I prove that wrong. Aristotle's recommendation of mixed government and his use of mixed government and study of it comes from a real historical reality, that of Sparta. No Academic with a PHD wrote that article. <br /><br />Even Paul Cartledge who is acclaimed this "Spartan scholar" does not know this. His works are so faulty it is beyond pathetic. Yet he is "Acclaimed". He doesn't know anything. <br /><br />Here Dan, I don't know anything about philosophy--who wrote this <a href="http://www.sparta.markoulakispublications.org.uk/?id=143" rel="nofollow">Doric Crete and Sparta, the home of Greek philosophy</a>? I did. NO ACADEMIC wrote this! I just overturned 400 years of nonsense. Athens is NOT the birthplace of philosophy, never was. <br /><br />How do you know a subject if you don't know its origins?<br /><br />Socrates said himself that Crete and Sparta is the home of Greek philosophy. Every Academic has dismissed that!<br /><br />So who is a philosopher? I have written on the true origins of Philosophy. I ought to know what it means. The Natural Law is "Thief knows Thief". You don't know the origins and so you can't know what it means. <br /><br />Who has the credentials? <br /><br />Come on Danny-boy? You should do the research before you open your mouth. Compare my webpage with Dan's webpage. Dan has nothing of significance on his webpage. <br /><br />(And by the way America was never a "republic". The FFofA did not create a true classical republic. So who is ignorant? Who is fooled?)W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45028265097529542842012-11-23T11:42:25.998-07:002012-11-23T11:42:25.998-07:00Additional:
Any Atheist also might have a mere na...Additional:<br /><br />Any Atheist also might have a mere natural unconscious love of Sophia(as opposed to one animated by Divine Grace which is necessary for salvation). <br /><br />Even an Atheist who might be be "unsaved" can love Truth or Sophia with his mere natural powers alone.<br /><br />Thus on the mere natural level be a Philosopher by fruitbat Racist Boyz standards.<br /><br />It's still not hard.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80159647397720317542012-11-23T11:32:29.130-07:002012-11-23T11:32:29.130-07:00Can an Atheist be a Philosopher?
Well Catholics c...Can an Atheist be a Philosopher?<br /><br />Well Catholics correctly believe via the teachings of Alexander VIII, Pius IX, St Pius X, Pius XII, Vatican II, John Paul II and Benedict XVI invincibly ignorant non-believers who follow the Light God gives them can be saved.<br /><br />Logically all saved persons in some sense love Sophia(aka Divine Wisdom) that would include Atheists who are non-believers by negation and follow the Light gives them etc..<br /><br />Ergo it is possible even by Racist Boyz standards for Atheists to be philosophers.<br /><br />Problem solved.<br /><br />It's not fucking hard.<br /><br />I can do this easy shit in my sleep.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.com