So much to be proud of

[Lohrno]

Personally I'm looking for a Conservative Democrat or a Liberal Republican to help this country heal. Sadly such a person would get support from neither camp right now. Who knows though, maybe I can run in 2012 or 2016 and set things straight

Most Conservative Dems are Scum...Joe Lieberman as a perfect example

-=Lohrno

[Kaldaur]

My apologies then, Akaran. I was under the impression that were voting for Bush.

Seeing as how a vote is about as much support as you can possibly give a candidate, you can say I support John Kerry. I don't like him, but I will be "supporting" him in the 2004 election.

[Rekaar.]

dork =p

Would you care to dispute his point?

Additionally, throughout much of post-Jesus history, western civilization has not represented the pinnacle of humanity militarily, artistically, socially, or politically. I could say that "throughout much of the middle east, that standard has been the Qu'ran," and it would be just as meaningful as your statement.

I can't figure you out. You either didn't understand anything posted previously or you get so bogged down in semantics and detail that you miss the forest for the trees. Maybe you can explain to me how you're trying to contradict me and I can respond categorically? At this point you're just agreeing with me but bringing in all kinds of assumptions to muck it up.

Or hell, maybe it's me!

[Sueven]

I'd be happy too.

Let's check out the original exchange, shall we?

If you look back through history you can find many examples of this. There has to be a standard, and the Bible has always been it for Western culture.

Then...

Especially in Athens and Rome

If I'm reading this correctly, and I'm sure Voronwe will correct me if I'm not, what this means is:

1. The societies and philosophies of Athens and Greece are generally considered the origin of Western Civilization.
2. The bible was not "the standard" for these societies.

I feel that these facts, taken in conjunction, provide a powerful counterexample to your point. You respond with:

dork =p

In my humble opinion, your response does nothing to address the points raised in Voronwe's post. That was the reason why I posted this:

Would you care to dispute his point?

I felt that he made a valid point, and you did not dispute it. Generally in argumentation, if you do not refute a point, it means that you concede it. Because this is a message board and not a structured debate, I asked you if you would care to dispute it (the implication being that if you do not dispute it, then you concede it). I felt that my motives in asking this question were fairly straightforward and easy to discern.

The rest of my post was addressed to your original statement, which stated that the bible has "always been the standard" for Western civilization. I was attempting to communicate that, even if your statement was accurate, being "the standard" for Western civilization is no more valid than being "the standard" for Eastern civilization, or Native American civilization, or Middle Eastern civilization. Each of those civilizations has been arguably superior to Western civilization in different areas at different times. Again, I felt that this point was rather straightforward and easy to understand.

I hope that I've been able to clarify my relatively simple statements into even more simple ones. I hate being unable to clearly communicate my thoughts, so please let me know if you are still unable to understand what I write. I would be happy to break it down even more if you like.

[Rekaar.]

At what point did we discount the enormous influence of Christianity in the region's history, say...Vatican City. Did that just pop out of the sky recently and thus have no bearing on its neighbors and their development?

Your argument that qualifying my statement and limiting it to Western civilization is somehow irrelevant is what really confuses me. Are you suggesting that all cultures have the same standards then? Or are you saying that because different cultures have different standards that makes them all less valid? Again, what are you getting at?

[Sueven]

At what point did we discount the enormous influence of Christianity in the region's history, say...Vatican City. Did that just pop out of the sky recently and thus have no bearing on its neighbors and their development?

The fact that Christianity arose during the Roman Empire does not change the fact that both the Roman Empire and the peak of Athenian Civilization were both around before it existed.

Your argument that qualifying my statement and limiting it to Western civilization is somehow irrelevant is what really confuses me. Are you suggesting that all cultures have the same standards then? Or are you saying that because different cultures have different standards that makes them all less valid? Again, what are you getting at?

What I'm getting at is that your statement is worthless. You said that the bible has always been "the standard" for Western civilization. Assuming for a moment that I agreed with this statement, the points I was trying to make was:

Being "the standard" for Western civilization is worthless. What attributes of Western civilization make it's "standard" in any way more valid or accurate than the equivelant "standards" of the Far East, the Middle East, or the Native Americas? To make any sort of statement on the value of the bible as a moral guide, you would still need to contrast it to the moral guides of the parts of the world that do not belong to Western civilization. Until this occurs, your point has no value.

Basically, my original post was responding to your statement that the bible has always been "the standard" for Western civilization. I attempted to make two points to dispute you:

1. You're wrong.
2. Even if you were right, it's a worthless point.

Clear?

[Rekaar.]

You're like that annoying lawyer chick that got fired on the Apprentice most recently. Maybe if you stopped using 50 words when 5 would do it'd be more interesting to engage in some discourse.

[Sueven]

How's this for concise:

Bitch, are you retarded?

[Laliana]

How's this for concise:

Bitch, are you retarded?

I rarely post here in CE even tho I read most of the threads daily...

I do have to say that Rekaar is far from retarded. My personal talks with him in-game and out have always been thought provoking whether I agree with him or not.

[vn_Tanc]

I do have to say that Rekaar is far from retarded

He hides it well.

[Toshira]

Ummm no. See, in reality, therapists are for the dilluted. The weak minded people who refuse or are simply unable to handle the pressures of.......REALITY!

You know, I come here, I flame, I toss a little gas around, but rarely do I actually wish ill will upon people. Congratulations, mid.

I sincerely hope someone you care deeply about is afflicted with an undiagnoseable, uncureable mental illness that precludes them from having any semblance of a normal life, ever. May they be stricken with mental curses that keep them screaming when awake, and crying when they sleep. May you watch them change from a person you knew to a ghost's shadow, unrecognizeable and untouchable. May they have no peace, and no one to talk to about their pain, ever. May you live long enough to place flowers on their grave.

Oh wait, you could fix em, you've got the answer to everything! You're fuerte!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Ummm no. See, in reality, therapists are for the dilluted. The weak minded people who refuse or are simply unable to handle the pressures of.......REALITY!

You know, I come here, I flame, I toss a little gas around, but rarely do I actually wish ill will upon people. Congratulations, mid.

I sincerely hope someone you care deeply about is afflicted with an undiagnoseable, uncureable mental illness that precludes them from having any semblance of a normal life, ever. May they be stricken with mental curses that keep them screaming when awake, and crying when they sleep. May you watch them change from a person you knew to a ghost's shadow, unrecognizeable and untouchable. May they have no peace, and no one to talk to about their pain, ever. May you live long enough to place flowers on their grave.

Oh wait, you could fix em, you've got the answer to everything! You're fuerte!

True mental illness differs highly from the majority of reasons most people waste their money on shrinks for.

[Mak]

True mental illness differs highly from the majority of reasons most people waste their money on shrinks for.

Agreed, but I think anyone that is trying to better themselves should be supported. Unless, of course, you're a Democrat running for President.

Also, you ended a sentence with a preposition.

[Toshira]

Gosh...here I thought you were just trying to be clever by replacing "religion" with "therapy". I was expecting this big "gotcha!" this morning as you revealed how you donned your Captain Hypocrisee* sooper hero outfit and battled the flip-floppers on this board.

Wow. You actually believe this, eh? Tell me, at what point do you recognize a mental illness when you see one (and don't take the YOU TEE HEE set-up, even toker can see it)?




*I know, it's intentional.

[Marbus]

Lohrno I wouldn't consider Leiberman a CD, I just call him a freak Maybe my statement should have been... I'll run sometime in the future and fix everything

[Akaran_D]

You'll run against me Marb.

[Marbus]

Nah Akaran, we could run together and be the first Bipartisan ticket Like in "My Fellow Americans" (I love that movie!)

Marb

[Xzion]

At what point did we discount the enormous influence of Christianity in the region's history, say...Vatican City. Did that just pop out of the sky recently and thus have no bearing on its neighbors and their development?

The fact that Christianity arose during the Roman Empire does not change the fact that both the Roman Empire and the peak of Athenian Civilization were both around before it existed.

Your argument that qualifying my statement and limiting it to Western civilization is somehow irrelevant is what really confuses me. Are you suggesting that all cultures have the same standards then? Or are you saying that because different cultures have different standards that makes them all less valid? Again, what are you getting at?

What I'm getting at is that your statement is worthless. You said that the bible has always been "the standard" for Western civilization. Assuming for a moment that I agreed with this statement, the points I was trying to make was:

Being "the standard" for Western civilization is worthless. What attributes of Western civilization make it's "standard" in any way more valid or accurate than the equivelant "standards" of the Far East, the Middle East, or the Native Americas? To make any sort of statement on the value of the bible as a moral guide, you would still need to contrast it to the moral guides of the parts of the world that do not belong to Western civilization. Until this occurs, your point has no value.

Basically, my original post was responding to your statement that the bible has always been "the standard" for Western civilization. I attempted to make two points to dispute you:

1. You're wrong.
2. Even if you were right, it's a worthless point.

Clear?

Also, keep in mind christianity helped bring the downfall of the roman empire and as a result the dark ages arose, filled with religious persecution and much more authoritarian stances then held by the previous largely socially liberal society of the Roman Empire.

Christianity's history is filled with more darkness then it is with light, and if you combine the United States (with maybe 55-60% of the nation being practicing Christians) Canada (no idea but i assume around or less then 25%) and developed western Europe (with an average of maybe 5-8% of those nations having practicing Christians) to make up the modern "western civilization" much less then half of these people are practicing Christians

"Western Civilization" does not have a religious standard, but a standard that seperates religion from government and allows the people to legislate there own morality and values

[Sueven]

Laliana, just what the fuck do you expect me to say? Let me run this by you:

Rekaar. makes a post, directed specifically to me, in which he claims that he "doesn't get me" and that he wishes for me to clarify my points so that he can "respond categorically."

I respond by clarifying my points.

Rekaar. responds by saying that he still does not understand my post. Presumably, he still wishes to "respond categorically."

I respond with yet another clarification.

Rekaar., presumably understanding my post this time, responds with:

You're like that annoying lawyer chick that got fired on the Apprentice most recently. Maybe if you stopped using 50 words when 5 would do it'd be more interesting to engage in some discourse.

As I'm sure you will kindly note, this is not a "categorical response." Rather, it's a worthless personal attack. At this point, I feel that calling him a retard is the only acceptable thing to do.