Jump on it. Start the thread and pm me. The religious debate is not just are the Hebrew, Jewish, Christian, Islam stories the only true story, and it is not if their God is the only true God, but the worthiness of all human beings who contributed to life on earth for millions of years. Is there a jealous, revengeful, punishing and fearsome God judging all these people and deciding who of them get to enter the good afterlife or who do not, and does he give this power to humans and the right to kill those who are different from them in the name of God! What makes a human worthy?

Or as Thomas Paine asked, in a universe that may be full of planets with life like ours, did Jesus have to play the same drama of enduring torture and sacrificing his life on each of these planets? If this is the way God works, it would have to be the same everywhere, right?

did Jesus have to play the same drama of enduring torture and sacrificing his life on each of these planets? If this is the way God works, it would have to be the same everywhere, right? — Athena

No. After Eden God said, "No more of that free will shit for sentient beings; from here on out, it's strict divine determinism all the way." And so it was. On each new planet the two sentient beings, XX and XY, always did what they were told, never disobeyed, so Jesus and his Blessed ever-virgin mother were able to devote their eternal attention to taking care of the perpetually wayward, devious, deviant, and deplorable basket of free willed homo sapiens, who, despite it all, still amused God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost more than the radiant, obedient children elsewhere in the universe. The Blessed Virgin Mary was not amused. She often said to the Triumvirate, "These sons of bitches are not getting punished nearly as much as they deserve." For which comments God smirked, Jesus signed, and the Holy Ghost turned bright red with wrath.

I wish you would say more. I think privacy is very important. Do you disagree with that? I think feeling safe is important. Do you disagree with that? I think our relationships are much better when we share social agreements and feel like we can trust each other. Do you disagree with that? What would follow is discretion is important. Discretion, good manners, and respect. Not shoving a difference in someone's face is being respectful and that is conducive to feeling safe and having good relationships. Now who the other person is, doesn't matter because we show all people the same courtesy and respect. It doesn't matter who they are, because it is our behavior that matters. Doesn't that solve a lot of social problems?

Whoo, wait a minute am I wrong or was that a little misogynistic? What was ever said about Mother Mary for you to say she is concerned about punishing us and would call us sons of bitches? That kind of misogyny is a bit unnerving to me. Are you a safe person for me to interact with or should I expect to be the target of anger? Or perhaps I am misinterpreting you after a marriage with a man who had a controlling and castrating mother?

:lol: I think most of us spend our lives trying to recuperate from our unpleasant pasts. I think that is where we can find most of our problems, and we keep projecting them into the present. Philosophically speaking, this problem is reduced when we follow rules of good manners and attempt to respect everyone. By doing our best we create the possibility of having good outcomes, instead of ruining the moment with past traumas.

Not ruining the moment with past trauma means being ready and willing to be traumatized again in every moment. Being hurt once, and then working to make sure hurt like that never happens again is the opposite of that...

I think I disagree with you? I have not been as successful in life as I think I would like to be because I was way too defensive and pushed people away. In my old age, I seem to notice those of us who are always on the defense are not likable people, nor are we good parents, and we lack the skills necessary for getting our way. This is a serious political problem because we can not make the world a better place when we lack the skills to get what we want. It is a pretty serious deficiency.

When we were children we were pretty powerless. That is not a good way to spend the rest of our lives. Today we have much more information about social skills than we had the past and a much better understanding of developing support systems. We need to take advantage of this information. We need to open the windows and doors for the good to come into our lives and back out into the world.

We need this forum to share with each other and stimulate the good. :flower:

I certainly agree that everyone is far too much on the defensive, making any amount of offense seem like the worst thing ever. Yeah, people want to be around you, but they're guarded, they lie, they tell you what you want to hear. Being on the offensive is expressive, it is deeply revealing of the core values of a person. If we all hide from the world, we all go unseen, remain alone forever, and fear distrust, and are just ignorant of one and other.

So yes, far far too much defense, not nearly enough offense. There are of course conventional routes to offense, but they're just ideological, and likewise mask the real self by supplanting the true motivations, and needs that the person has.

nvm...

Where did you get that picture? It looks like it is a small piece of a larger picture.

While the hair is important, the mustache is most often associated with the barbarian aesthetic. While the civilized Romans were clean-shaven or only had hair on their upper lip when it was part of a full beard, the Germanic men set themselves apart by only wearing a mustache – a bit different than the mustachioed, limp-wristed hipsters we see today. For many Romanized Germans, Gauls, and others, the mustache was a way to show off ethnic heritage. These men would wear the traditional styles of the Empire and speak perfect Latin, but still make a nod to their bloodlines by shaving everything but their mustaches.

450px-PazyrikHorseman

Their clothing is also an obvious contrast. Rather than the flowing robes that are impractical for fighting, rough terrain, and the manly art of conquering ones enemies, the Visigoths are seen in leg wraps – believed to have been originally developed to help protect the men’s legs from both the moisture and dense brush common in the parts of Europe from which these tribes originate.

The shorter length of the tunics and the cut-off sleeves allowed for maximum mobility – making them ideal garments for the quick movements required in battle.

Both men and women would dye their tunics, braid their hair, bathe regularly, and many digs have found that most carried a comb with them at all times.

That came from this link http://masculine-style.com/historic-style-barbarian-clothing/

It is interesting the author speaks of the manly art of war. I am sure not all cultures were based on the art of war, and some cultures were a mix of the domestic arts and the art of war. This could make for an interesting discussion of the woman's place in these different cultures.

Wow that is a curious statement. To whom are you speaking?

People I admire are not offensive but yet they are bold when asking for what they want. I especially remember a man who was a major in a small town, and he was always cool and in control but not controlling. He listened to others very well and brought out the best in them and bought opposing points of view together. He was awesome!

Some people dominate with charisma. I think this was the Athenian goal of arte.

The Athenian sophist used rhetoric to persuade people and could be both admired and hated. Socrates was surely greatly admired and hated. Cicero was one of the most influential men in history because of his writing and oratory skills and yet he was killed, as was Socrates killed. What do we have to learn from this history?

What do we have to learn from this history? — Athena

That attaining fame, and attaining immortality looks quite different.

For sure those who have fame today are unlikely to go down in history like Socrates, Pericles, Cicero, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Hamilton. It is our works that give us immortality. That is quite a different understanding from Martin Luther and Protestantism that is not by works that we gain immortality, and paradoxically Protestantism is known for its work ethic. What to explain that one?

I already did it. The world is watching.

You already did what? The world is watching what?

I am not good at interpreting poetry. I need better explanations than you are given.

what is nvm?

You are killing me with curiosity.

Whoo, wait a minute am I wrong or was that a little misogynistic? What was ever said about Mother Mary for you to say she is concerned about punishing us and would call us sons of bitches? That kind of misogyny is a bit unnerving to me. Are you a safe person for me to interact with or should I expect to be the target of anger? Or perhaps I am misinterpreting you after a marriage with a man who had a controlling and castrating mother? — Athena

That was a joke, inverting the natures of the Trinity and the BVM. Joke? Sure, in many religious cultures (Russian, Irish, Serb, etc.) there is a strain of curses and jokes that do this. Not to be taken figuratively or literally, any more than saying "Rats!" when one drops one's keys in the mud.

Am I "safe", are you "safe", is anyone "safe"? We are all a bit dangerous, aren't we?

Carry on.

Where did you get that picture? It looks like it is a small piece of a larger picture. — Athena

It was from a Tumblr blog devoted to history--I didn't save the link, just the picture. I noticed the trousers on the figures because I had just been reading about what the Germans brought to the Empire's culture, one of which trousers.

I follow about 150 art, photography, and history blogs, so it's a bit hard to retrace my steps a week later. I love finding gems, like this one below. the composition and subject of the photo is perfect.



The picture is from https://undr.tumblr.com a blog of "black and white // vintage // street // photography".

I will search a bit and see if I can find the source.

Where did you get that picture? It looks like it is a small piece of a larger picture. — Athena

Thanks to Google Image Search, we know the picture is the Ludovisi Battle sarcophagus,

The Ludovisi Battle sarcophagus or "Great" Ludovisi sarcophagus is an ancient Roman sarcophagus dating to around AD 250–260 from a tomb near the Porta Tiburtina. It is also known as the Via Tiburtina Sarcophagus, though other sarcophagi have been found there. It is known for its densely populated, anti-classical composition of "writhing and highly emotive"[1] Romans and Goths, and is an example of the battle scenes favored in Roman art during the Crisis of the Third Century.[1] Discovered in 1621 and named for its first modern owner, Ludovico Ludovisi, the sarcophagus is now displayed at the Palazzo Altemps in Rome, part of the National Museum of Rome.[2] [Wikipedia]

:lol: funny boy. I never heard of that humor before. Isn't the internet wonderful? It makes our world bigger and expands our understanding of others.

I'm rather surprised at some of the responses here. Related to this issue is the coordinated deplatforming and defunding of people like Alex Jones and even non-lunatic websites (like the World Socialists site). Saying that these actions aren't a threat to democracy is a joke considering these entities are or are approaching a monopoly status, are coordinating together in these efforts and are working with government bodies in the U.S. and Israel (among others) to determine whose content and existence on these platforms is "divisve and disruptive".

There's a really weird presumption I'm seeing where people hang their hat on whether or not it's a private entity that's controlling the thing without considering the role such large things occupy. Say someone has a controversial view. Maybe it's false, contentious or even true but disliked by those in the mainstream. If the major avenues of these people putting their views out there are constrained by these platforms, that's stifling speech. It's even worse when the government is, as in this case, working to determine what speech is acceptable or not...

Wow is that one nostalgic for me!

Reminds me of when I was a child in Hollywood, California and my mother would take my sister and me to the Woolworth store for shopping and lunch, the lunch counter looked about the picture. Growing up I switched from Coca-Cola to coffee and a cigarette. That is just the way life was. And we were pretty girls not bothered with a need to be smart and have careers. We got married and stayed home to care for our families. Then we sat around the kitchen table with our coffee and cigarettes and chatted until the kids got fussy and it was time to take them home for a nap.

Someone has created a place for people with Alzheimer's to reminisce. It is kind of like a small town in a huge building. Many find comfort in the past and a strengthening of a sense of identity.

You might like the book "SUICIDE OF THE WEST" how the rebirth of tribalism, populism, nationalism, and identity politics is destroying American democracy - by Jonah Goldberg. I found it at the library yesterday and I am skimming through it. In the US public education was about having a strong and united democracy until 1958. While a lot is being said about the disintegration of the US none of the authors are addressing the change in education and Military Industrial Complex as part of the problem.

I've read a number of articles about how identity politics have not been all that helpful. That hits close to home, since I was an active participant in the identity politics of gay liberation in the 1970s and 1980s. The problem wasn't in establishing gay pride for gay people, or obtaining some fairly minimal civil protections, such as the right to rent an apartment. Many people never accepted the idea that being gay was a good thing. Tolerable, maybe, but nothing to build monuments about.

The problem came in the a couple decades later when younger activists decided that marriage wasn't a heterosexual institutions, and that marriage should be available to same sex couples.

I have never had a desire to marry my partner. If love and loyalty didn't hold the relationship together, nothing else would. Well, water under the bridge: same-sex marriage meaning marriage in full is now the law of the land. BUT, big but, a very large portion of the population do not accept the idea that marriage includes same sex couples.

So, I am aware that in pursuing the identity politics I liked, I probably added to cultural divisions that are not helpful. Then there is tribalism, populism, and all that -- which activists in those fields are quite certain are good things to work for.

It's a puzzlement.

There's a really weird presumption I'm seeing where people hang their hat on whether or not it's a private entity that's controlling the thing without considering the role such large things occupy — MindForged

There's nothing weird about it. Private entities may certainly act to restrict speech. You may too. If you do, though, you do nothing illegal here in God's favorite country. The legal right to freedom of speech can only be infringed by the government or its agents. So it may not be good when private persons or entities restrict speech, but it isn't necessarily illegal. That's all being said by reference to private actors, as far as I know. There's the law and not the law.

You refer to governments doing so in some fashion you leave undefined (the reference to Israel being involved is somewhat ominous). If the federal, state or local governments of the U.S. are involved, then the right to free speech is being restricted.

You have to read SUICIDE OF THE WEST by Goldberg. It speaks of tribalism, populism and all that.

When it comes to gay pride and all the other prejudices, I cling to my grandmother's three rules.

1. We respect everyone. It doesn't matter at all who the other person is because this about who we are. Either we are civil and respectful people or we are not and other people's private choices are none of our business! Public choices we share. Private ones are private.

2. We protect the dignity of others. OMG that rule can prevent so many social problems.

3. We do everything with integrity and this goes with being honorable and being honorable goes with having a sense of purpose in life and believing in human dignity, liberty, and democracy.

I was attempting to write a book like SUICIDE IN THE WEST, but more focused on education and the Military Industrial Complex. That is not as fun to think about as the book Goldberg wrote is entertaining and informative. However, I could perhaps write a complimentary book using my knowledge of education and what liberal education had to do with protecting the democracy we had.

You might appreciate all this about liberty and democracy. Gay rights are human rights. And if you want to blame someone for the destruction of marriages and family order, then blame the Military Industrial Complex. Through industry and education, we have destroyed the family order that used to order the whole United States. Since Athens, democracy is family order, and Sparta was military order, but we have replaced our family order that with Prussian military order applied to citizens. This is destroying our liberty and democracy. But OMG is this paradoxical! Family order goes with tribalism so how is destroying family order contributing to tribalism? :grimace: I think I will go blow my brains out. This realization of yet another paradox is another stumbling block in explaining reality. But men's loyalties tend not to be with women and children. They compare their worth by the size of their cocks, and ability to compete against each other, not with how well they match up with women and father their children. Men's loyalties tend to be with men, industrial and military order. :groan: I think I have a headache.

Only when our democracy is protected by the citizens is it protected and only when education prepares them to do this, do the citizens have the mentality to protect our liberties. We stopped that education in 1958.

Our freedom of speech is about spirit not law and because we are not understanding of this we are destroying it. Our spirit has turned very ugly and destructive. Citizens, through laws protecting private property, are destroying our liberties and freedom of speech.

I have a problem with Christianity because of what it has done to our understanding of spirit and morals since we replaced liberal education with education for technology and left moral training to the church. :groan:

We need to understand we protect our liberty by following the social rules, so a mod doesn't have to step in and ban us. Or if we were a cooperation, management doesn't give us a pink slip. Private property rights trump our protected right to freedom of speech, so we have as much freedom of speech as the owners wish to give us. It is their spirit that matters, not exactly laws. The way they interpret the law and how they should use it, depends on their spirit. The spirit of America is dying and the spirit of tyranny is rising. When the bottom line is the dollar, reality gets ugly.

There's nothing weird about it. Private entities may certainly act to restrict speech. You may too. If you do, though, you do nothing illegal here in God's favorite country. The legal right to freedom of speech can only be infringed by the government or its agents. So it may not be good when private persons or entities restrict speech, but it isn't necessarily illegal. That's all being said by reference to private actors, as far as I know. There's the law and not the law. — Ciceronianus the White

I mentioned nothing about legality at all, so this is nearly all irrelevant. I said people here, and evidently you, place greater emphasis on whether or not the the place people are being removed from are privately owned and ignoring the rather obvious fact that these have near monopoly status in their industry. Being banned from them because the decision was made that they don't like these people sets a terrible precedent. Oh, some unthinking folk were ok when it was just a lunatic like Alex Jones, but then they came for people on the other side of the spectrum. The World Socialists Website, irrespective of your own political leanings, is as professional as one could want. And yet Google didn't see it and the type of content (namely, anti-war content) that way, and so changes to the search algorithm last year resulted in traffic to such sites falling by 2/3rds. Or deleting TeleSur's page for a myraid of nonsensical and conflicting reasons (their press releases kept changing).

Google, Facebook and others often times coordinate with each other to remove or demote those they don't like, and worse will work with governments (including the U.S.) and overtly political groups to decide what content has run afoul. For example, Facebook met with Israeli government officials to determine what pages counted as encitement and thus should, in the estimation of the government of Israel, be removed. Quoting TeleSur:

Due to this, far-right Israeli justice minister Ayelet Shaked reportedly boasted: "A year ago, Facebook removed 50 percent of content that we requested. Today, Facebook is removing 95 percent of the content we ask them to." Facebook becoming a willing accomplice for governments seemed to coincide after two events: Russiagate and after Facebook announced in May that they would be partnering with the pro-Nato, far-right neoliberal Washington DC-based think tank the Atlantic Council.

Or if you don't see the problem doing such at the behest a repressive foreign government,how about doing it at the behest of the U.S. government? (from previous link)

But none of that dilutes how disturbing and dangerous Facebook’s rationale for its deletion of his accounts is. A Facebook spokesperson told the New York Times that the company deleted these accounts not because Kadyrov is a mass murderer and tyrant, but that “Mr. Kadyrov’s accounts were deactivated because he had just been added to a United States sanctions list and that the company was legally obligated to act.”

So yes, this goes well beyond whether or not it is directly legal or not. Anyone hanging their hat on that has lost the plot entirely. These entities coordinate with themselves and major governments in the U.S., China, Israel and more as they act to suppress speech they don't like. They have near monopoloy status and given about 66% of people get their news from these sites it represents a danger to democracy as well because people are only exposed to A) What they've been allowed to see (algorithm demotion, page removal etc.) and their own bubble that they naturally create.

You refer to governments doing so in some fashion you leave undefined (the reference to Israel being involved is somewhat ominous). If the federal, state or local governments of the U.S. are involved, then the right to free speech is being restricted.

Well I think I've given a decent amount of evidence for that. Whether or not it's actually illegal isn't clear because the government isn't directly coming down on these individuals. They're "urging" private corporations to do so, and if that Israeli justice Minister is correct it's borderline a rubber stamping process.

I'm afraid I have no knowledge of the law of Israel, or for that matter that of Venezuela, which apparently is the primary source of funds for TeleSur, speaking of government involvement in sources of information and communication.

There's a tendency to refer to freedom of speech or the right to it as if there is such a right, apart from the law. There isn't; not an enforceable right, in any case. The distinction between a legal right and a non-legal "right" is significant. One shouldn't be treated as the equivalent of the other. When they are, things get confusing.

Should Facebook, Google etc. restrict access to information? I would say no. What is the remedy if they do? Is there an enforceable right to information? Nope. Should there be? That would require a law. That would require a government. Should government be in control of the availability of information? Will that ensure that democracy (which doesn't exist, really) will obtain? That depends on the government, the nature and extent of the control, and its purpose.

In the end, all comes down to law, and what we want to do with it.

Only when our democracy is protected by the citizens is it protected and only when education prepares them to do this, do the citizens have the mentality to protect our liberties. We stopped that education in 1958. — Athena

You'll have to remind of what happened in 1958. I was in Catholic schools until my junior year in high school, alas.

Money is the spirit of America,, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid I have no knowledge of the law of Israel, or for that matter that of Venezuela, which apparently is the primary source of funds for TeleSur, speaking of government involvement in sources of information and communication — Ciceronianus the White

Who Telesur is funded by is irrelevant to what I was saying.
The issue I raised wasn't "government involvement in sources of information and communication", but rather governments pressuring private entities into censoring or hiding the views of people they don't like.
And finally I suppose we'll just be ignoring the example I gave of the U.S. government being involved in exactly these same things?

There's a tendency to refer to freedom of speech or the right to it as iqere is such a right, apart from the law. There isn't; not an enforceable right, in any case. The distinction between a legal right and a non-legal "right" is significant. One shouldn't be treated as the equivalent of the other. When they are, things get confusing — Ciceronianus the White

Again, didn't I already say I find focus on legality to be besides the point?

Should Facebook, Google etc. restrict access to information? I would say no. What is the remedy if they do? Is there an enforceable right to information? Nope. Should there be? That would require a law. That would require a government. Should government be in control of the availability of information? Will that ensure that democracy (which doesn't exist, really) will obtain? That depends on the government, the nature and extent of the control, and its purpose. — Ciceronianus the White

There may be legal avenues that remedy this, such as classifying them as utilities given their near monopoly status, but you are very blaise where a serious issue involves government attempts (successful ones, given the examples I gave prior) to quash speech and views they don't like by coming down on the premiere private entities on which people get their information. This reeks of the

I mean imagine the post office stops reliably delivering mail from homes who have occupants registered to some political party. Is your response really going to be "Ah well is it against the law for them to be a little unreliable? You don't have a right to flawless mail delivery."

Governments which pay the bills of news sources may have a degree of influence over them, you see. Just as governments may have a degree of influence over Facebook or Google for other reasons. I tend to be suspicious of any government influence.

Regulation similar to the regulation of utilities would be an option, I would think.

I understand you don't want to focus on legality. For my part, I don't see the point of merely expressing outrage. Addressing legal remedies and advocating them may be useful, though less satisfying.