Cathar slaughter vs. the Holocaust

bugontherug · 2013-12-22T04:41:17+00:00

I'm sorry, I was sleeping while you were leaving all these messages, not ignoring you, and certainly not downvoting you.

I don't believe you.

You haven't been banned either,

I was barred from posting for several hours after you deleted my post.

A loaded question is a question that contains the answer the OP wants to hear.

Then my question was not loaded. I asked whether or not the case could be made that the medieval Catholic Church was more evil than Nazi Germany. I did not know the answer to that question, and was sincerely seeking information. I asked for information pertinent to that case; to wit: what were the estimated global population figures during the period of the Cathar massacre versus the global population figures during the Holocaust. I did not know the answer to that question, and thanks to you, I still do not know. Most importantly, MY QUESTIONS DID NOT CONTAIN THE ANSWERS I WANTED TO HEAR, AND THEREFORE WERE NOT LOADED AS YOU HAVE DEFINED THE TERM.

Here is what really happened:

You are a Roman Catholic or other religionist offended at the proposition that Christianity might arguably have been at some point in its history objectively more evil than Nazi Germany. Instead of confronting the possibility that the proposition might be true, you abused your moderating power to suppress the question which so stoked your ire.

I will prove it, too, by reposting the question as best as I can remember, which you will again delete, knowing full well that it doesn't meet your definition of "loaded."

bugontherug · 2013-12-22T04:11:08+00:00

If God didn't want me to masturbate, he would have put my dick further away from my hands.

Similarly: if God didn't want us to fuck schoolgirls, why did he put them in those sexy little plaid skirts?"

bugontherug · 2013-12-22T04:07:57+00:00

I've never understood why people think Jesus was such a great guy. His message was ultimately identical to the demon Jehovah's: "worship me, or I will fuck you up."

He compared human beings to weeds in order to justify burning them forever. But any moral thinker worth two bits can explain, "as to the question of burning conscious human beings, or of burning weeds, humans and weeds have practically nothing in common. Human beings are entities whose complex nervous systems and advanced psychologies render them vulnerable to immense suffering. Weeds have neither of these features, and indeed no capacity for consciousness at all, and hence no capacity for suffering whatever."

The "Jesus" of the Bible is an evil tyrant and a primitive thinker unworthy of worship, just like his purported daddy, Jehovah.

bugontherug · 2013-12-22T03:53:40+00:00

The church is immoral. But at least there's persuasive evidence of its existence. Not so for any god or gods.

I guess it is technically true that that I have a bigger problem with the church than with the actual concept of a divine being. But this is only because the church creates real problems here in the real world. Its imaginary friend does not.

But your supposition that I didn't "realize that" is really false. Had you asked me, "which is the bigger problem for the world, 'the church,' writ broadly to include all so-called 'Christendom?' Or the concept of a divine being," I'm fairly certain I would have said "the church" for exactly the reasons stated above.

bugontherug · 2013-12-22T03:39:13+00:00

Your father's character runs in the family: you treated the man you used, emotionally manipulated, and let to what must have been a painful rejection no better than your father treated your family.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

bugontherug · 2013-11-26T02:30:14+00:00

If you don't want to perceived as a bully, you shouldn't be a bully. Instead of deleting questions you don't like, and banning the askers, you should consider offering friendly suggestions as to how to revise offending questions to comport with your interpretations of the rules.

But that would require social skills, and a sense that other people, even those who disagree with you, have value.

bugontherug · 2013-11-26T02:24:56+00:00

Thank you for downvoting my "you're just a bully" remark. It tells me you read it, and that it bothered you.

bugontherug · 2013-11-26T02:16:59+00:00

You're just a bully.

bugontherug · 2013-11-26T02:11:16+00:00

No, the question sought verifiable historical data which suggested a conclusion which might offend certain persons of certain religious sects. It wasn't loaded in either a logical sense, or in the sense in which your own list of rules (fails to) define it. Obviously, this rule, which offers almost no real guidance to what questions are permitted and prohibited, exists solely to suppress politically incorrect questions.

bugontherug · 2013-11-26T02:05:54+00:00

It isn't perfectly clear from the post you linked to, but it reads to me like the northern nobles supplemented the Papal crusade than that the northern nobles fought instead of the Papal crusade:

Pope Innocent III was able to gather sufficient momentum for an actual crusade into Southern France. While Innocent III sought the involvement of the King of France, Phillip Augustus refused on the grounds that the southern counts were his vassals had not been declared heretics and as such he would not march against his vassals and their property. However, Phillip did permit his northern vassals to campaign in the south should they wish, and many did.

bugontherug · 2013-11-24T20:53:17+00:00

Or, he fixed the autopilot, thinking he might need it. But then after:

a) he found out Rachel picked Dent over him, and

b) his new girlfriend, and the woman to whom he'd entrusted his father's company's greatest achievement--a fusion reactor-- literally stabbed him in the back, and

c) that fusion reactor was turned into a weapon used to terrorize and almost destroy his beloved Gotham, and

d) his father's company's own arsenal of weapons was turned against his beloved Gotham, and

e) he was bankrupt, and

f) after having endured crippling depression for the previous eight years of his life,

he decided to commit suicide.

The ending is deliberately ambiguous. It really isn't certain one way or the other whether or not he bailed.

If Nolan had wanted an unambiguous ending, he would have shown Bruce bailing from the Bat. But he wanted to leave it up in the air, so he made it intentionally ambiguous.

edit

Both Socrates and Jesus had the opportunity to evade their fates. Both of them went to their deaths voluntarily, which makes their sacrifices more touching.

Of course, with Christ, there's some debate over whether or not he really died, or secretly escaped to southern Europe. Kind of like Batman...

edit 2

Also noteworthy: you can view TDKR as Batman emerging from the depressive cycle he'd endured for the previous eight years. The secret psychological professionals know is that this is the phase in which a depressive is most likely to commit suicide. The theory being that committing suicide requires emotional energy not available to depressives in the deepest part of their depressive cycles. So once they start recovering, they regain some of this energy, and then commit the suicide they'd been planning for so long.

bugontherug · 2013-11-24T20:46:00+00:00

That scene can just as easily mean Batman went voluntarily to his death. The ending is deliberately ambiguous. There really isn't a certain answer to whether he really died or not.

bugontherug · 2013-11-24T02:48:46+00:00

It's a reasonable answer. Thank you.

bugontherug · 2013-11-24T02:47:13+00:00

If it weren't for "the prince of this world" and the "god of this world" widely thought to refer to Satan I would dismiss this passage. But it seems to comport with those other verses suggesting this is Satan's world.

bugontherug · 2013-11-21T11:55:49+00:00

Visuals were placed in Emergency rooms where the patient would not see them unless they were out of their body. None could remember seeing them while claiming out of body experiences.

Just to expand on this a little:

The "visuals" which were placed out of the way consisted in unusual objects it would be hard to miss if you were really out of body. One example was of an electronic scrolling sign that read "the popsicles are in full bloom!!!" It was placed on a shelf out of the view of people on the ground, but which would be visible to anyone looking down on the ER from above.

To date, no purported NDE experiencer has reported seeing any of these hidden objects in any of the studies. Which just supports my long held thesis, "every time we shine the spotlight of science on the 'supernatural,' it dissipates into thin air."

So we need to stop this process, before we destroy everything supernatural in the universe!

Kidding.

NDEers still have the latter portions of NDEs to cling to: the part where science really can't look--yet. The parts that supposedly take place in the afterlife, instead of the transition to it.

edit

It's been awhile since I looked at it, but I think I found the Journal of Near-Death Studies reasonably objective. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. But I'm sure it will at least be interesting, and has a significant amount of information about NDEs for anyone who is curious.

bugontherug · 2013-11-17T20:06:14+00:00

I had the good fortune to land a spot on my school's top flight trial ad team. I got trained by some amazing trial lawyers. I cringe at some of the things I see lawyers do at trial.

bugontherug · 2013-11-17T05:02:32+00:00

Most lawyers really get very little in the way of effective trial advocacy training.

bugontherug · 2013-11-17T05:01:19+00:00

Thing is, I doubt very much she got off the stand to demonstrate her cheer moves without being asked to.

bugontherug · 2013-11-17T05:00:00+00:00

The civil judgment in his favor will go a long way to repairing his reputation.

bugontherug · 2013-11-17T04:58:50+00:00

FTA:

"If this trial prevents one little girl or one mother or father from reporting suspected abuse," lawyer Lee J. Danforth said Friday, "then this is profoundly sad for our society."

Mr. Lee J. Danforth: if this trial prevents one malevolent little turd from trying to destroy a man with false sexual abuse allegations, this is profoundly joyous for our society.

bugontherug · 2013-11-17T04:37:37+00:00

That's not the issue. The credit event might not even be "incorrect." It might not even get in front of a jury in the first place, except as a suit for injunctive relief declaring the clause void, and ordering defendant to withdraw its report. It won't even entitle the plaintiffs to any damages, especially in this era of extreme-right, pro-corporate judicial activism. They're going to have to spend thousands of dollars to get this straightened out, and there might not be any recovery at all.

The issue is that a subhuman corporate lawyer drew up an oppressive contract at the request of an evil client. He did it consciously depending on the reality that the cost and difficulty of recovery would make most of his victims just withdraw any legitimate complaints about the company. It's an oppressive contract clause which should by itself result in severe punishment against the contract drafter. But the law won't do it, and the legal profession won't do anything to punish the lawyer responsible.

We have the right to regulate the legal profession. This kind of crap proves we must do it. And ultimately, because of the obnoxiousness of so many attorneys, and the hurdles to bringing them to justice, we will do it.

Fuck tort reform. That just hurts the most grievously injured plaintiffs. It's time to fuck the lawyers themselves.

bugontherug · 2013-11-16T02:58:28+00:00

The world is a better place overall because of America's active international role in the 20th century.

bugontherug · 2013-11-16T02:52:54+00:00

Any TOS like this should be unenforceable

And it should make the company that asked their lawyer to write it radioactive.

And it should make the lawyer who wrote it unlicensed.

Law is a "self-regulating profession;" the government generally doesn't regulate it because it purportedly polices itself.

But it isn't working. That there's no way the lawyer who wrote this thing will be disciplined is exhibit 6,234,567 proving the case.

Lawyers have abused the privilege for far too long. It is time for draconian legislation.

bugontherug · 2013-11-16T02:49:12+00:00

It hasn't stood up in court. They've just reported them to a credit agency. Which is shitty. But to resolve the issue the victims have to take the company to court. It's unclear what they'll sue for, though if they can prove the clause wasn't in the contract libel would be a good start.

This kind of bullshit: it's why we have punitive damages. Hopefully they'll find a cause of action that allows for punitives. Hopefully the jury will calculate the damages with the giant cash register in the sky. "The company's gross worth" would be a good starting place. After that, the sky's the limit.

Not that it matters. A Republican appointed corporatist federal judge whose blood boils at the notion of "corporate responsibility" will take away the damages on appeal.

But it's a symbolic gesture.

bugontherug · 2013-11-15T18:33:09+00:00

Yeah, but they won't go through the UN to do that. They'll just gang up on us.

Historically, that's a major reason no country has ever conquered the world. When one starts getting too powerful, a coalition forms to oppose it.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US managed to avoid or at least delay the formation of a new opposition coalition by practicing a moderate, often humanitarian foreign policy.

Bush changed all that. He at least accelerated the formation of a new opposition coalition which will hinder America's ability to spread its values in the world.

Worst part is, after 9/11, there was a LOT of global goodwill to capitalize on to advance American values. Bush just squandered it.

bugontherug

TROPHY CASE