Nothing about this is a protest. (NSFW Racial Expletives)

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

I don't know what you're talking about,

That is a common excuse of yours. Maybe you should take a bit more time thinking about what you are reading before posting.

[Coreece 190]

7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

I don't know what you're talking about,

That is a common excuse of yours. Maybe you should take a bit more time thinking about what you are reading before posting.

But according to Nigel it's not about what's actually being read, otherwise he would've just posted a direct quote like I did for wolfriverjoe.  For Nigel, it's about "the way he writes the message," and I'm not  responsible for the biased electrical pulses bouncing around in nigel's head, neither is Ron.

[nigel99 143]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

But according to Nigel it's not about what's actually being read, otherwise he would've just posted a direct quote like I did for wolfriverjoe.  For Nigel, it's about "the way he writes the message," and I'm not  responsible for the biased electrical pulses bouncing around in nigel's head, neither is Ron.

Oh come on. I’m not bothered to trawl through 100’s of posts. You’ve not done newbie here. Jesus we all know that Normiss is a left wing lunatic, Billvon is a tree hugger and I’m a religious hating bigot. 

[olofscience 420]

16 hours ago, Coreece said:

Seriously, it's disgusting and even more deplorable than much of the stuff listed in the deplorables thread.  I mean this is the mindset that allows atrocities to start if left unchecked, especially in times of crisis and instability, and it's how sick people justify it.

I think wolfriverjoe's statements were not singling out Christians, but people who endanger others in general.

Society has an implied "social contract" - if you follow the laws of society, you can get the benefits of society such as medical care. We still do it for some people who break the laws, but that's because of 2 things:

1. during normal times we have plenty of supply of medical care available
2. it's on a small scale anyway
3. we still take some societal benefits from them - freedom (by imprisoning them)

In a time of crisis, the societal benefit of medical care is a lot more scarce - hence his statements, if they break the law/rules on a large scale, and the medical system was already overwhelmed, then priority has to be made for people who DID follow the rules.

Soviet religious persecution was so bloody and violent because the new socialist/marxist leadership wanted to eliminate a rival political power which had been extremely influential in europe for centuries. When Henry VIII got fed up of Rome it got similarly bloody and violent, except it was between the Church of England and Catholics.

With separation of Church and State that shouldn't be an issue in the US but you keep making it out like it is. So you can calm down, nobody's itching to massacre Christians (except for exceedingly rare nutcases).

[jakee 1,254]

16 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

You have to start with the correct statement.

I am less self-aware than the vast majority vocal posters, like you, on this forum.

Fixed it for you.

[jakee 1,254]

22 hours ago, Coreece said:

Maybe when I was a young overzealous christian in my 20s when I felt that various attacks against me and my willingness to persist may have somehow validated/strengthened my faith - but that's honestly not how I look at it anymore.  

Then why do you write the things you write? Why do you misrepresent what people say and bend logic to breaking point to claim you're going to be the victim of a coming genocide when in reality you're part of the firmly entrenched ruling class? Hell, do you not also claim, when it suits you, that Christianity and religion in general is actually growing in popularity? 

Quote

And tho there is some truth in that line of thought, I think Christians need to be careful of that type of mindset as well, lest it become some type of self-fulfilling prophesy.

They need to be careful of it because it's bollocks, not because it might come true. You seem to base your faith on the idea that you have to take strength from it in the face constant attack and persecution just like all of the christians who came before you - and none of that is true.

[Coreece 190]

  

2 hours ago, jakee said:

On 8/1/2020 at 7:41 AM, Coreece said:

Maybe when I was a young overzealous christian in my 20s when I felt that various attacks against me and my willingness to persist may have somehow validated/strengthened my faith - but that's honestly not how I look at it anymore.  

Then why do you write the things you write?  Why do you misrepresent what people say and bend logic to breaking point to claim you're going to be the victim of a coming genocide

You're the one that's misrepresenting what people say.  You're doing in right now with your typical selective quoting and leaving out the specific part that contradicts your flat out lying.

And then you had the balls to say that turtle and I go out of our way to pick fights with you.  Oh spare me.

 

2 hours ago, jakee said:

in reality you're part of the firmly entrenched ruling class?

So was the Russian Orthodox Church, until it wasn't.

 

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Hell, do you not also claim, when it suits you, that Christianity and religion in general is actually growing in popularity? 

Certain denominations may be gaining traction/influence in this country, but I've certainly acknowledged that it's decreasing in popularity overall.  However it does seem to be growing around the world despite persecution that still exists today.

 

2 hours ago, jakee said:

You seem to base your faith on the idea that you have to take strength from it in the face constant attack and persecution just like all of the christians who came before you - and none of that is true.

I've already made the mistake of thinking you'd be honest enough for me to open up about it, but I was wrong.  Lets just say you know nothing about what my faith is based on, and leave it at that.

You really need to take your own advice on communicative rationality because right now there's really no point in having a discussion with you.

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

I think wolfriverjoe's statements were not singling out Christians, but people who endanger others in general.

  Well I know wolfriverjoe's statements were singling out Christians and possibly other religious people as well.  All you have to do is read what he wrote.  But thanks for proving my point about the inability to acknowledge or even recognize it even when staring you straight in the face.

 

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

In a time of crisis, the societal benefit of medical care is a lot more scarce - hence his statements, if they break the law/rules on a large scale, and the medical system was already overwhelmed, then priority has to be made for people who DID follow the rules.

But you still need due process to determine the extent the law was broken, if at all.  You don't know the motives, nor the reason why some of these people would be in these large groups in the first place - and even then the logistics to justly implement such a system would be damn near impossible.

And what if one of these people didn't even get sick from the event for which they were denied due process?  Let's say they had a change of heart and ended up getting infected months later by interactions with a group of protesters trespassing on their property?

How long does such a revocation of medical treatment last, and who is going to be bothered to verify it all, the hospital receptionist?  The nurses? The doctors?  I suppose we can just change it to the hypocrite oath.  And what about all the richer people that would have no problem buying their way in?

You guys really didn't think this through, did you?

 

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

Soviet religious persecution was so bloody and violent

I've already explained several times now that I'm talking about the fostering of the non-violent anti-religious mindset that ultimately lead to that in the first place. 

And there  were many scientific atheists that were appalled by some aspects of the leftists' militant approach against religion, but they just stood by and watched until it was too late to do anything about it.

 

4 hours ago, olofscience said:

With separation of Church and State that shouldn't be an issue

Ya, who's idea of separation, Lenin's?  How high do people want to build that wall before they start kicking religious folks out of congress and arresting clergy - both of which have already been expressed in this forum and elsewhere, and is somewhat reminiscent of how it all started under Lenin and shortly after his death - especially after his death.

It's seems people never really want to talk about how it all started, they just jump straight to the atrocities committed under Stalin decades later because it's much easier to distance themselves from that.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Coreece

[olofscience 420]

5 minutes ago, Coreece said:

You guys really didn't think this through, did you?

I was explaining my interpretation of wolfriverjoe's statements, and explaining the mechanisms behind resource allocation in society. I did not make any policy recommendations, and if you haven't noticed yet I'm very detailed and methodical in those things IF I was trying to formulate a policy.

11 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Ya, who's idea of separation, Lenin's?

I'm pretty sure I was talking about the separation of Church and State as espoused by the founders of the United States, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

7 minutes ago, Coreece said:

It's seems people never really want to talk about how it all started, they just jump straight to the atrocities committed under Stalin decades later because it's much easier to distance themselves from that.

Then talk about it. What is it about my claim that "it was the elimination of a rival political power" which was incorrect? Can you refute that particular statement? I'm genuinely interested to see your view on this. It would be a welcome change from your other posts at least.

[kallend 1,623]

Seems like Coreece is trying very hard to get another thread locked.  I guess it goes along with his opinion that the entire forum is "dog shit".

[wmw999 2,120]

15 minutes ago, Coreece said:

  Well I know wolfriverjoe's statements were singling out Christians and possibly other religious people as well.  All you have to do is read what he wrote. 

He was singling out people who chose to congregate in a way that has been shown more than once to create super-spreader events. The reason for the congregation is not relevant, it's the fact of the congregation. The fact that for many, the faith calls for fellowship is difficult, but unfortunately viruses don't respect that either.

Some of the invective indicated feelings, and that colors the message that people deliberately setting up spreader events should have to suffer the consequences of those events.

My brother says that motorcycle riders who don't wear helmets should never be allowed to wear helmets again. Same principle (well, sort of -- it doesn't allow for correction). As a then-motorcyclist (sold my bike last year), I didn't feel singled out.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,254]

28 minutes ago, Coreece said:

 You're the one that's misrepresenting what people say.  You're doing in right now with your typical selective quoting and leaving out the specific part that contradicts your flat out lying.

That doesn't make any sense. I'm not going to quote your entire essay in order to address a specific part of it, why would I? Further, nothing you said in that post contradicts what I said about your other posts. Just because you made a real effort to sound reasonable this time it doesn't mean the hysteria of your other posts ceases to exist. 

Quote

And then you had the balls to say that turtle and I go out of our way to pick fights with you.  

Did I say that? I dunno, maybe. Turtle picks fights with everyone he thinks is on the left no matter how much he has to contradict the positions he otherwise claims to hold, you can't deny that. Anyway, I don't see the relevance.

Quote

So was the Russian Orthodox Church, until it wasn't.

It was also part of an oppressive dictatorship in a nation ripe for violent revolution. No matter how much Trump is trying to undermine the democratic institutions of the US I really don't think the same applies. No matter how much you guys like your end times prophecies there is absolutely no reason to think you're about to see SHTF.

Quote

However it does seem to be growing around the world despite persecution that still exists today.

Lol, there you go. How does that fit with you claiming I'm misrepresenting your desire to be part of a victimised class? Give me a break

[olofscience 420]

25 minutes ago, Coreece said:

and is somewhat reminiscent of how it all started under Lenin and shortly after his death - especially after his death.

It's seems people never really want to talk about how it all started, they just jump straight to the atrocities committed under Stalin decades later because it's much easier to distance themselves from that.

So I actually went and read some more history.

Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown in 1917, then right after they fought a Civil War. Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin came to power 3 years later in 1927.

So this really looks like after overthrowing the tsar, they felt insecure that they had a lot of rivals for political power. Even Stalin had rivals - he was one of the successors to Lenin in 1924 but it took him 3 years to get rid of his rivals.

So Stalin then went on the Great Purge - to solidify his power. Interestingly, the religious purges weren't even mentioned in the main article about the history of the Soviet Union. The Great Purge was primarily political.

Now, those purges took a lot of propaganda to get the population to go along with it, but I really don't see you offer any counter-argument on the purges simply being a way to eliminate political rivals.

 

[Phil1111 910]

33 minutes ago, kallend said:

Seems like Coreece is trying very hard to get another thread locked.  I guess it goes along with his opinion that the entire forum is "a circle -jerk, dog shit".

FIFY, His false idol trump and the christian right have been pulling the strings for 31/2 years. Everything was fine to stack the SC with conservative Christians. To wield outsize advantages for evangelicals in law and policy. Now they fear a backlash from voters.

Perhaps a new version of SHTF applies to Coreece. From time to time he seems to want a s*&t fest by throwing it in every direction because of some perceived slight on his religion of choice. Ron on the other hand wants a traditional SHTF, so the AR-15 can be.....Well a traditional SHTF.

The entire Soviet, Stalin, Christian angle? Who knows. Communists have always pushed religion to the sidelines to accommodate the party. Just look at the Uyghurs and Islam, in China. Coreece likes to conveniently forget the christian acceptance of communist governments in central and south America. Of their excess. How a detente of acceptance between the two. Shoots down his whole prosecution of Christians by communism victimization. When in fact Islam has faced worse.

Putin of course has now begun to promote and protect the church. To use it politically. Just as trump uses evangelicals and they use him. For Coreece thats all good as long as the church and his tribe gets the upper hand.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

53 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

He was singling out people who chose to congregate in a way that has been shown more than once to create super-spreader events. The reason for the congregation is not relevant, it's the fact of the congregation. The fact that for many, the faith calls for fellowship is difficult, but unfortunately viruses don't respect that either.

Some of the invective indicated feelings, and that colors the message that people deliberately setting up spreader events should have to suffer the consequences of those events.

My brother says that motorcycle riders who don't wear helmets should never be allowed to wear helmets again. Same principle (well, sort of -- it doesn't allow for correction). As a then-motorcyclist (sold my bike last year), I didn't feel singled out.

Wendy P.

I would be in favor of anyone doing stuff as stupid as gathering indoors in large groups being denied hospital care (or at least put at the back of the line).

 

I would have said the same thing about the outdoor protesters, but the evidence is seeming to indicate that outdoors is far safer. There haven't been any superspreading events linked to the protests that I've seen. 

Some people seem to think this means that I hate religious people. Which really isn't true.
Many churches shut down in person worship services. Many went to online services. Around here, the bishop held mass on a local (Green Bay) TV station. 
But some. particularly the hard core evangelicals, insisted it was their right to violate the quarantine orders and gather in large indoor groups.

Funny, I didn't hear of anyone else doing that much. No reports of, say, square dancers or quilters or bowlers insisting they had the right to violate the orders. 

So that makes me a 'anti-religious bigot.'

Fine.

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/24/808914718/secretive-church-sect-at-the-center-of-south-koreas-coronavirus-outbreak

 

South Korea had it pretty much under control. 
But now it's spreading pretty fast.

Guess what group seems to be the most infected? And seems to be spreading it? 
And wasn't cooperating with authorities?

[turtlespeed 212]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

Fixed it for you.

No.  You didn't.

Why are you trying to out bid Kallend?

[jakee 1,254]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

No.  You didn't.

Why are you trying to out bid Kallend?

For accuracy in holding you to account? Happy to share, tbh.

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

What is it about my claim that "it was the elimination of a rival political power" which was incorrect?

Nothing -  there was a lot going on with all that. And even tho the tsarsist favoring of the church played a roll in the war,  I'm specifically talking about after the bolos assumed power and how their aniti-religious campaigns transgressed to a more militant, violent approach over time.

 

23 minutes ago, olofscience said:

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

it seems people never really want to talk about how it all started, they just jump straight to the atrocities committed under Stalin decades later because it's much easier to distance themselves from that.

So I actually went and read some more history.

Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown in 1917, then right after they fought a Civil War. Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin came to power 3 years later in 1927.

Jeeze, I didn't say that Stalin came to power decades later, so you may also want to bolden the word "atrocities."  I'm talking about the hieght of those atrocities over time - It looked very different from  when he first came to power.

 

Here, I posted this a while back.  It might help you understand more clearly where I'm coming from:

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/267117-solstice-celebration/?do=findComment&comment=4880994

 

Here are some other links about history on the League of Militant Atheists and their propaganda, along with the history of christian persecution and other anti-religious campaigns against various religions under soviet atheist control.

I know they're wiki links, but it's a good start.

 

And for what it's worth, thanks for at least trying to have a normal conversation.

[turtlespeed 212]

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

For accuracy in holding you to account? Happy to share, tbh.

No, not for accuracy at all.  Is yours another contender for Stupid Post of The Month. 

I think so!  Me may just have a winner.

[gowlerk 1,909]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya, who's idea of separation, Lenin's?  How high do people want to build that wall before they start kicking religious folks out of congress and arresting clergy

Why do American Christians spout this crap? How hard is it to understand that separation of state and church is not even remotely suppression of church and belief? What you are really espousing is for Christianity to have a favoured place in American society. You are not even the least bit concerned about any other religions. You are not in favour of "religious freedom", you are interested in Christian dominance. And that is why the push back you get here is so vigorous. We can all see through the bullshit.

[olofscience 420]

18 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Here, I posted this a while back.  It might help you understand more clearly where I'm coming from:

I think your observations are acceptable - the more pacifist elements of the USSR stood by and allowed the religious purges to happen.

However, you're implying that it's a slippery slope from allowing the left wing to take power then it will be 1940s USSR all over again.

If you think today's left-leaning ideology centres around the elimination of religion, you'd be wrong. In 1920 (or even 1940) religion was MUCH more powerful than it is today, therefore it was more of a threat to the newly born USSR than it is now.

In today's left, religion is a tiny afterthought, if even that - economic concerns, having a fairer society is the main issue that the left is concerned with. Religion doesn't even get into the top 10 issues, and many leftists are religious Christians too.

56 minutes ago, Coreece said:

And for what it's worth, thanks for at least trying to have a normal conversation.

Same. But we're not out to get you.

[normiss 622]

10 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Oh come on. I’m not bothered to trawl through 100’s of posts. You’ve not done newbie here. Jesus we all know that Normiss is a left wing lunatic, Billvon is a tree hugger and I’m a religious hating bigot. 

I still need to change that republican voter registration.

Thanks for the reminder.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Is yours another contender for Stupid Post of The Month. 

To answer your question, no.

Quote

I think so!  Me may just have a winner.

And the rest of us have you.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

To answer your question, no.

You don't recognize a rhetorical question when you read it, I see.

[jakee 1,254]

46 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

You don't recognize a rhetorical question when you read it, I see.

Ummmmm..... you answered it too. Does that mean you don't recognise a rhetorical question when you write it?