World Politics

[buckwheat]

Actually in reality the majority of the persons who commit these atrocities are normal average people, without any case of mental defect or any case of any mental irregularity. If you look at research a vast majority of all the people, no matter their education, background, intelligence or social status would commit human rights abuses in certain circumstances. And these circumstances would not even have to amount to duress or anything.

And the leaders of the movements?

Not that I disagree with anything you posted.

If you go back thru the Vaughters thread I said as much.(unless it was deleted)

Referring to the Nazi's, I mentioned that a whole country of otherwise normal people became murderers and it's possible for anyone to be one.

Hence the just following orders, banality of evil stuff.

As for the leaders of these movements, probably a different story.

Don't be so ready to get in an argument about me not understanding something. Reach out for common ground first....or not......

 

[Barrus]

The banality of evil, good book. But I do not agree with the assesment of Hannah Arendt on Eichmann per sé.

Leaders of a movement are very difficult to asses, mainly due to the fact that many of these leaders are not captured after a conflict and thus cannot be tested psychologically. However those higher-ups in the Nazi regime that could be caught did have psychological tests done and the assesment of those tests, by different, independent, and objective psychologists was that these persons were sane and were average people.

However you mentioned torture and torture is often not a decision of the leaders of these groups. Also is this torture often not there for torture sake.

You have changed your argument by putting in goalposts that weren't there before

 

[buckwheat]

The banality of evil, good book. But I do not agree with the assesment of Hannah Arendt on Eichmann per sé.

Leaders of a movement are very difficult to asses, mainly due to the fact that many of these leaders are not captured after a conflict and thus cannot be tested psychologically. However those higher-ups in the Nazi regime that could be caught did have psychological tests done and the assesment of those tests, by different, independent, and objective psychologists was that these persons were sane and were average people.

However you mentioned torture and torture is often not a decision of the leaders of these groups. Also is this torture often not there for torture sake.

You have changed your argument by putting in goalposts that weren't there before

I don't even believe I'm arguing and I made one open ended statement about the object of torture,(in the mind of someone like GWB for instance) is torture.

FYI, the first time GWB made the NYT was in the late sixties when he "tortured" a fraternity pledge with an improvised branding iron.

Not really interested in getting in a drawn out battle here. I do believe the leaders of these movements are sociopaths and do have the other pathologies I mentioned.

We will probably never have an "equation" for it though.

Later.

 

[The Hitch]

The lyrics were from American Pie, which recounts 1959 to 1969 in music.

Satan may be embodied in Mick but is not Mick..

Satan may be embodied in Don McLean/or a fan in the audience who is clenching his hands in fists of rage, which by the way, anger/wrath/rage is a sin.

the Whole song is a story of American music from the day the music died (the day the airplane called American Pie crashed killing Mcleans 3 favourite musicians) and Don Mclean expressing his sadness at the way it has went.

every vague character in the story is actually a real life personality. King = Elvis. Quartet and Marching Band = Beatles. Jester= Dylan. Girl who sang the blues = Janis Joplin.

It starts of with the 50's and the "rythm and Blues" which Mclean "digs".

But February made me shiver
With every paper I’d deliver

- the central incident of the song. The day the music died when Mcleans 3 favourite musicians died in a plane crash. This incident happened in February while Mclean was a paper boy.

The second verse talks about the music of the 50's which Mclean loved so much.

"can you teach me to dance real slow"
50's style of dancing.


Did you write the book of love,
Book of love being a number 1 hit in 58

I dig those rhythm and blues

but ends with

I knew that i was out of luck, the day the music died

This music golden age is over. The song then tells the tale of music after this incident.

The king is clearly Elvis duh. Dylan is the "jester" who

while the king is looking down
The Jester stole his thorny crown

Taking Elvis's spot as the king of music as the 60's move on.

The jester plays to the queen in a coat he borrowed from James Dean (Dylan did play in front of the queen of England in a James Dean coat).

The quarter practising in the park is clearly the Beatles. Lenin reading a book on Marx is a poor one i know, but is a deliberate mispronunciation of Lennon, reading a book on Marx and injecting his politics into the quartets song.


The birds who flew off "Eight miles high" are the Byrds who had the song "Eight miles high" which was banned.

The players tried for a forward pass With the jester on the sidelines in a cast

Dylan crashed his motorcycle in 66. He is on the sidelines in a cast as the game is being played out (for the crown, Rolling stones vs Beatles)

While sergeants played a marching tune
The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club

We all got up to dance Oh, but we never got the chance because of the Beatles concert which only lasted half an hour in 66.

So come on Jack be nimble Jack be quick
Now the song moves to RS. they had a single "Jumping Jack Flash"

And Satan is Mick Jagger. This is the most painful for Don Mclean as it is now moving into the 70's Jaggers music is way harder than anything else. Hence the fists of rage.

"No angel born in hell, could break that satans spell"

This is clearly a reference to Jaggers concert at the Altamonte speedway in which the hells angels (angels born in hell) were hired by Jagger for security. He was playing with fire "fire is the devils only friend".


I saw Satan laughing with delight
Jagger is now on top

I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news
But she just smiled and turned away

The girl who sang the blues is obviously Janis Joplin. She turns away because she dies in 1970.

And in the streets the children screamed. The lovers cried and the poets dreamed.
The riots. Mclean is painting a horrible picture of music

Because...
And the three men I admire most: The Father, Son and Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died,

Music died, was doomed, from the day McLean’s 3 heroes died (took the last train to the coast)

 

[buckwheat]

The banality of evil, good book. But I do not agree with the assesment of Hannah Arendt on Eichmann per sé.

Leaders of a movement are very difficult to asses, mainly due to the fact that many of these leaders are not captured after a conflict and thus cannot be tested psychologically. However those higher-ups in the Nazi regime that could be caught did have psychological tests done and the assesment of those tests, by different, independent, and objective psychologists was that these persons were sane and were average people.

However you mentioned torture and torture is often not a decision of the leaders of these groups. Also is this torture often not there for torture sake.

You have changed your argument by putting in goalposts that weren't there before

You're funny btw!

 

[Barrus]

You're funny btw!

Hannah Arendt can do a lot and is a great researcher/writer. What she is not, is someone who can follow and write about a court case. She was way too convinced by the story of Eichmann and her quick dismissal of his pride in the destruction of the Jewish people as childish boasting is actually quite naive

 

[fatandfast]

You were talking about my not understanding human rights violations.

I'll beat you to the punch.

Aggressive Narcissisim, lack of empathy.

Now you school me.....If you'd like. As I said, I'll consider anything..I'm all ears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOHOHKBEqE&feature=related

here is a lesson

 

[buckwheat]

the Whole song is a story of American music from the day the music died (the day the airplane called American Pie crashed killing Mcleans 3 favourite musicians) and Don Mclean expressing his sadness at the way it has went.

every vague character in the story is actualy a real life personality. King = Elvis. Quartet and Marching Band = Beatles. Jester= Dylan. Girl who sang the blues = Janis Joplin.

It starts of with the 50's and the "rythm and Blues" which Mclean "digs".

But february made me shiver
With every paper I’d deliver

- the central incident of the song. The day the music died when Mcleans 3 favourite musicians died in a plane crash. This incident happened in February while Mclean was a paper boy.

The second verse talks about the music of the 50's which Mclean loved so much.

"can you teach me to dance real slow"
50's style of dancing.


Did you write the book of love,
Book of love being a number 1 hit in 58

I dig those rythm and blues

but ends with

I knew that i was out of luck, the day the music died

This music golden age is over. The song then tells the tale of music after this incident.

The king is clearly elvis duh. Dylan is the "jester" while the king is looking down. steals the kings thorny crown

Taking Elvis's spot as the king of music as the 60's move on.

The jester plays to the queenin a coat he borrowed from James Dean (Dylan did play in front of the queen of england in a James Dean coat).

The quarter practising in the park is clearly the Beatles. Lenin reading a book on Marx is a poor one i know, but is a delibetate mispronounciation of Lennon, reading a book on Marx and injecting his politics into the quartets song.


The birds who flew off "Eight miles high" are the Byrds who had the song "Eight miles high" which was banned.

The players tried for a forward pass With the jester on the sidelines in a cast

Dylan crashed his motorcycle in 66. He is on the sidelines in a cast as the game is being played out (for the crown, Rolling stones vs Beatles)

While sergeants played a marching tune
The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club

We all got up to dance Oh, but we never got the chance because of the Beatles concert which only lasted half an hour in 66.

So come on Jack be nimble Jack be quick
Now the song moves to RS. they had a single "Jumping Jack Flash"

And Satan is Mick Jagger. This is the most painful for Don Mclean as it is now moving into the 70's Jaggers music is way harder than anything else. Hence the fists of rage.
"No angel born in hell, could break that satans spell"

This is clearly a refference to Jaggers concert at the Altamonte speedway in which the hells angels (angels born in hell) were highered by Jagger for security. He was playing with fire "fire is the devils only friend".


I saw Satan laughing with delight
Jagger is now on top

I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news
But she just smiled and turned away

The girl who sang the blues is obviously Janis Joplin. She turns away because she dies in 1970.

And in the streets the children screamed. The lovers cried and the poets dreamed.
The riots. Mclean is painting a horrible picture of music

Because...
And the three men I admire most: The Father, Son and Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died,

Music died, was doomed, from the day Mcleans 3 heroes died (took the last train to the coast)

A little pedantic but I agree with most of it.

Listen closer about the Beatle's segment.

The halftime air was sweet perfume

while sergeants played a marching tune.

The player's tried to take the field and the marching band refused to yield.

I take it that all of the music that came after Buddy Holly was a disappointment to him except Dylan.

I disagree with Satan/Mick because it's all too convenient to burden one person with evil.

Satan was casting a spell through Mick Jagger and it infected Don McLean in the audience. Rage is a sin.

The only antidote is B Wilson "Love and Mercy."
Artists are reflections and McLean would know that.

Kinda like saying Stones are the devil because they ask for Sympathy...

 

[The Hitch]

A little pedantic but I agree with most of it.

Listen closer about the Beatle's segment.

The halftime air was sweet perfume

while sergeants played a marching tune.

The player's tried to take the field and the marching band refused to yield.

I take it that all of the music that came after Buddy Holly was a disappointment to him except Dylan.

I disagree with Satan/Mick because it's all to convenient to burden one person with evil.

Artists are reflections and McLean would know that.

Kinda like saying Stones are the devil because they ask for Sympathy...

When he calls Jagger Satan, he isnt actually calling Jagger the lord of fire and brimstone

Just like calling Dylan the jester doesnt mean he walks around with a funny hat a painted face and a funny instrument

Its just a nickname. Besides its a bit funny, calling Jagger the Satan. A bit of a _ you to Jagger.

 

[redtreviso]

could the levee have been wet? or full or empty?

 

[buckwheat]

I don't think you understand the dynamics of human rights abuses

You were talking about my not understanding human rights violations.

I'll beat you to the punch.

Aggressive Narcissisim, lack of empathy.

Now you school me.....If you'd like. As I said, I'll consider anything..I'm all ears.

Hannah Arendt can do a lot and is a great researcher/writer. What she is not, is someone who can follow and write about a court case. She was way too convinced by the story of Eichmann and her quick dismissal of his pride in the destruction of the Jewish people as childish boasting is actually quite naive

Are you actually giving credence to Eichmann's self reported rationale for his atrocities against the Jewish people?

I'm not sure I'm following you.

Eichmann was no doubt a sociopath. Eichmann's sole objective was to kill a lot of people, and oftentimes there is a component to this which fuels sexual fantasies.

The Jewish people were convenient scapegoats in this quest and if it wasn't them it would have been some other person or group of people who were vulnerable.

 

[buckwheat]

The banality of evil, good book. But I do not agree with the assesment of Hannah Arendt on Eichmann per sé.

Leaders of a movement are very difficult to asses, mainly due to the fact that many of these leaders are not captured after a conflict and thus cannot be tested psychologically. However those higher-ups in the Nazi regime that could be caught did have psychological tests done and the assesment of those tests, by different, independent, and objective psychologists was that these persons were sane and were average people.

However you mentioned torture and torture is often not a decision of the leaders of these groups. Also is this torture often not there for torture sake.

You have changed your argument by putting in goalposts that weren't there before

\

Highly unlikely....

Until the extent of Ted Bundy's depredations became known, he was seen to be "normal" by psychiatrists, in their pre-trial reports.

The "Mask of Sanity" can be very convincing.

 

[buckwheat]

Speaking of George Bush....he said "damn right I ordered waterboarding".....

I read a bunch of comments about this.. but no one seemed to see what bush was doing..

((((Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
Col. Jessep: I did the job I...
Kaffee: *Did you order the Code Red?*
Col. Jessep: *You're ******amn right I did!*

what a pos

Very good pick up!

 

[usedtobefast]

bush=load of wood.
and that is somewhat insulting to a load of wood.

 

[usedtobefast]

http://www.theonion.com/video/victim-in-fatal-car-accident-tragically-not-glenn,14380/

why not? please?

 

[titan_90]

http://www.theonion.com/video/victim-in-fatal-car-accident-tragically-not-glenn,14380/

why not? please?

LOL, that hit the spot

 

[auscyclefan94]

In state victorain politics, the recent polls are predicting a hung parliament. Not another one...logically brumby should get voted out but bailleu is not a people person even though I think he would do a better job.

 

[Barrus]

\

Highly unlikely....

Until the extent of Ted Bundy's depredations became known, he was seen to be "normal" by psychiatrists, in their pre-trial reports.

The "Mask of Sanity" can be very convincing.

so, I thought it were about 20 Nazi officials, were all able to hide their insanity? Able to hide it in such a way that 20 different psychologists all came up with the same assessment?

And also first you are laughing at me for not following the assessment of Hannah Arendt and after that you are saying that Hannah Arendt was incorrect? Also Eichmann was no sociopath, he was not out to kill as many people as he could, he was out to kill as many Jews as he could. He was never before, nor since involved in any kind of illegal and harmful behaviour.

 

[buckwheat]

so, I thought it were about 20 Nazi officials, were all able to hide their insanity? Able to hide it in such a way that 20 different psychologists all came up with the same assessment?

And also first you are laughing at me for not following the assessment of Hannah Arendt and after that you are saying that Hannah Arendt was incorrect? Also Eichmann was no sociopath, he was not out to kill as many people as he could, he was out to kill as many Jews as he could. He was never before, nor since involved in any kind of illegal and harmful behaviour.

???????????

Eichmann was the only person Israel ever executed.

 

[rhubroma]

Again, you do nothing but prove my point further. I have never countered any assertion other than religion not playing a part in slaughter until 380. I would suggest that you to narrowly confine the term "religion" to serve your point, rather than accept a larger interpretation of the term. I would also suggest looking at South and Central American history and would suggest that there was plenty of slaughter there based on religious grounds prior to the arrival of Europeans...oh wait, you were being Eurocentric...sorry...

Well, there is also the issue of Stalin and Mao being glaring examples of slaughter in modern times by atheists. Hey, no theory is perfect, keep it up, I am sure your theory will be great when you finish it...

You say much about nothing, without presenting, as I have done, any precise historical information to back your claims.

This is what we call blabbermouthing.

And this is the usual ad hominem argumentation that comes from someone who has nothing to contribute because completely ignorant of the facts.

PS: As far as I know throughout pagan antiquity, and paganism at large, religious issues weren't directly related to why societies faught wars anywhere in the world. Not among the Assyrians, the Sumerians, the Babalonians, the Egyptians, among the animist tribes of sub-Sahara Africa, not among the peoples of the Mohenjo-Daro in India and the Hindu cults, or the followers of Buddah, certainly not with the Chinese from the time of Confucius, nor even was religion at the roots of the conquests of that "enemy of history" the first Chinese emperor Shih Huang-ti, or among the people of Montezuma and those above and beneath them in the New World (Cortez and other European Christians and subsequently North Americans intoduced the concept of war for a "religious cause" to them - and the saddest thing of all is that, not only did these men call themselves Christians, but they always maintained that all the atrocities they commited against heathens were done in the name of Christendom). Whereas the Arabs killed for the religious cause in the Middle East, North Africa, in Spain and Sicily during the Middle Ages.

Now I never laid claim to men would have not acted barbarously had religion never existed. So I don't prove any point which you have made. I simply stated that with the new notions of "The One and Only God," "The (One) Good News" and finally "There is No God But Allah, And Muhammad is His Prophet," and with the invention of a theological corpus to be debated and faught bitterly over, was now, for the first time in history, religion also going to become a primary impetus for war. At times, indeed, the exclusive reason. And the world is because of this still paying a rather heavy price down to this very day. This is the historical backdrop. For me there was a decisive turning point in time, but you already have heard these arguments.

I'd recommend that if you want to engage in a serious debate over certain important issues, like those we have been discussing, then you come prepared with something to say, to contribute, other than the childish ad hominem arguments that you have made here. Otherwise one risks looking like an idiot. And a rather arrogant and presumptuous one at that.

 

[Ferminal]

Spare Tyre, if you're here, what you think of these comments:

I saw an interview with Greens leader Bob Brown shortly before writing this column. He is arguably the best politician in the country. He is genuinely humble, articulate, earnest and, rarely for a politician, lacks any malice. He is the perfect moderate face to put on a party increasingly racked by internal division. The Greens are gradually being taken over by some extreme left-wing types.

Why doesn't the government cost all of the Greens' policies, lift the veil on the totality of their platform and expose what a joke Australia would be if the Greens actually got to govern the country? If Labor's primary vote is being knocked off by the Greens, some robust exchanges need to take place if the trend is to be reversed.

There is also a curious reluctance to be bold on social policy.

If right-wing leaders such as Mark Arbib and Paul Howes take a positive stance on gay marriage, why doesn't the PM show the "real Julia" and stand up on the issue.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...xpose-the-greens/story-e6frg6zo-1225952290758

ALP is going to continue to leak votes to The Greens in all states unless they either stand up to them, or start governing from their own agenda not worrying about getting squeezed out by The Greens on the Left and Coalition on the Centre-Right. As Labor tries to appease both voters and hold some sort of non-progressive ground, they are actually losing out to both (as this ground is clearly too left for the centrists and too centrist for the lefties). I think I would probably vote Labor if they actually did something in government

The Greens are huge winners from this status quo, with the Coalition winning a little too.

Do the Greens lose out if "their policies are revealed as a joke" by Labor? Or do Greens voters already know that but simply vote for them because the "joke" is the only thing which might inject some sort of leftist-progressive agenda into the government at the time?

 

[auscyclefan94]

Spare Tyre, if you're here, what you think of these comments:

I saw an interview with Greens leader Bob Brown shortly before writing this column. He is arguably the best politician in the country. He is genuinely humble, articulate, earnest and, rarely for a politician, lacks any malice. He is the perfect moderate face to put on a party increasingly racked by internal division. The Greens are gradually being taken over by some extreme left-wing types.

Why doesn't the government cost all of the Greens' policies, lift the veil on the totality of their platform and expose what a joke Australia would be if the Greens actually got to govern the country? If Labor's primary vote is being knocked off by the Greens, some robust exchanges need to take place if the trend is to be reversed.

There is also a curious reluctance to be bold on social policy.

If right-wing leaders such as Mark Arbib and Paul Howes take a positive stance on gay marriage, why doesn't the PM show the "real Julia" and stand up on the issue.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...xpose-the-greens/story-e6frg6zo-1225952290758

ALP is going to continue to leak votes to The Greens in all states unless they either stand up to them, or start governing from their own agenda not worrying about getting squeezed out by The Greens on the Left and Coalition on the Centre-Right. As Labor tries to appease both voters and hold some sort of non-progressive ground, they are actually losing out to both (as this ground is clearly too left for the centrists and too centrist for the lefties). I think I would probably vote Labor if they actually did something in government

The Greens are huge winners from this status quo, with the Coalition winning a little too.

Do the Greens lose out if "their policies are revealed as a joke" by Labor? Or do Greens voters already know that but simply vote for them because the "joke" is the only thing which might inject some sort of leftist-progressive agenda into the government at the time?

I think Labor will be in trouble the most in future elections because as we are seeing in the upcoming victorian election, the coalitions primary vote is 7 to 10% greater than Labor and labor is only getting home in seats (in recent elections) because of greens. Labor should be thanking them. If they turn away from the greens then the greens may turn away from them so Labor won't get those 2nd and 3rd preference votes they usually.

Because the greens are getting so popular I do think that they should be scrutinised more and be apart of debates which will mean people will see what their left wing policies really are.

For the most i am quoting the message you quoted.

 

[Anonymous]

You say much about nothing, without presenting, as I have done, any precise historical information to back your claims.

This is what we call blabbermouthing.

And this is the usual ad hominem argumentation that comes from someone who has nothing to contribute because completely ignorant of the facts.

PS: As far as I know throughout pagan antiquity, and paganism at large, religious issues weren't directly related to why societies faught wars anywhere in the world. Not among the Assyrians, the Sumerians, the Babalonians, the Egyptians, among the animist tribes of sub-Sahara Africa, not among the peoples of the Mohenjo-Daro in India and the Hindu cults, or the followers of Buddah, certainly not with the Chinese from the time of Confucius, nor even was religion at the roots of the conquests of that "enemy of history" the first Chinese emperor Shih Huang-ti, or among the people of Montezuma and those above and beneath them in the New World (Cortez and other European Christians and subsequently North Americans intoduced the concept of war for a "religious cause" to them - and the saddest thing of all is that, not only did these men call themselves Christians, but they always maintained that all the atrocities they commited against heathens were done in the name of Christendom). Whereas the Arabs killed for the religious cause in the Middle East, North Africa, in Spain and Sicily during the Middle Ages.

Now I never laid claim to men would have not acted barbarously had religion never existed. So I don't prove any point which you have made. I simply stated that with the new notions of "The One and Only God," "The (One) Good News" and finally "There is No God But Allah, And Muhammad is His Prophet," and with the invention of a theological corpus to be debated and faught bitterly over, was now, for the first time in history, religion also going to become a primary impetus for war. At times, indeed, the exclusive reason. And the world is because of this still paying a rather heavy price down to this very day. This is the historical backdrop. For me there was a decisive turning point in time, but you already have heard these arguments.

I'd recommend that if you want to engage in a serious debate over certain important issues, like those we have been discussing, then you come prepared with something to say, to contribute, other than the childish ad hominem arguments that you have made here. Otherwise one risks looking like an idiot. And a rather arrogant and presumptuous one at that.

Okay, the Aztecs ritually sacrificed for religious purposes. Human sacrifice was a central theme of the Mayan religion. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that they made war to acquire more people to slaughter to their gods. And they are not the only pagan society to sacrifice for religious purposes. You can do the heavy lifting on that one. I don't provide as much detail as do you because your assertions are ridiculous. The evidence is there to anyone as astute as are you.

As I said, you are parsing out war in the name of God and saying that is significantly different than ritualistic slaughter of people (or killing for other religious reasons). My point has never been that wars since the time of Christ were not fought because of a belief in a monotheistic religion. You keep blathering on (seriously, this is a forum, not a thesis, cut down on the verbal diarrhea, you just look like a blowhard academic with no common sense) about this as though killing for monotheistic purposes makes those killed more dead or something. I would submit that those killed for religious sacrifice are equally as dead, but hey, you find more significance in the death of those after 380...I am pretty sure those that were sacrificed didn't find, prior to slaughter, much significance in which god they were dying for.

I have this entire time been referring to a larger context in regards to human atrocity. You keep writing volumes of information that really doesn't relate to that topic. It would seem that someone trying so hard to appear superior in knowledge to everyone would at least be able to pick up on the actual issue at hand as opposed to writing volumes and volumes of useless drivel that was meant only to show yourself how wonderful you think you are. You challenged my assertion by using topics that don't really relate to my proposition. You have yet to show that religion is anything more than an excuse to kill. The only point I have continued to stress over and over is that humans kill and use whatever excuse they need to justify that killing. Religion works really well for that purpose. I think we both agree on that.

Hey, another hint there Mr. Superknowledge, if you are going to decry ad hominem, don't then engage in its usage. It makes you look like a hypocrite on top of the fact that you already look like an academic douchebag with too much knowledge and little real perspective. Just a friendly hint.

 

[Barrus]

???????????

Eichmann was the only person Israel ever executed.

What has that to do with whether he was a sociopath, or whether Hannah Arendt was correct? Not has it anything to do with the psychologists. So what do you mean by this statement?

 

[rhubroma]

Okay, the Aztecs ritually sacrificed for religious purposes. Human sacrifice was a central theme of the Mayan religion. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that they made war to acquire more people to slaughter to their gods. And they are not the only pagan society to sacrifice for religious purposes. You can do the heavy lifting on that one. I don't provide as much detail as do you because your assertions are ridiculous. The evidence is there to anyone as astute as are you.

As I said, you are parsing out war in the name of God and saying that is significantly different than ritualistic slaughter of people (or killing for other religious reasons). My point has never been that wars since the time of Christ were not fought because of a belief in a monotheistic religion. You keep blathering on (seriously, this is a forum, not a thesis, cut down on the verbal diarrhea, you just look like a blowhard academic with no common sense) about this as though killing for monotheistic purposes makes those killed more dead or something. I would submit that those killed for religious sacrifice are equally as dead, but hey, you find more significance in the death of those after 380...I am pretty sure those that were sacrificed didn't find, prior to slaughter, much significance in which god they were dying for.

I have this entire time been referring to a larger context in regards to human atrocity. You keep writing volumes of information that really doesn't relate to that topic. It would seem that someone trying so hard to appear superior in knowledge to everyone would at least be able to pick up on the actual issue at hand as opposed to writing volumes and volumes of useless drivel that was meant only to show yourself how wonderful you think you are. You challenged my assertion by using topics that don't really relate to my proposition. You have yet to show that religion is anything more than an excuse to kill. The only point I have continued to stress over and over is that humans kill and use whatever excuse they need to justify that killing. Religion works really well for that purpose. I think we both agree on that.

Hey, another hint there Mr. Superknowledge, if you are going to decry ad hominem, don't then engage in its usage. It makes you look like a hypocrite on top of the fact that you already look like an academic douchebag with too much knowledge and little real perspective. Just a friendly hint.

Are you really such a blockhead???? I'm begining to think you are just stupid. You will probably make a fine lawyer however.

Ritual sacrifices have nothing to do with wars of religion. I have always been talking about wars of religion. These were unknown among the polytheists. They only came about with the monotheistic faiths. Got it? And I've never once brought up issues over killing for this reason or that as you have. I do find it as a Westerner the worst type of hypocrisy, however, any killing in the name of the Christ. This, yes, and it took place for centuries. Just as I find it intolerable killing for any reason in the name of God. The world can certainly do without it. Aside from that killing, is killing, is killing.

PS: And as far as being in touch with reality, being involved with the contemporary world, it seems rather ironic to me that you bring up past practices which no longer have any relevance because they have been extinguished from society. Yet the the religions which continue to play a role in the wars of today, of which I have spoken, are very much a current issue. Now whose the one making poor use of knowledge? And I'm just trying to help you with come out of the darkenss, TFF, and into the light.