That makes me think of a common thought exercise used in many college classes. There are 6 people on a life raft with enough provisions for 5. What do you do? — Athena

Nothing, I am not there.
BUT, they would only have to redistribute the provisions for six and would probably have to prepare to die a day earlier if not rescued.

I just looked up how long wheat can be stored and that is 8 to 10 years. I am not opposed to storing food. — Athena

Did you checkout how much certain countries actually hold in reserve? And most grains can last decades in the correct conditions.

And this is why my former English teacher was right again in his philosophy of "never discussing religion or politics with anyone" no matter how hard I pressed him on the two — Outlander

I was an English teacher for many years. I used to avoid any discussion about religion, Being the only atheist in a roman catholic school sorts of puts you off things like that.

The asshole being the deceased? — AmadeusD

Ummm. Maybe that word is to nice for him, after all assholes are useful thing. But anyway I would love to been able to see him shitting himself while the helicopter crashed.

Actually the Barber of Seville is an orthodox Jew and just trims his own beard.

But I think that the best answer will be that the Barber of Seville is female.

Now I am going to look at the answer

He shaves himself while looking in the mirror. :cool:

On a computer screen the format is ok, I never use the mobile for viewing anything unless it is an emergency.

But I do think he has it about right. I cannot imagine anyone asking for a moments silence for a mass murderer never mind an asshole like that guy.

Are you saying that a woman who has a child can't also have one or more jobs? (Many single and married mothers, in fact, do.) And she's not allowed to sell her lawn mower? — Vera Mont

What the hell are you talking about? where is anything like that mentioned? How is that even part of the discussion?

(Who said anything about its quality?) — Vera Mont

You did, or do you not remember what you write!

It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of alawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price? — Vera Mont

That doesn't become an ethical consideration, nor yet a change to some different set of ethics, as long as the parking space she's grabbing isn't the handicapped one, and changing checkout lanes doesn't involve shoving in ahead of a doddery senior. — Vera Mont

All I can say now is that you are not even trying to understand, The women's behavior changes depending on the role she is playing. While her morale compass would not let her put anyone in danger, she would not hesitate to grab a spot by going a different route to the rest of the queue.

They're as available on line to you as they are to me. — Vera Mont

You are the one making broad claims about the laws, it is you that is supposed to show proof of your claims. I have made no claims so I do not have to do anything. So I just just ignore the comment.

I will no continue to answer your comments, good bye.

I never once initiated a discussion regarding events or persons involved in that conflict. — Vera Mont

Yes, good bye.

This could be true in Canada but I know it's not the case in the US. — Benkei

So maybe Vera can give us a link to the laws.

An interesting article.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28054493/douglas-murray-iran-president-ebrahim-raisi/

:rofl:

Continued harping on WWII, as if had been the only notable event in human history. — Vera Mont

From someone that has done more of that than anyone else on the thread about WW2. :rofl:

In your example, if someone else had been convicted of, or is currently on trial for those other murders, you would report your new information to the judge, who would then decide whether to reveal it to the police or counsel for the other accused. Innocence at risk clause.
Once they're convicted of a capital offense, prisoners are often bribed to reveal previous crimes, but if you get the guy off this one, he also gets away with the others. So you're in a sticky ethical dilemma. Doctors often are, too.
But it's strictly the job related rules that regulate these things, not one's personal ethics. Basically, when you sign up for the law, or civil service or banking, you promise to leave your own values at home. Some people can go through with that, some can't. — Vera Mont

Seriously. i think that you should stop quoting things you see on the screen and do some actual research on the topic. I would certainly like to see those laws.

I know about roles. Most people have more than one role to play in society. What I disagree with is the notion that each role has a different ethical principle or standard. Each role may have different concerns and obligations, different hazards and privileges, but no person has more than one conscience. — Vera Mont

If you had known about roles you would not have made the comments you did about mothers having side hustles as taxi drivers to earn some extra money and selling lawn mowers of dubious quality.

And if you had actually read and understood my post;

And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family. — Sir2u

I think I made it quite clear the morality of the person does not change from role to role, but the ethics attached to that role does. While the mother knows that waiting in line to drop of the kids at school is the correct thing to do she will probably hurry to grab a parking space in the supermarket parking lot. It is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in the supper market, just like changing check out line to get out quicker.

So, is it you contention that if a lawyer discovers that his client has raped and murdered several children before the one he's on trial for and that if he's acquitted, he will do it again and again, that lawyer is ethically bound to keep that information from the police and opposing counsel? Should he not consider who will be harmed by his withholding that information? — Vera Mont

It is not my contention, I have nothing to do with the laws of any country.
In most countries he is forbidden from revealing any information that his client has confided to him personally. I am not sure how far it goes with information gathered from other sources.

If the journalist is bound by a higher obligation - not putting people in danger by publishing the jury list - why is the attorney exempt from that higher obligation? — Vera Mont

Most journalist I believe would publish anything they can find to get a scoop on the other news outlets. And I am not sure if it is legal for any jury lis to be kept from the public.

But the mother you mentioned earlier must certainly shop and may earn her living as a teacher and a little extra driving a taxi, and she might even wish to sell her lawn mower sometime. — Vera Mont

As I said earlier, you need to understand the concept of different hats used in different roles. If you will not make an effort to do that then you will never understand.
A mother of a child does not need to be a salesperson, a taxi driver, a nurse or any other job for that matter.

A mother is by nature a nurse when she looks after sick kids, she is a taxi driver when she takes her kids to school or games, she is a cook and a waitress when her kids are hungry, she is the washer women when there are dirty clothes, a councilor when the kids have problems and a lawyer when they are in trouble. These are the roles I was talking about.

It has nothing to do with her job or a side hustle, but with the work inherent in bringing up kids.
And pleas do not start talking about how that is going against the equality of women. If what I said bothers you for the obvious stereotyping just read father for mother or the parents to get equality.

I suggest a hierarchy of principles, wherein secondary loyalties yield to primary ones and superficial considerations are trumped by fundamental ones. I also believe most people are aware of this and are guided by it in their important decisions.
And I see no reason why those principles must be suspended while people are slaughtering one another on battlefields. — Vera Mont

You can suggest all you like, you will not be the first one to do so and not even the last. The world has been turning for a very long time and people have come up with so many IDEAL moral theories that you would need a couple of life times to read and try to understand them all.

No, of course not. But it would be basic courtesy to back up a broad claim with at least a real-life situation in which it might apply.

I you want to participate in the threads it is your obligation to either ask for clarification of someone's ideas — Sir2u

That is what I was doing when I asked for examples of how someone's ethical decisions would be guided by different principles or standards in that person's various roles.
I respectfully suggest that skepticism regarding a claim may have sources other than ignorance. — Vera Mont

I made no broad claim, I gave you the way to find out what we were discussing by doing some investigation. The concept of roles in sociology and psychology is very well know and documented on the internet. It was your responsibility to find out about it before making ridiculous claims about mothers having side hustles.

Do you think that someone saying that you are ignorant is disrespectful? When someone does no know something, they are ignorant. I am ignorant about brain and tree surgery. even more so about digital money.

I picked $9 million CAD, in view of Japan†. I picked Canada, as I want to retire there. LottoMax's jackpot is $80 million, 6/49's $68 million. Giant jackpots worsen wealth inequality, and are unjust.

Better to LOWER lofty jackpots, but RAISE the probability of winning jackpot. LottoMax ought offer MORE chances of winning SMALLER slices (of the same pie). Rather than one winner hoarding $70M, $70M ought be fairly distributed, for example as $2M to 35 people. Koreans agree with this standpoint. — scherz0

I don't really think that giving one person every month getting the $68 million dollar is going to make much of a difference in the overall distribution of wealth. That would be 12 people a year in a population of about 40 million people.

And from what I have seen, a lot of them blow it all away in a couple of years.

If the winners were smart they would use the money to create a business that spread the profits to more people, thus lowering the inequality.

But if we really want to look at inequality we should be looking at the companies that run the lottos. The owners of these thing are richer every day which increases the inequality because most of the money comes from people that cannot afford to be spending the money buying tickets.

So, what are the different kind of ethics that would guide your decision according to the hat you were wearing? How exactly does the ethical system of teachers differ from the ethical system of taxi drivers? — Vera Mont

Les take an example that is really easy to understand.

A lawyer has the ethical responsibility to keep quiet about everything to do with his client that dos not already reside in the public domain, especially things that might harm the case.
A newspaper or TV reporter is ethical bound to divulge that same information if he has it.
Each of them have their rules of engagement and they are opposite to each other.

But then maybe there is a secret witness that would be in serious danger if his name was revealed, the report would be remiss in naming him without his permission.

They were examples for the application of different ethics to different roles, as you failed to mention any. No, grumbling is not an ethical choice, nor is desire for profit. — Vera Mont

If as, I had indicate, had you done some investigation on the topic of roles you would have found quite a few.
It is not my job to educate you and lay everything out so that you can just sit back and relax. I you want to participate in the threads it is your obligation to either ask for clarification of someone's ideas or look up the things you do not understand.
Saying that I did not provide examples of something that should be basic knowledge lays the blame for your ignorance on me and that is not a nice thing to do.

That truly is a ridiculous belief.. as if the Germans had some monopoly on that strategy. — schopenhauer1

It is not quite the ridiculous belief you think it is, Harris actually said that because it was the truth.

As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. — ssu

Or they thought that they British were to ethically/morally upright to do such dastardly deeds.

Harris was true to his word. — ssu

Yep, they got a bollocking, and he was justified in his thoughts and actions.

You mean, it's okay for mothers and teachers to speed in a school zone, as long as taxi driver and shoppers don't? — Vera Mont

Please read the post again. I don't feel that I should have to explain something that is basic high school intro to sociology and psychology. I will give you a clue, look up how the word "role" is used in either of the subjects I mentioned. Write "role psychology" in google

It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of a lawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price? — Vera Mont

This is even more pathetic than the previous one. Please show me anywhere it mentions stealing or lying.

Then what is it you're confused about? — Vera Mont

I was talking about you.
Please stop making a fool of yourself by posting nonsensical ideas. If you insist on posting, please read carefully and make sure you understood what you read. If you have problems with anything, you can always ask for explanations here.

RIP Frank Ifield

I honestly thought he had died years ago.

Then there's the question of the OP, would this have been justified.

If the UK would have repelled the attack and the war would have ended as it did, obviously yes, Britons would see it justified. And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings.

If the UK would have lost and UK would have been occupied, it would be seen as another huge error that the totally reckless Churchill did, who in his arrogant attempt to defend the country even when the army had been destroyed in France. The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany. — ssu

You are probably right that the winners are nearly always seen as being on the moral high ground.

The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany. — ssu

The final years in office. Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister in May 1940 following the debacle of the Norwegian campaign. Halifax was seen as a leading candidate to replace him but he realised that Churchill would make a superior war leader and, pleading ill-health, withdrew from the race.

Maybe you would be interested in reading this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-foreign-secretaries/edward-wood

Halifax was nicknamed ‘the Holy Fox’, reflecting his passion for hunting and his Christian moral outlook.

Halifax realised earlier than Chamberlain, but later than others, that Britain would have to stand firm against Nazi demands for territorial aggrandisement. But it came too late to avoid him being cast in 1940 as one of the ‘Guilty Men’ (in the publication of the same name), held responsible for the war by appeasing fascism.

In a government, on a battlefield, or a corporation, or a courtroom or a church, actual persons make actual decisions. If these persons are bound by one set of ethics when they shop, another when they enlist for the army, a third when they apply for a job, a fourth when they go to Friday, Saturday or Sunday service, a fifth when they run for public office, a sixth when they take the bar exam, a seventh when reach the status of CEO, general or senator or judge -- how can they ever make an ethical decision? — Vera Mont

Personal and professional ethics are quite different. Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. If your are a mother, teacher, shopper, taxi driver for the kids your role dictates the ethical rules you follow.
For example, as a shopper you expect prices not to rise too much and curse the supermarkets when they do, but as a seller you try to get the best possible price for the second hand lawn mower you are selling.
And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family.

I see this as playing with words. There is a reason why "war" is different than a fight between individuals. It's "conflict" and "violent", but it's not the same thing. — schopenhauer1

As I said, from my point of view the only difference is the size.

No, because an individual fighting doesn't worry about things that are only seen in war.. collateral damage, for example is uniquely only seen in war. — schopenhauer1

Could you explain that to the landlord of the pub where I was dragged into a fight and he tried to get me to pay for all of the collateral damage to chairs and tables. Maybe he will return the money he took.

Drafts are something that only happens in war. — schopenhauer1

Again the principles are the same but the size is different. If I had called my mates to come and help the collateral damage would have been greater.

Moving massive amounts of people on behalf of the state in tactical and strategic settings to gain some objective only happens in war. They are things that happen at the level of "state". There is a hierarchy one must follow. — schopenhauer1

Does any of this have any bearing on the war being ethical or moral?

I mean not really. There are things that happen in war that would not be seen as appropriate at an individual level. As an individual you cannot drop a bomb on a target or order others to do that for you in any legitimate way. But you can in a certain hierarchical setting on behalf of the state, as a state actor. Interesting how that confers by way of institutionalism, but that is how it seems to be. — schopenhauer1

So people do not sent fire to house to kill their ex's? The Oklahoma bombing never happened? The school shooters do not exist? And you can order killings quite easily it appears on the internet. There have been several cases recently of people hiring other to kill, kidnap or injure others.

The only thing that governments have in their favor is nicely put in the old phrase "Anything an individual can do, we can do better and bigger.

I won't even continue, what a load of crap. These barbarians who think Romans would feel anything but disdain for them go as far as saying all the absurd nonsense you see in this thread. That I have to argue with so much dishonesty and bullshit is well past limits now. — Lionino

So you do not believe what is before your eyes, instead preferring to maintain your ignorance to reality.
How many ancient Romans do or did you actually know? Because unless you can speak from first hand knowledge of the subject all I can say is that you are spouting undeniably ridiculous garbage. show us some proof that the Romans were as good and noble as you say they were or shut up.

These people have no ancient history of their own, their history is a fentanyl addict who died of overdose during COVID curfews, cross-dressing parades, and insane orange politicians. In their insanity they will defend every sort of violation of common sense, "hur dur the weather is part of culture", "hur dur recipes are part of culture", "hur dur we wuz romans n shiet u knowamsayan?", "hur dur hay rabdos sou kai hay baktaria sou. autai me parakelesan". Just barbaric, barbaric all the way through. They don't even know how to use periods. — Lionino

Tut TUT. did you never learn that personal attacks against members of a debating group are the ultimate sign of a badly defeated arrogant ignoramus. Especially when they take up jobs with the grammar police.

Those are the same people who defend that men can become women and that 2+2=5. So if such basic concepts bewilder them so much, to ask them a proper understanding of history is like charging a cat with doing the taxes of a company.

Sparing them with the slighest bit of culture and civilisation is throwing pearls at hogs. They were barbarians 2000 years ago and they are barbarians today and will be barbarians forever — uncapable of art and uncapable of philosophy (how can one do philosophy in a language that struggles with concepts as basic as "nation" and "woman"?). — Lionino

As I said earlier you really should do more careful reading, I think that if you look you will find my opinion on men being women is clearly stated on a thread somewhere around the forum.

Oh, one last thing before I tell you to fuck off. Your free grammar lesson:

uncapable of art and uncapable of philosophy

It is INCAPABLE, not uncapable (No, I am not going to put a period here just so that I can annoy you one last time)

Now fuck off.

Spare me your rhetorical diarrhea. — Lionino

This is a page meant for kiddies to learn from, maybe it will help clear your learning constipation.
https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/culture/399913

But I guess that Britannica could be wrong.

Nowhere there does it say Harry Potter is part of Hungary's culture. Again, spare me. — Lionino

Karate, Kung fu, tacos, apple pie, sushi, Soul food,the waltz, are some of many adopted parts of the American way of life. Does that make them any less part of American culture

Elements of one's culture are determined by the weather, the weather itself is not part of one's culture. — Lionino

I never said it was, maybe you should try reading carefully. What I said was that many customs are based on the weather, especially in farming. Is that not part of the culture then.
Or do you go skiing in the summer and swimming in the winter? The weather plays a big part in the culture of a people.

That is why I would split government or political ethics as a different domain than individual ethics. It is now dealing with abstract entities of state actors, which are liable to things such as "wars", "tariffs", "treaties", and the like, all things that are not done at an individual level. — schopenhauer1

Here I disagree.
War is another name for conflict and there are many kinds of those, have you never seen people fighting over something like their place in a line? Tariffs is another word for charging, I do that to my boss every month for my services to him. Treaties is just another way of saying agreement, I have an agreement with my neighbor not to call the police again if he keeps the volume of his music down to a reasonable level. All of these are done daily at the individual level.

The only thing that change between state and individual ethics is the size, fist fight 2 or more people - war hundreds.
But what makes something ethical will always be the same, the ethics system that is used in the place were the action is to be judged. In some places you get a telling off, in others you might go to jail for street fighting, in others places you might get whipped.
It has nothing to do with the actual actions, but where they happened and the ethical system they use.

And this is made obvious by both sides claiming to be morally and ethically in the right.

You were talking about a different form of ethics that applies to states. For transparency's sake, I don't think such a form of ethics exists, because the state is an abstraction and personifying the state has no basis in reality. It's just a handy tool we use for communicating broad ideas. — Tzeentch

Do you think that all ethics are the same? Is something that is ethical to a newspaper reporter ethical also to a lawyer? Is the ethical point of view of a major food company the same as that of the shopper? There are plenty of different types of ethics.

As for states being abstract, what do you think ethics and morality are? Going by this rule, neither have a place in reality either.

That is an opinion. I have dealt with medical personnel who believe Medicaid is charity. The last time I went to the Social Security office the person I had to turn to for information considered Supplemental Security Income to be charity. And these people announce that in such a demeaning manner I want to crawl away and go hide in a hole. — Athena

Other people's opinions, such as the employees you mention, have no value. Just because of their ignorant and arrogant demeanor affects your personal self confidence doe not mean it has any value in this discussion either. It might make a topic for another thread, "The inherent airs of superiority of public employees" maybe.

So if a nation were bombing your country would still disapprove of the US providing weapons for defense? — Athena

If all military spending world wild there would be no on bombing my country would there, so yes I am still in favor of eliminating such spending

What can be done to end the threat of war and the expense of war? — Athena

Maybe if people stopped voting for the idiots that approve the spending. People still believe that if they do not vote the other party will win, if no one at all votes because there are no adequate candidates then no one will win and they will have to re-think the political systems.
Eliminating the manufacturing of arms worldwide would help. But to be able to do that all of the people that want to fight, for pathetic reasons such as religion, would have to be re-educated.

Maybe that means more is spent on caring for other humans than is spent on military defense. — Athena

Health and welfare is not charity, it is a state's obligation to its people that pay taxes and healthcare from their wages.

Would we like to reduce that military spending by denying military support to our allies? — Athena

Military spending is different from military aid to other countries, but I would like to see the elimination of both. And they are not my allies either, I am not an American.

Would that be cost effective? — Athena

Eliminating both would be.

So you think all foreign aid is the same as charity, or at least that is how I interpret you post.
It is mostly tax payers money given to allies to keep them as allies, obviously given only in times of need.

Not so much when it is over $5,000 in car repairs for a car that in the Bluebook is worth $500. :lol: — Athena

Yep, you definitely need to learn how the economy works. The parts for older cars are more expansive and the work is usually more intensive because today's cars have all throw away parts that take minutes to replace. Get a second quote on it.

That was disrespectful. Time for me to move on. — Athena

That is always the best way to avoid answering the questions. :wink:

It would help to understand what are the rules for increasing wealth? What if charities learned the rules for increasing wealth and by using those rules they became wealthy and could do more? — Athena

charities are by law in most countries non-profit, that means that they cannot make more money than they spend on giving away that money and expenses involved in doing so. But most churches are not bound by these laws, why are a lot of them so rich despite most of them having internal rules about humbleness.

I seriously think government needs to take control of something like say the internet or AI and get its revenue that way instead of taxing people. — Athena

Are you a reincarnated Marxist?

The problem is not knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth. — Athena

Say that again without repeating yourself.

The problem is, not knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth.
The problem is not, knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth.

Which did you mean?

Our taxing system from the past and inappropriate for a high-tech society. — Athena

How so, you earn money you pay taxes. What is the problem with that now that we live in a high tech world?

We are demanding more for everyone because we are accustomed to abundance. — Athena

Silly generalization, I for one am not accustomed to abundance. I have what I need and I am try to save enough so that I can retire in the next few years. There is no abundance in the lives of the majority.

Please, stop talking to me about rich people being greedy, and talk to me about economics and social organization. — Athena

There are free course online that could help cure your ignorance, we are not here to do that.

The big lie/myth is we need to be saved and we are not moral until we are saved. The truth is God was not a loving God until people's bellies were full. Around the world people of all faiths are very caring. The poor peasants are very willing to share a meal and be gracious host to the stranger. At least the geologist I have spoken with say that is so. Hawaiians didn't need Christianity to have beautiful spirits and a good culture. Many cultures put a high value on giving. — Athena

Holy crapola, that is one bunch of rolled up blah blah blah.
First of all you need to be moral before you can be saved and go to heaven, at least that is what it says in the bible.
Second, god does not give a shit if people have full bellies or not. He gave mankind free will so it is their problem not his.
Third, please tell the terrorist groups that they are supposed to be caring so that they will stop using kids as bombs.
Lots of Hawaiians are christians, but a lot still follow the old beliefs. part of which is being nice.

How could you possibly know most billionaires are not generous? The answer to that question requires how you got that information. — Athena

There is a thing called the internet, it can be used to find information. Let me repeat an example of what has already been stated.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2023/10/03/the-forbes-philanthropy-score-2023-how-charitable-are-the-richest-americans/?sh=39ab7cf9eccc

But how generous are the super-rich, really? Not very, according to Forbes’ research. The members of the 2023 Forbes 400 list have collectively given more than $250 billion to charity, by our count—less than 6% of their combined net worth. — Forbes

How can you know more about "them" than you know about me? — Athena

Maybe because we are not interested in finding out anything about you. Give us a clue to where you live or your name and I am sure we could come up with something though.

Oh really? and how is that organized? — Athena

I will write this slowly to make it easier for you to understand.
If everyone was a moral person they would help everyone else, at least according to your idea of morality.
If everyone helped everyone else then no one would be needy.
If there were no needy people then charities would have no place in societies.

In the middle ages some Christian groups were strongly in favor of communism. — Athena

Seriously, if you do not want me to die laughing at that please provide some proof.
Actually you are probably just confused by the way the word communism is used in today's context as compared to how the early christians used it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Christian communism was based on the concept of koinonia, which means common or shared life, which was not an economic doctrine but an expression of agape love.[5] It was the voluntary sharing of goods amongst the community.[6] Acts 4:35 records that in the early Christian Church in Jerusalem "[n]o one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but shared everything in common." The pattern helped the early Christians to survive after the siege of Jerusalem and was taken seriously for several centuries.[7] While it later disappeared from church history, it remained within monasticism[8] and was an important supporting factor in the rise of feudalism. This ideal returned in the 19th century with monasticism revival and the rise of religious movements wanting to revive the early Christian egalitarianism. Because they were accused of atheism due its association with Marxism, they preferred communalism to describe their Christian communism.[9]

Perhaps you are a reincarnated anabaptist?

Anabaptism (from Neo-Latin anabaptista,[1] from the Greek ἀναβαπτισμός: ἀνά- 're-' and βαπτισμός 'baptism',[1] German: Täufer, earlier also Wiedertäufer)[a] is a Christian movement which traces its origins to the Radical Reformation in the 16th century. Anabaptists believe that baptism is valid only when candidates freely confess their faith in Christ and request to be baptized. Commonly referred to as believer's baptism, it is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism

In the late 1520s Bernard Rothmann became the leader for religious reform in the city of Münster.....

The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters, including the distribution of wealth. The pamphlets, which were distributed throughout northern Germany, called upon the poor of the region to join the citizens of Münster to share the wealth of the town and benefit spiritually from being the elect of Heaven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Rothmann


From what I have read the attempt to have complete equality became anarchy with people leaving their doors unlocked and people having sex with anyone whenever they pleased. The objection is there isn't even family order and I do not believe the complete lack of social order would be viable. I also do not believe a leader is equal to a follower, a peasant is equal to a scientist. Complete equality is not viable. — Athena

I have absolutely no idea how that has anything to do with the discussion, May you would be kind enough to explain it to me. Did I by mistake mention or insinuate that people were equal in that post.

Perhaps you are not paying attention or have no idea what that even means. I am not even a christian.

Yes, I am trolling, not the people who have no clue about history and anthropology who still feel comfortable to hurl nonsense at other people's cultures. — Lionino

When did this happen and who did it, I must have missed that bit.

I do. Culture isn't a recipe. — Lionino

But recipes are a part of culture. :roll:

So much sophistry. Go say that a Hungarian person, they will laugh at you. I don't even think you believe in what you are saying. "Harry Potter is part of Hungarian culture" is so absurd. — Lionino

But it is for at least these people
https://www.facebook.com/groups/harrypotterhungary/
https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g274887-d19126341-r934699361-The_MAGIC_Budapest-Budapest_Central_Hungary.html
https://grimmauld12.wixsite.com/alohomora/about

Maybe they disagree with your idea of culture as well.

That is wrong. The weather informs you as to what you may do (bring an umbrella), the weather is not part of one's culture (no it is not, drop the sophistry). The meaning of culture is clear, and it may be verified in a dictionary. — Lionino

You screwed up again, A lot of culture is based on things like the weather in the place you live, the terrain you live in, the vegetation in that area. People didn't eat what is not grown in the area they live in long ago, so their recipes are based on what was available. And as I have already pointed out to you recipes are part of culture.

If you don't know that, you don't know the very basics of Greek. Once again: people who have no clue about history and anthropology who still feel comfortable to hurl nonsense at other people's cultures. — Lionino

Once again "When did this happen and who did it, I must have missed that bit".

If I tell you how to handle the letter, you will not use this newfound knowledge to properly deal with the language, you will use it to improve your sophistry. — Lionino

Ahh, so now you are scared of sophistry. :rofl:

That is correct. A degenerate is one who does not live up to certain moral standards in their society. Romans and Greek generally had strong notions of honour, so it is not correct to say that did not care about abiding to their moral standards. A strong notion of honour is not something that I see in many countries that like to claim Rome and Greece — because they clearly don't care about their own moral standards. — Lionino

I think that you misunderstood, what I was trying to say is that they did not have the heads so far up their asses like lots of people today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_art_in_Pompeii_and_Herculaneum

Romans might have been honorable in their today, but the question here is exactly what counted as honorable in their times?

Speaking of historical difamation, the "vomitorium". Ah, so wonderful, when people fabricated this fantasy that Romans had the custom of eating, then puking again to be able to eat more in feasts. This confusion stems from a kind of historical narcisism, where we take the word "vomitorium", which is indeed connected with "vomit", and transpose modern meanings to it. It turns out, the "vomitorium" that Roman writers spoke of had nothing to do with eating, it was just a kind of hallway in theaters: — Lionino

Seriously, did people actually believe that myth? Just goes to show how far spread ignorance is.

This is 100% word salad, I think you are the one who is trolling here. Refer to the dictionary for the meaning of 'culture'. — Lionino

Take your own advice.

Greece was an inextricable part of Latin/Roman culture, from its inception to the fall of the West, yet Latins saying "Aristotle and Zeus and Perikles are my culture" would be awfully weird, Augustine, Jupiter, and Scipio are their culture instead. — Lionino

What is your point?
Beer drinking is a major part of European culture, but originated in Mesopotamia about 3500 - 3100 BCE.
Just because something came from another place does not mean it cannot be part of ones culture.

Don't mind us my people we just wrote the Bible. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, slay him. :rofl:

The article I linked previously already says that many experts think the story was taken from Abrahamics. If experts think so, it can't be "very doubtful", in fact it is very likely given the great coincidences. Furthermore, even if you are right about Efe, your argument doesn't prove your case: — Lionino

Maybe it is not convenient to believe that an ancient group of pagans actually had something worth while before the "civilized" people arrived, That sounds familiar, Indians, Africans, American Indians, Aboriginals were all just savages remember that had little to offer the "civilized" people.

This statement really doesn't go along with your claim that they have unmixed DNA (most likely not true)... Besides, where did you get this information that they had contact with Egyptians? — Lionino

I know several Asians, Africans and even Americans, but we have not mixed our DNA. Maybe the little guys and gals thought the Egyptians were too ugly.

But here is a study for you to browse at your leisure and a quote from it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4163

Here we present a high-resolution study of the genomic diversity of and relationships between both Western and Eastern RHG and neighbouring AGR populations, with the aim of dissecting the intensity and tempo of the admixture processes and demographic events that have characterized the past history of these human groups. We find that extensive admixture between the RHG and AGR groups has occurred only recently, within the past ~1,000 years, indicating that the early expansions of Bantu-speaking people did not trigger immediate, extensive genetic exchange between two communities. Furthermore, our results support the hypothesis that the ancestors of these two populations already differed in their demographic success before the emergence of a farming-based lifestyle in Central Africa.

Are you suggestion that Egyptians knew the Hebrew myths because they contacted pygmies? :rofl: — Lionino

Are you suggesting the Pygmies knew about the Genesis story because of the christians arriving in their lands a thousand years after the birth of christ?

5 thousand years ago is modern times? I think you should give it a rest. — Lionino

Let me highlight what you said so that we do not get confused.

Moreover, most Pygmies now speak — Lionino

Let us speak of these things. Or let us speak instead of the proof (proof, not scant and conditional and specific evidence) that Greeks and Romans were generally sexual degenerates. I don't see proof of that anywhere. Even then, anyone who makes such a claim is making the historical confusion of generalising a period of over 1000 years to appease their personal bias and politics. — Lionino

I think that the problem here is that in modern times, under the christian umbrella, people tend to see so many parts of sexuality as degenerate. The ancient civilizations had a much broader, more relaxed view on such things as shown in much of the writing and art of those times. There are plenty of what would now be called deviations spoken of and show in their art.
Does that mean maybe that for them it was not deviant behavior?

I don't see how that is relevant, as the time frame is intermediary between the two events of interest. — Lionino

Well then I think you missed the point, try again.

Long before we started making anthropological investigations of those people. Thus, the results of those investigations may have been caused by contact with outsiders. Not to speak of the Arab slave trade in Africa: — Lionino

So the Pygmies reinvented there whole oral history from thousands of years ago just because they heard something knew, very doubtful.

And they had contact with the Egyptians long before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_(Greek_mythology)

One story in Ovid describes the origin of the age-old battle, speaking of a Pygmy Queen named Gerana who offended the goddess Hera with her boasts of superior beauty, and was transformed into a crane.

In art the scene was popular with little Pygmies armed with spears and slings, riding on the backs of goats, battling the flying cranes. The 2nd-century BC tomb near Panticapaeum, Crimea "shows the battle of human pygmies with a flock of herons". — Wiki

So if the Pygmies had contact with the Egyptians way back in

Again the question, "When did the Genesis version of creation get written down?"

Could it be that the story was already know in Egypt even before someone wrote it down?

I doubt it.

Moreover, most Pygmies now speak Niger-Kordofanian (e.g., Bantu) or Nilo-Saharan languages, possibly acquired from neighboring farmers, especially since the expansion of Bantu-speaking agriculturalists beginning ∼5 kya (Blench 2006).

And ideas get spread by ways other than demic diffusion. An unmixed DNA doesn't say much about one's culture. — Lionino

Oh dear, so now we are discussing modern times, I am getting confused by your time jumping. Please keep the topic to the time period under discussion to keep it relevant.

I agree. We as a species spend much more on weapons than we do on charities. — Truth Seeker

If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed.