2
0

12-year-old girl kills herself because of the lie of an afterlife


 invite response                
2014 Jan 9, 4:42am   91,883 views  428 comments

by Dan8267   ➕follow (4)   💰tip   ignore  

A 12-year-old girl whose father died, takes her own life in order to see her father again. Of course, she does not get to see her father again because there is no afterlife. Sure, the lie of the afterlife might numb the pain of loss for a child, but if that child actually believes the lie, she might act on it as this poor girl did.

Now, this isn't about blame. It's about not repeating the same mistake. Stop telling children the lie about there being an afterlife. The lie does far more damage than good.

The Young Turks discuss this issue including the clause about suicide written to discourage people from offing themselves during their productive and taxable years to get to paradise sooner.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_uWMOZ0vaCY

All the false comfort in all of history that the lie of an afterlife offered is outweighed by this one girl's death. The tally is negative for this alone, and I doubt very much that this is the first time in history someone has wasted his or her life because of the afterlife lie. It's just the first indisputable proof we've seen.

« First        Comments 350 - 389 of 428       Last »     Search these comments

350   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Jan 30, 2:05am  

He was also a Momma's Boy who exaggerated his "sinfulness" post-conversion.

351   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Jan 30, 2:07am  

Reality says

promoting atheism as the new social norm thereby letting government-worship becoming the default faith, without any check from an organized moral authority (which is usually played by religions) is tantamount to collective suicide for the society.

In essence you are saying that morality in society can only come from religion. That implies that atheists, taken in groups, are incapable of morality. This is so stupid it doesn't even need an argument.

352   Y   2014 Jan 30, 2:33am  

No, because we don't have enough of a definition of what it is to apply the term 'survival'.
I can say with quasi-certainly that consciousness appears to emanate from the mind.

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

no one can say with absolute certainty what happens to it upon the death of the body.

Atheists and fundamentalists, brothers in absolutism.

So would you accept we can say with quasi-certainty that consciousness doesn't survive death?

353   Y   2014 Jan 30, 2:40am  

I do not say that what we do know about consciousness is not "knowledge from a practical point of view".

I just don't subscribe to the absolute point of view that it 'dies' with the body.
How can one take that point of view with something that we cannot define or describe how it may be created.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Hopefully our knowledge will expand to the point where we have enough data to make the appropriate judgement. For me, that means:
Defining what C. is with broad scientific support
Determining how C. is 'created' with the body, or just inhabits the mind, or something else...
Possibly, once defined, creating consciousness in the laboratory.

Heraclitusstudent says

You are making a big deal of "absolute certainty" but most knowledge about the world is never absolutely certain. It doesn't mean it is not knowledge from a practical point of view

354   Y   2014 Jan 30, 6:45am  

4 hour statue of limitations has expired.
I win.
Case Closed.

355   Dan8267   2014 Jan 30, 7:04am  

SoftShell says

1 or 2 examples?

Dan8267 says

All so-called agnostics are highly selective in their agnosticism.

See the snake hating sun god example above. I can't keep repeating myself.

SoftShell says

4 hour statue of limitations has expired.

Some of us have day jobs.

356   Y   2014 Jan 30, 7:35am  

Therein lies the inoperable portion of your cerebral cortex.
Agnostics do not take the stance that "something could possibly exist".

Their position is that if something cannot be proven, given humanity's gross lack of universal knowledge, we default to "I don't know", instead of the fundamentalist/atheist viewpoint of "I know".

Please think hard before you say "something could possibly exist" is equivalent to "I don't know". It is not.

Dan8267 says

Don't give me the bullshit that any agnostic thinks that maybe Garuda, the snake-hating sun god, plausibly could exist. No agnostic puts Garuda on equal footing to Yahweh in terms of possibly existing.

357   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Jan 30, 8:00am  

SoftShell says

Their position is that if something cannot be proven, given humanity's gross lack of universal knowledge, we default to "I don't know", instead of the fundamentalist/atheist viewpoint of "I know".

You don't understand what knowledge is.

Knowledge of the universe around us is never 100% logically certain. Knowledge can always prove to be wrong and has to be constantly refined.

Take simple facts like "Obama exists". Since I never met Obama and only saw him on pictures and TVs, there is way to prove me logically that this was not an artificially created Hollywood studio character. There is always that tiny chance that in fact, he is.

Now lets say you see your buddy John in the street. Surely you recognize him and that proves it's John, right? Wrong: How can you prove logically that he didn't have a twin brother Zac from whom he was separated at birth, and that happens to wear similar clothes? There is no way to prove this. Just because 2 things look the same doesn't prove they are the same. Plato showed long back that identity can not proven by the senses alone. Identity is logical induction.

The mind assesses the source of information, the degree of closeness and decides based on that. Knowledge is not made of pure logic deduction.

In the exact same way, we know the feathered serpent or Zeus don't exist, and this is not a fundamentalist position, it's practical knowledge of the world, just like recognizing your buddy John. And of course it can be wrong. Knowledge is the map, not the territory. It can always prove to be wrong and has to be constantly refined.

So the best thing that can be said about agnosticism, is that it is logically valid. It doesn't mean that it is a practical understanding of the universe.

358   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Jan 30, 8:11am  

SoftShell says

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Hopefully our knowledge will expand to the point where we have enough data to make the appropriate judgement. For me, that means:

Defining what C. is with broad scientific support

Determining how C. is 'created' with the body, or just inhabits the mind, or something else...

Possibly, once defined, creating consciousness in the laboratory.

How do I know my car is not a sentient being?
If you can't give us a 100% absolute proof it isn't, that means it may survive the crusher.

Maybe it can't, maybe it can.... Until sentience is well understood with broad scientific support, we can't know for certain.

Jeez... thanks for the argument.

359   Y   2014 Jan 30, 8:24am  

Heraclitusstudent says


How do I know my car is a sentient being?

If it leaks oil after being dusted by the 335xi, that's proof enough.


If you can't give us a 100% absolute proof it isn't, that means it may survive the crusher.

Who says the crusher kills the car? The crusher just takes away the car's mobility.


Maybe it can't, maybe it can.... Until sentience is well understood with broad scientific support, we can't know for certain.

agreed.


Jeez... thanks for the argument.

Why do you hate bliss?

360   Dan8267   2014 Jan 30, 9:17am  

SoftShell says

Therein lies the inoperable portion of your cerebral cortex.

Agnostics do not take the stance that "something could possibly exist".

To take the stance that it is unknowable whether or not X exists is to take the stance that it is possible that X exists. You're really not that smart, are you?

361   Y   2014 Jan 30, 12:00pm  

To take the stance that it is unknowable whether or not X exists is to take the stance that it is unknowable whether it is possible that X exists.

You really need to get up to at least level 3, counterargument. Anything below that level is worthless.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Therein lies the inoperable portion of your cerebral cortex.

Agnostics do not take the stance that "something could possibly exist".

To take the stance that it is unknowable whether or not X exists is to take the stance that it is possible that X exists. You're really not that smart, are you?

362   Reality   2014 Jan 30, 12:51pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

promoting atheism as the new social norm thereby letting government-worship becoming the default faith, without any check from an organized moral authority (which is usually played by religions) is tantamount to collective suicide for the society.

In essence you are saying that morality in society can only come from religion. That implies that atheists, taken in groups, are incapable of morality. This is so stupid it doesn't even need an argument.

You chopped off the half sentence in front of the quote above, namely "a significant proportion of the human population has a psychological need for faith." People who choose to be atheists in a mostly religious society obviously are obviously not those kind of people.

So despite your claim of "doesn't even need an argument," you not only presented an argument, but in fact searched for a point of contention that wasn't even there to begin with.

Most people are capable of applying morality to oneself through logic and tradition . . . but there are different degrees of sociopathy that a functional society has to deal with. Let's say those various degrees of sociopaths comprise 20% of the population. A typical law enforcement system can only catch about 20% of criminals. That means, if logic is the only safeguard, fully 16% of the population would be out there committing crimes with impunity! If 80% of those 20% sociopaths can be convinced of some kind of religion that induces them to self-police, that 16% number would be dropped down to 3%! It's not the other 80% well adjusted people that we have to worry about, but how to deal with the dysfunctional ones! cost-effectively!

363   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Jan 30, 12:56pm  

SoftShell says

You really need to get up to at least level 3, counterargument. Anything below that level is worthless.

Actually I don't think his post was purely ad hominem.
He was certainly pointing out that someone who claims to believe that Dionysus and Quetzalcoatl could in fact exist or that my car could actually be sentient is either not serious or fairly delusional.

Basically you are denying the obvious that most people would agree on.

364   Reality   2014 Jan 30, 1:03pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

However, atheistic political movements have proven to be catastrophic in human history.

The only example of that you quoted is communism, which was catastrophic for very different other reasons.

The various brands of communist states were the most recent and most drastic samples. There were more than a dozen different varieties of "communist states" with various different forms of state worship and personality cult attempting to replace traditional religions. The term "only example" is simply untrue. The previous experiments during the French Revolution did not fare well either.

365   Reality   2014 Jan 30, 1:26pm  

thunderlips11 says

The simpler explanation is that they couldn't afford, or organize, well equipped standardized armies, not even on a smaller scale than the Roman.

The Romans couldn't really afford the professional standardized imperial army either. The Roman Imperial army was a ponzi scheme just like any bureaucracy: the bulk of the pay was in the pension plan: a promise of a plot of land to settle on the frontier after certain number of years of service. Of course, that promise could only really be kept when the empire was expanding so there was a new frontier for retired veterans to settle. That's why late Roman Empire had so many army mutinies after the empire had already expanded to the maximum size that the available transportation technology would allow; there simply wasn't enough money to pay the standing professional army and retain their loyalty for long. Eventually people lost all faith in the Roman army pension with benefits model, which had to be replaced by the 1099 independent contractor model, aka Feudalism: bring your own tools to do the work of chopping up people in cold blood.

thunderlips11 says

If infantry was so terrible, how did Charles Martel fend off the Arab invaders of France? With heavy infantry in a shieldwall against the predominantly light cavalry of the Arabs.

The decisive factor was the arabs not having winter clothing, so they had to finish the campaign before the pending winter. Otherwise, they could easily bypass Chuck's stationary defense, and they should have (from a pure tactical/strategic point of view). Also, the greedy invaders were loaded down with loot from previous victories.

Hastings was determined by infantry - the cavalry, like in most ancient battles, only came up after the other side broke.

Harold lost at Hastings in the classic way infantry loses to cavalry: lack of mobility. Harold's infantry did not break initially because of losing, but breaking ranks in order to pursue what they thought was easy victory, and got easily picked off piece meal by Will's combined arms forces.

Did the Vikings have cavalry? They occasionally stole ponies to plunder inland, but when they fought they dismounted. Cavalry is much more expensive than infantry. Knights don't need one horse, they need several. Horses eat a lot of fodder, land that could be used to raise cattle or plant wheat.

The Vikings were so dangerous because medieval Europe had neither a standing navy nor a standing army to oppose them; by the time the local lords got their levies raised, the Vikings were elsewhere.

In other words, Vickings were the Cavalry of the Sea, engaging in hit-and-run cost-effective cavalry tactics.

Knights were heavy cavalry, which provided cover for light cavalry to do the real plundering work. The Dark Ages was a lower temperature period. Much of the land was better used for grazing than for planting anyway. They didn't have potato yet back then or corn. The grain species they had were mostly the warmer weather varieties.

Roman Armies could campaign in all seasons. Medieval Armies could only campaign in the heart of summer between planting and harvest.

Roman armies campaigned in a higher temperature period in mostly lower latitude lands. The Medieval Armies that you talk about worked in a lower temperature period in earth's history and at higher latitude lands. For the crusader kingdoms in the Mediterranean, comparable in latitude to the Roman's Med empire, campaigns did go on year-round.

366   Reality   2014 Jan 30, 1:40pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

I'm not promoting any brand of religion. I'm simply against putting down religions. I'm especially wary about the government cult, and those falsely promoting the government cult/religion.

Of course you are. You spent the entire thread condoning manipulating people for societal control.

Not societal control, but crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior. Of course I did not promote any particular brand of religion. In order for religion(s) to serve its function for the society as a guard rail and alternative power base, the state has to be agnostic about religions, welcoming/tolerating almost all religions while promoting none.

Not only that's a profoundly immoral and pernicious way to lead people (and that makes your position immoral), it's also the exact same pattern you are worried an atheist secular state would practice.

Not lead people, but bringing up the rear (the different degrees of sociopaths that always exist in any society).

Atheist secular states do the exact opposite: without any check and balance from an effective organized base for alternative voice, atheistic regimes tend to commit the worst excesses of misrule.

367   Reality   2014 Jan 30, 1:48pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

Not to mention organized religion has always lived in close symbiosis with centralized states.

Not always. The alternative power center function provided by the church may well explain why Western Europe never centralized after the fall of Rome and before the 20th century.

That's what we saw with monarchy,

Monarchy existed before the invention of monotheism; the Monarch was imply deified instead of having to rely on divine mandate. Monarchy even exist in atheist states like North Korea, where the monarch is once again deified.

that's what we saw with fascism in the 20th century,

The Nazis were anti-clerical, as were the Italian fascists. The Japanese fascists promoted Emperor-worship.

that's what we saw with Bush and others in the US.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The two working together, are essentially free of moral limitations and rulers are typically above the rules taught to the masses. As such they are no different than a secular state enforcing conformity through propaganda.

That I agree with you. The atheistic state is like the worst kind of religous state (theocracy): concentration of power in both cases. What I advocate is an agnostic state, where the state stays the heck out of religions, neither promoting nor suppressing, but simply tolerating and welcoming to religions.

368   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Jan 30, 2:24pm  

Reality says

The previous experiments during the French Revolution did not fare well either.

Really? The French revolution started with General States that included low clergy. The "Déclaration des droits de l'homme" includes freedom of religion, and while the revolution was accompanied by a rise of anti-clericalism, it was certainly not centered on it, and many of the revolutionary including Robespierre insisted on the respect of religion.

No, the French revolution was just chaos created by a power void and an institutional void, and ended by a military coup. We see something similar now in Egypt, with reversed position of the religious. Nothing about it was predestined to failure based on an imagined atheism.

369   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Jan 30, 2:34pm  

Reality says

The alternative power center function provided by the church may well explain why Western Europe never centralized after the fall of Rome

Really? It was not because it was divided in smaller parts with different languages and cultures? and none of which was powerful enough to control the others? and with geographical barriers between England, France, Spain and Italy that historically were the main countries?

I want to hear your logic chain that goes from the existence of a church to separate countries remaining separate.

If anything a common religion should have unified them.
Instead of course, the religion itself split creating civil wars.

Everything you are saying is a bizarre rewrite of history that seem based on American conservatism vision of what is best.

370   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Jan 30, 3:01pm  

Reality says

Not societal control, but crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior.

That's called enforcing conformity and of course it is societal control.

Organized religion, btw, uses the exact same techniques that propagandists rediscovered later: Commitment, repetition, authority, granfalloon , phantoms, etc...

As you have dismissed the motif of an earnest spiritual pursuit, and since morally can safely be shown to exist independently, all that remains from organized religion is a propagandist belief system that serves essentially no other purpose than the perpetuation of the power of the religious structure itself. Your preference for this particular system of populace manipulation over an atheist one is unfounded. They are basically the same.

371   Reality   2014 Jan 30, 3:06pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

The previous experiments during the French Revolution did not fare well either.

Really? The French revolution started with General States that included low clergy. The "Déclaration des droits de l'homme" includes freedom of religion, and while the revolution was accompanied by a rise of anti-clericalism, it was certainly not centered on it, and many of the revolutionary including Robespierre insisted on the respect of religion.

No, the French revolution was just chaos created by a power void and an institutional void, and ended by a military coup. We see something similar now in Egypt, with reversed position of the religious. Nothing about it was predestined to failure based on an imagined atheism.

Notice I said "the previous experiment during French Revolution," not the French Revolution in its entirety. The atheist zealots are knee-jerkers just like the religious fanatics.

372   Reality   2014 Jan 30, 3:15pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

Really? It was not because it was divided in smaller parts with different languages and cultures? and none of which was powerful enough to control the others? and with geographical barriers between England, France, Spain and Italy that historically were the main countries?

Of course geography was a major factor too; however, England, France, Spain and Italy were unified under Rome previously, despite the geographical barriers.

I want to hear your logic chain that goes from the existence of a church to separate countries remaining separate.

If anything a common religion should have unified them.

Instead of course, the religion itself split creating civil wars.

Before you go off on some idealized kumbalaya religious community, what I wrote was:

Reality says:

The alternative power center function provided by the church may well explain why Western Europe never centralized after the fall of Rome

The church was an alternative power center with self-interest for preserving its own independence. It played the role of balance of power just like Britain would later do for continental Europe. A classic case was inviting the far away Otto I to Rome to reduce the local warlords controlling lands around Rome, preventing the rise of a Rome based reunification power.

Everything you are saying is a bizarre rewrite of history that seem based on American conservatism vision of what is best.

You are out of your mind if you think the American Conservatism vision is into agnosticism. You find fault with my writings because you are a knee jerk faith zealot lacking reading comprehension skills and basic understanding about calculated human actions.

373   Reality   2014 Jan 30, 3:25pm  

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

Not societal control, but crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior.

That's called enforcing conformity and of course it is societal control.

So what's your great idea for crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior among the 20% of the population that suffering from various degrees of sociopathy?

Organized religion, btw, uses the exact same techniques that propagandists rediscovered later: Commitment, repetition, authority, granfalloon , phantoms, etc...

Shouldn't that be: the atheist propagandists later use the same techniques as the previous propagandists working for theocracies? Goes to show that enforced Atheist regimes are just another type of theocracy.

As you have dismissed the motif of an earnest spiritual pursuit, and since morally can safely be shown to exist independently, all that remains from organized religion is a propagandist belief system that serves essentially no other purpose than the perpetuation of the power of the religious structure itself. Your preference for this particular system of populace manipulation over an atheist one is unfounded. They are basically the same.

Once again, what's your pres cription for crime prevention and sociopathy mitigation for the 20% of the population that suffer from various degrees of sociopathy?

My answer for how to prevent one organized religion from gaining too much hold on the other 80% of the population is quite simple: let many different religions thrive and prosper in the same society, so there is no particular religious mono cultural conformity bias for the bulk of the society. This is one heck lot more sophisticated and elegant solution than what the militant atheist blowhards offer: that you are a fool and should be disenfranchised unless you conform to atheism.

374   Y   2014 Jan 30, 10:46pm  

Most people at one time believed the earth was flat.
How'd that work out for them?

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

You really need to get up to at least level 3, counterargument. Anything below that level is worthless.

>

Basically you are denying the obvious that most people would agree on.

375   Y   2014 Jan 30, 10:55pm  

Why not?
It meets Dan's definition of the brain.
All you need is memory, storage, processor, and an on/off switch...

Heraclitusstudent says

or that my car could actually be sentient

376   Dan8267   2014 Jan 31, 12:33am  

SoftShell says

Why not?

It meets Dan's definition of the brain.

All you need is memory, storage, processor, and an on/off switch...

Heraclitusstudent says

or that my car could actually be sentient

Of course a computer system in a car could be sentient, but that does not mean that any car today is remotely sentient.

377   Y   2014 Jan 31, 12:55am  

Uhhh, this car is....
a cop wouldn't do this intentionally....
http://www.youtube.com/embed/SzDfMPe40n8

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Why not?

It meets Dan's definition of the brain.

All you need is memory, storage, processor, and an on/off switch...

Heraclitusstudent says

or that my car could actually be sentient

Of course a computer system in a car could be sentient, but that does not mean that any car today is remotely sentient.

378   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Jan 31, 1:05am  

Reality says

So what's your great idea for crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior among the 20% of the population that suffering from various degrees of sociopathy?

Teaching morality, opportunities and law enforcement.

379   MisdemeanorRebel   2014 Jan 31, 1:20am  

Reality says

The Romans couldn't really afford the professional standardized imperial army either. The Roman Imperial army was a ponzi scheme just like any bureaucracy: the bulk of the pay was in the pension plan: a promise of a plot of land to settle on the frontier after certain number of years of service.

They paid for it for about 500 years. Many more centuries in the Eastern Empire. Roman soldiers received all their equipment, regular wages, and the land grant. Did medieval common soldiery receive regular cash wages, organized and delivered by officials?

If there was no more land, how did both the Eastern and Western Emperors settled Federated German Tribes on Roman Land, while requiring them to honor any Roman holdings already there (which is where the Gallo-Romans came from)? That means there was not only good land for the tribes, but also for those Romans already there.

Valens gave the Goths half of Thrace; the reason they revolted is a story that explains, I think, the Collapse. The Roman Aristocracy ripped off the Goths, taking the tools and seed sent by the Emperor for them and selling it to them at a high price, levying fake taxes that went into their own pockets, and debt enslaving them, which caused them to revolt.

Constantine and Diocletian passed laws to tax colonii (tenant farmers) and forbidding them to leave the estates they currently worked on, to prevent them from leaving - to virgin lands, perhaps? This is the origin of Western Feudalism, by the way. A landlord's dream, tenant farmers who can never bid their labor out for the best return, and who are paying the taxes instead of the estate. Tax Evasion was a science among Latin landowners.

Which leads us to:
Reality says

Eventually people lost all faith in the Roman army pension with benefits model, which had to be replaced by the 1099 independent contractor model, aka Feudalism: bring your own tools to do the work of chopping up people in cold blood.

The Limitanei, a force of border soldiers created in the later empire, got lands during their service, near their station on the frontier. The origin of serfdom I dealt with earlier.

Reality says

Harold lost at Hastings in the classic way infantry loses to cavalry: lack of mobility. Harold's infantry did not break initially because of losing, but breaking ranks in order to pursue what they thought was easy victory, and got easily picked off piece meal by Will's combined arms forces.

Harold's Army had pulled off a forced march, fresh from a victory over a Danish pretender's army. Even so, Harold's Army fended off the Normans all day long easily - it wasn't until the King was hit by an (un)lucky arrow when his army started to lose heart.

Reality says

In other words, Vickings were the Cavalry of the Sea, engaging in hit-and-run cost-effective cavalry tactics.

Vikings were considered Pagans outside Christendom, and had never been part of any Classical Domain.

They were stunningly effective because these so-called mobile cavalry armies didn't exist until after the Vikings raided.

Reality says

The decisive factor was the arabs not having winter clothing, so they had to finish the campaign before the pending winter. Otherwise, they could easily bypass Chuck's stationary defense, and they should have (from a pure tactical/strategic point of view). Also, the greedy invaders were loaded down with loot from previous victories.

The decisive factor was Heavy Frank infantry fighting in close formation, which the unsupported Arab Cavalry could not break.

VD Hansen has a great account of this battle in his book "Carnage and Culture", I strongly recommend it.

Here is a Roman author writing about the Franks in the mid 500s:

The military equipment of this people [the Franks] is very simple .... They do not know the use of the coat of mail or greaves and the majority leave the head uncovered, only a few wear the helmet. They have their chests bare and backs naked to the loins, they cover their thighs with either leather or linen. They do not serve on horseback except in very rare cases. Fighting on foot is both habitual and a national custom and they are proficient in this. At the hip they wear a sword and on the left side their shield is attached. They have neither bows nor slings, no missile weapons except the double edged axe and the angon which they use most often. The angons are spears which are neither very short nor very long. They can be used, if necessary, for throwing like a javelin, and also in hand to hand combat.[25]

http://tinyurl.com/lzbogms

Heavy Cavalry is rare in Western Europe until after 1000AD, and not of much account in the Dark Ages. I would agree Heavy Cavalry is a major part of Eastern warfare during this time.

380   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Jan 31, 1:52am  

SoftShell says

Most people at one time believed the earth was flat.

How'd that work out for them?

That worked out very well for people who never traveled, which was most of humanity for a long time.

That goes to show that knowledge must be revised and refined all the time, not that sticking to pure logic is a practical position.

381   Dan8267   2014 Jan 31, 1:53am  

SoftShell says

a cop wouldn't do this intentionally....

That was attempted murder. The cop should either get the death penalty or life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Had the victim or a bystander shot the cop to death, the shooter should not be prosecuted because self-defense and the defense of other innocents is perfectly good justification for killing someone, including any cop, who is currently attempting murder.

382   Heraclitusstudent   2014 Jan 31, 1:53am  

SoftShell says

Uhhh, this car is....

a cop wouldn't do this intentionally....

As I said: you are not serious.

383   Y   2014 Jan 31, 2:20am  

The point being that your assertion:

Heraclitusstudent says "Basically you are denying the obvious that most people would agree on."

means nothing as what "most people agree on" has changed dramatically throughout history.

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

Most people at one time believed the earth was flat.


How'd that work out for them?

That worked out very well for people who never traveled, which was most of humanity for a long time.

384   Y   2014 Jan 31, 2:22am  

In this post, no, I'm not.
The bigger question is: Why would you state the obvious?

Heraclitusstudent says

SoftShell says

Uhhh, this car is....


a cop wouldn't do this intentionally....

As I said: you are not serious.

385   Reality   2014 Jan 31, 4:06am  

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

So what's your great idea for crime prevention and mitigation of sociopathic behavior among the 20% of the population that suffering from various degrees of sociopathy?

Teaching morality, opportunities and law enforcement.

That works for 80% of the population, but not the 20% suffering from various degrees of sociopathy and are willing to take their chances against law enforcement for extraordinary gains. Criminal enterprises are often high profit opportunities as law enforcement essentially remove competition from non-sociopathic 80% of the population. What makes the math even more enticing for the sociopathic is that Law enforcement can only catch about 20% of criminals; any law enforcement system more draconian than that tend to attract sociopaths into the ranks of the law enforcement itself.

So once again, the result is 20% of the population are willing to take chances against law enforcement, 80% of that (i.e. 16% of the entire population) can get away with it! What do you have up your sleeves to curtail that 16%? You don't have one! That's the role for religions in society. That's why when human societies go through cycles of unbelieving, they are quickly followed by futile attempt to grow even bigger government to make up for the lack of catchment curtailing the 16%. Such attempts always fail, and then the society falls apart, going through periods of turmoil and then give rise to a new religion that roughly 80% of the population can believe again, and thereby reducing that 16% to 3% or so. At that level, society can function again.

386   Reality   2014 Jan 31, 4:15am  

thunderlips11 says

They paid for it for about 500 years.

No. The Crisis of the 3rd century took place as early as 200 years into the Empire. In fact, the Roman soldier became dependent on their generals for pay as early as the late Republic period. That's why the old Republic transformed into the Roman Empire.

thunderlips11 says

If there was no more land, how did both the Eastern and Western Emperors settled Federated German Tribes on Roman Land, while requiring them to honor any Roman holdings already there (which is where the Gallo-Romans came from)? That means there was not only good land for the tribes, but also for those Romans already there.

By then, it was late in the Empire, the Roman population had abandoned frontier lands and flocked to Rome for the dole. The federated German tribes were being hired as 1099 frontier defenders.

thunderlips11 says

Constantine and Diocletian passed laws to tax colonii (tenant farmers) and forbidding them to leave the estates they currently worked on, to prevent them from leaving - to virgin lands, perhaps?

Not "virgin lands" but entering free agent labor market.

387   Reality   2014 Jan 31, 4:19am  

thunderlips11 says

Harold's Army had pulled off a forced march, fresh from a victory over a Danish pretender's army. Even so, Harold's Army fended off the Normans all day long easily - it wasn't until the King was hit by an (un)lucky arrow when his army started to lose heart.

No. Harold's shield wall was being picked apart due to his own infantry running off to chase retreating opponents in the mistaken belief that they were winning. Once seeing that, William's men deliberately rode up to then retreated from the shield wall, drawing away more and more elements of the infantry shield wall to be defeated in detail. Harold being shot happened later and forestalled any chance at rallying a doomed cause.

388   Reality   2014 Jan 31, 4:30am  

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

In other words, Vickings were the Cavalry of the Sea, engaging in hit-and-run cost-effective cavalry tactics.

Vikings were considered Pagans outside Christendom, and had never been part of any Classical Domain.

They were stunningly effective because these so-called mobile cavalry armies didn't exist until after the Vikings raided.

They were using high mobility hit-and-run "Cavalry Tactics" just like modern helicopters do, except their specific technology was the long boat. Perhaps you do not understand what the common military term "Cavalry Tactics" mean: using high mobility to probe and find enemy's weak spots then maximize exploitation, avoid head-on collisions with the enemy's strong points.

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

The decisive factor was the arabs not having winter clothing, so they had to finish the campaign before the pending winter. Otherwise, they could easily bypass Chuck's stationary defense, and they should have (from a pure tactical/strategic point of view). Also, the greedy invaders were loaded down with loot from previous victories.

The decisive factor was Heavy Frank infantry fighting in close formation, which the unsupported Arab Cavalry could not break.

It's idiocy to try breaking heavy infantry with light cavalry charging head-on, in any military rules of engagement. The cavalry army in that case should have avoided the head-on collision, but used their high mobility to cut off and starved/exhausted Chuck's infantry infantry, just like what Saladdin would do to the crusader army at the battle of horns. However, the Arab army at Battle of Tours did not have much choice because they were not provisioned for the coming winter, so their ability to stay in the field was limited. The commander took a gamble (probably hubris due to their earlier successes), and lost.

389   Reality   2014 Jan 31, 4:37am  

thunderlips11 says

Heavy Cavalry is rare in Western Europe until after 1000AD, and not of much account in the Dark Ages. I would agree Heavy Cavalry is a major part of Eastern warfare during this time.

Not sure why you bothered with the long quote on Frankish infantry of the late Roman time. Heavy Cavalry were around during Roman time, as in Knights and the Equestrian order. They were just not cost-effective, and nearly useless when sent up against opponents with powerful projectile weapons (like Crassus' doomed campaign). After Rome fell, all armies became vassals of the local 1099 free agent warlords. So they had to go through several stages in the arms race. Heavy cavalries were not useful until opponents use light cavalries and don't have strong projectile weapons.

« First        Comments 350 - 389 of 428       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions