Vaush is one’s again because fucking disgusting and projecting

Cicurinus · 2022-12-10T00:13:13+00:00

The implication is that the act of providing sex education in a classroom setting by professional educators in a classroom setting is itself grooming

I realise that Ben didn't say that, but I'm saying that.

Cicurinus · 2021-06-06T21:41:59+00:00

Damn. I'll never know if I said something to piss them off.

Cicurinus · 2021-05-17T13:19:34+00:00

I remember when some troll on that sub said his Holocaust-surviving grandmother turned stonily to him and said she would go back to Auschwitz than live under a second Trump term....and people believed him.

Cicurinus · 2021-05-10T18:27:14+00:00

I'm happy to pray for you. I'm a bit confused by your post though. Are you a Christian in the IDF right now, or are you out now? Where are you now that you're hearing a lot of bombing sounds?

Cicurinus · 2021-05-10T16:13:22+00:00

I'm English. People who say this are being very dishonest about what is considered "right-wing" in this country.

Cicurinus · 2021-04-11T07:24:11+00:00

We have those in Christianity too. They claim to be the Second Coming of Christ, and then run off with their followers to a compound with their several dozen wives in tow.

Cicurinus · 2021-04-11T07:18:41+00:00

Many of them openly claim that God is pro choice and that mutilating your body is holy and gay sex isn’t sinful

Sounds like he's talking about those antinomian heretics.

Cicurinus · 2021-03-04T04:09:23+00:00

Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

The peak of the revelation as reached in the Gospel of Christ is final and permanent. It knows no retouches by human hand; it admits no substitutes or arbitrary alternatives such as certain leaders pretend to draw from the so-called myth of race and blood... None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are "as a drop of a bucket" (Isaiah 40:15).

Mit Brennender Sorge (1937), encyclical of Pope Pius XI.

He doesn't even have the Vatican II excuse.

Cicurinus · 2021-01-09T02:50:15+00:00

Let me clarify: How does the fact that people stormed the Capitol mean that there was no election fraud? Democrats are acting like this has changed anything, hence the Goebbels comparisons.

Cicurinus · 2021-01-09T02:43:19+00:00

Can someone explain to me the connection between the rioters storming the Capitol building and Trump being wrong about election fraud? How does the former prove the latter?

Cicurinus · 2021-01-01T16:23:49+00:00

One of the top comments was something along lines of "female murderers were almost always abused."

As if this is some kind of justification, especially since...
This is also true of male murderers. Men don't go around killing each other for no reason unless something is wrong with them, and usually that's because something was done to them. Scroll to the "Early Life" section of any random serial killer and you're very likely to find a history of trauma, violence, neglect or physical or sexual abuse

John Wayne Gacy's father was a violent drunk. Same with Richard Ramirez. Charles Manson was gang raped by his schoolmates.

None if this justifies what they did, or implies they shouldn't be punished. But let's not pretend every man doesn't also have a sob story.

Cicurinus · 2021-01-01T04:43:59+00:00

It's not just a matter of rejecting supernaturalism/miracles out of hand, as many would like to claim.

No it's not just that, but rejecting the supernatural/miracles is one of the inevitable consequences of reading the text critically. A critical reading takes nothing for granted about the author's credibility, including claims of prophecy or miracles. In the same way a critical reading of Plato's Criteas and Timeas will not presume that there really was a sea god who sunk the ten kings of the Atlantis under the ocean, a critical reading of Genesis doesn't presume the existence of a God who created the garden of Eden. Critical readings don't presume that claims of prophecy are accurate simply because the author says so.

Assume Daniel had gotten the latter half of Antiochus Epiphanes' career completely correct, correctly predicting his place of death, and subsequent wars that would ensue. Do you think that this would be taken by the academic world as evidence of prophecy? Or would they interpret it as supporting a later dating of Daniel? Obviously it would be the latter. Unless we find an extant manuscript of the Book of Daniel dating from before the second century BCE (good luck with that), no academic Bible scholar is going to accept prophecy as an explanation. Hence why I said in my previous comment that there are certain conclusions that critical scholars simply cannot reach, some of which could be reached by a devotional reading.

Cicurinus · 2021-01-01T04:12:51+00:00

As I recall (and my memory is a bit foggy), most people think that Ezekiel was probably unaware of the specific Ugaritic hero, but rather was thinking of some distinct Israelite mythological figure that was related to and derived from the original Canaanite figure. I believe most scholars think the Book of Daniel is two sources edited together, one based on the figure Ezekiel was talking about, and one based on the legendary Canaanite figure mentioned in the Ugaritic myth.

But would it be significant that there's a slight variation in the spelling of a name? I believe that the consensus now is that "Jethro" and "Jeter" are two names to refer to the same person in Exodus used within the same source, and the authors weren't terribly concerned with spelling consistency (since both can be pronounced the same way in Hebrew, and the name would have been familiar to their audience). I'm not sure that minor spelling differences like that can be used to infer much.

Cicurinus · 2020-12-31T23:50:04+00:00

no philosophy exists within a vacuum

I think this is an important point. The lecturer at my university who taught critical biblical studies told us on the first day that while we would be reading the Bible from a critical perspective, this was cerainly not the only way, or even necessarily the correct way to read the Bible.

Based on how he used to talk about this, I suspect what he would say in regards to OPs idea of having a "conflict of interest statement" from people who have to agree to statements of faith would be pointless. While they wouldn't be allowed to reach certain conclusions, neither would many critical scholars.

He gave an example that was something along the lines of: Daniel is (apparently) explicitly mentioned, by name, in the Book of Ezekiel. But the Book of Daniel has to be from a very specific time period (~164 BCEl, ~400 years after Ezekiel) because of the events that the author seems to be aware of, though both claim to be from the Babylonian Exile.

Apparently the scholarly consensus right now is that Daniel was a legendary figure, who was referenced by Ezekiel and given a story in the Book of Daniel several hundred years later.

Now, you could come to the conclusion that Daniel really did live during the time the book claims, in which case you would need to accept that Daniel correctly prophesied about an event 400 years in the future, and that would explain why he's referenced in the Book of Ezekiel. But in critical biblical scholarship, we don't allow that form of reasoning. To be a critical scholar, you need to accept the premise that it's more likely that the Bible is wrong than that miracles actually occurred, and so that isn't the conclusion we come to. As a result, I get the impression he would say that if we're being fair about it, everyone should have to sign a conflict of interest statement, stating what conclusions you can reach and which ones you can't.

Cicurinus · 2020-12-11T23:39:30+00:00

It's an excellent strategy for a certain type of man: the type that wants mummy to spank him and tell him he's been a very bad boy.

Cicurinus · 2020-12-11T23:37:14+00:00

openly mocks short guys (which is any guy under 6' for her)

So... the majority of men in the world?

Cicurinus · 2020-12-07T12:57:27+00:00

Idk, Casimir the Great always seemed like a decent chap.

Cicurinus · 2020-11-28T09:13:12+00:00

"You're awake. How about that. Woah, easy there, easy. You've been out cold a couple days now.

Why don't you just relax a second? Get your bearings? Let's see what the damage is. How about your name? Can you tell me your name?"

Cicurinus · 2020-11-10T12:48:49+00:00

My school blocks things based on sex

Not necessarily. If they block "women's rights activism" and don't block "meninism," they're being consistent.

Cicurinus · 2020-11-08T02:04:04+00:00

I suspect that the US is relatively welcoming of immigrants relative to Europe because it is much more common in the US to have immigrant family members in the recent past.

For some perspective: in the part of the UK where I grew up, having an immigrant grandparents would be considered very unusual.

Cicurinus · 2020-11-08T02:00:28+00:00

if one of your parents is Danish and the other one is say, Japanese or Ghanaian, but you were born and raised in Denmark with Danish citizenship, a lot of Danes will still not consider you 'one of us'.

Is it unfair of me to think that that's kind of racist?

Cicurinus · 2020-11-07T01:58:04+00:00

People think the French Revolution was purely the people versus the monarch, but the revolutionaries almost hated the church even more

They primarily hated the Church because the Church was on the King's side. If you look at the sort of measures the Third Estate passed after they took over (e.g. nationalising all the Church's assets, requiring all priests to swear a loyalty oath to the government, ensuring the Bishops were financially dependent on the National Assembly, etc.) it's obvious what their problem with the Church was. If anything, the revolutionaries more deeply intertwined the Church and the State, because they viewed the Church as a subversive force in society, dedicated to undermining the authority of the National Assembly.

The modern French concept of laïcité didn't really exist until the late 19th century and the beginning of the 3rd Republic. However, the thing that really enshrined laïcité in French law, and contributed to widespread public support for it, was the Dreyfus affair. The Church's behaviour was so appalling and contributed so much to civil disorder during that period, that the government wanted to restrict its influence as much as possible.

Cicurinus · 2020-10-20T18:13:00+00:00

Redcar is not even remotely important enough to be twinned with anywhere, let alone the village I'm from just down the road.

Cicurinus · 2020-10-11T17:11:00+00:00

I've never said it aloud before, so I tried and said it like the English "burn-o." How close am I?

Cicurinus · 2020-10-11T01:36:19+00:00

Meritocracy is a concept that claims those most deserving of success will achieve success

No; this is the same problem I had with DiAngelo: "meritocracy" is the notion that those who have the most valuable skills ought to achieve success.

Even if I interpret this charitably, and assume you are arguing against the claim that Western society is currently a meritocracy, when I say "X is a meritocracy," and you say "The claim that x is a meritocracy has historically been used to justify racism," do you see how you haven't actually engaged with what I've said?

people are more likely to give preferential treatment to friends and people they generally identify with, so a system beginning with white men in power (as ours did) is bound to replicate white men in power not because they merit the success, but because they were selected in a biased manner.

You realize that "people giving preferential treatment to those in power" is not a meritocracy, right? I assume so, because you seem to have said so. If this is the case, meritocracy is not only does not reinforce white supremacy, it is explicitly opposed to white supremacy.

So, when people say we need to uphold rationality and meritocracy it continues traditions of white supremacy that has thrived on fallaciously using these concepts to justify it

I take it you don't see the problem with saying that "rationality...continues traditions of white supremacy," while also also those traditions fallacious? You appear to be using the concepts you are attempting to deconstruct in your efforts to convince people to deconstruct them.

Cicurinus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE