|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 44 OF 49 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-24-21
 | | keypusher: <YBr> <gezafan> <diceman> Hi. Sorry, I'm not a very reliable reader of my own forum. <gezafan> <YBr> To a first approximation, there is no hate crime in the U.S. There's just crime. |
|
| Mar-24-21 | | Ybr: keypusher: <I think <keypusher> has made it clear that he is against curbing speech of any sort. >
That is not true. Repeating myself yet again, the First Amendment does not protect me if I tell you to drink strychnine to cure your constipation, or if I urge you to buy my beachfront property that is really swampland, or if I try to persuade you to buy shares in my worthless corporation. Moving closer to what you have in mind (and repeating myself again), the Supreme Court in NY Times v. Sullivan and Brandenburg v. Ohio limited the scope of the legal prohibitions against libel and incitement. But it did not eliminate them. And I'm fine with that. There's a lot more to say about all these topics, but I don't have the time or inclination to dive in right now. But for now, BobDole says: <Stop lying about my record!>. |
|
| Mar-24-21 | | Ybr: <keypusher: <YBr> <gezafan> <diceman>
Hi. Sorry, I'm not a very reliable reader of my own forum. <gezafan> <YBr> To a first approximation, there is no hate crime in the U.S. There's just crime.> Thank you for this post , <keypusher>. I always thought so - that hate crime in america is almost non existent. Regards |
|
| Mar-24-21 | | Ybr: keypusher: The number of hate crimes in the United States is, to a first approximation, zero. Seems like a good time to point that out.
The latest proof of this is a <FACT SHEET> re <Anti-Asian Hate Crime Reported to Police in America's Largest Cities: 2020> courtesy of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism (CSUSB). https://www.csusb.edu/sites/default...
This document is the source of the heavily-reported stat that hate crimes against Asians in 15 major cities* in the U.S. increased by 150% in 2020 compared to 2019. And yes, that is literally true. The number of anti-Asian hate crimes reported to police in those 15 cities increased from 49 (forty-nine) in 2019 to 122 (one hundred and twenty-two) in 2020. See page one of the link. In other words, a rounding error increased to a rounding error. I said earlier that white people would die of old age while waiting to be genocided. Well, Asians will endure the heat death of the universe while waiting to be hate-crimed. I'm going to repeat some numbers from 2018 I've posted before ( Kenneth Rogoff (kibitz #424663)) to reinforce the insignificance-verging-on-nonexistence of hate crime. <According to the FBI, there were 4,748 hate crimes committed against persons in 2018. 78% consisted of simple assault or intimidation, which means that around 1,042 were more serious offenses (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault).That same year, the total number of reported murders, robberies, rapes, and aggravated assaults in the United States was about 1.2 million. Hate crimes were 0.087% of that figure.> Consistent with those numbers, in the 15 large cities discussed in the CSUSB report, <all> reported hate crimes in 2020 amounted to 1,717, incidentally a 7% decrease from 2019. But just because Asians have nothing to worry about from hate crime does not mean they have nothing to worry about from crime. Asians are the great exception to the general rule in the United States that most crime is intra-racial. Percent of violent incidents against a race/ethnicity committed by offenders of same race/ethnicity, U.S., 2018: White: 62.1%
Black: 70.3%
Hispanic: 45.4%
Asian: 24.1%
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf... (see p. 14) Of all offenses against Asians, 24.1% are committed by whites, 27.5% by blacks, 7% Hispanic, and 14.4% by "other", a figure the report wisely advises be treated with caution. Asians are not, however, particularly likely to be victims of crime -- rather the reverse. But they are even less likely to be perpetrators than to be victims. Comprising 6.3% of the overall American population, they are only 2.5% of the offenders and 4.2% of the victims in violent incidents. (see p. 12). Notably, although blacks account for 27.5% of violent crimes against Asians, Asian violent crime against blacks is for all practical purposes non-existent. Even more non-existent than hate crimes. For you, geza: <As it does every year, black-on-white violent crime dwarfed white-on-black violent crime in 2018.> <[T]he Bureau of Justice Statistics released its 2018 survey of criminal victimization. According to the study, there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites last year, including white-on-black and black-on-white attacks. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent. > I expect the ratio will be more extreme in 2020. I might write something about various aspects of the current racial hysteria, but it's all boring. * San Diego, Cincinnati, Chicago, Phoenix, Denver, Houston, Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Dallas, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, Boston, Los Angeles, New York City. Combined population about 30 million. Number of Asians probably about 3-4 million. |
|
| Mar-25-21 | | Ybr: <Colonel Mortimer: <keypusher: The number of hate crimes in the United States is, to a first approximation, zero. Seems like a good time to point that out.>
Way to go, you're in the liberal dog box now. Facts don't trump liberal narratives.> <George Wallace: <Colonel Mortimer: <keypusher: The number of hate crimes in the United States is, to a first approximation, zero. Seems like a good time to point that out.>
Way to go, you're in the liberal dog box now. Facts don't trump liberal narratives.>Nah, all the libs know he's a lib too, so if he says something inconsistent, it pretty much gets swept under the rug. <Keypusher> is a lib. He's 100% Orange Man Bad too. Look at how the libs reacted to <al wazir> advocating strongly and stubbornly for pedophila. They let it go without an ounce of outrage. And regarding hate crime, let us remember that America is so racist that Jussie Smollett had to hire to <black dudes> to commit a hate crime against him.> Ok, i am for all practical purposes still on break from rogoff , however , i must point out that 1) the logical fallacy that <george wallace> and <mort> committed in this instance is called <genetic fallacy> 2) and as i repeatedly mentioned - <george wallace> and <big pawn> are very quick and sharp in pointing out <genetic fallacy> in the posts of others , however, they commit this very logical fallacy whenever they don't have reply to anything that they don't like, that contradicts their narrative. 3) so , in this case , they don't have any reopy to the post of <keypusher> 4) i wish <george wallace> , <big pawn> , <mort> stop dragging down the quality of forum and stop being sore losers. I wish they learn from elite posters and raise their level and stop being bottom feeders. Regards. |
|
| May-01-21 | | rbd: <keypusher: <diademas> <nok>
I said it wasn’t possible to know what Jesus was really like, and I need to stick to that. But I re-read Mark’s Gospel (it’s pretty short) paying attention to the preaching, and stopping when I got to Holy Week. It's of a piece, it's coherent, it's not particularly political. Taking it on its own terms, you can see why its principal figure makes such an extraordinary impression on people. He seems very real. He’s of humble background (Mark 6:3, when he goes back to Galilee and preaches in the synagogue, and the locals say [all quotes from the KJV] “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”) He preaches to humble people, publicans and sinners (Mark 2:15-17) in plain language. Two themes predominate: he is against religious formalism (2:23-28, 3:1-16, 7:1-16 etc.) and he has an extremely demanding moral code (10:12 “Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her”). Sometimes the two themes come together, in very earthy language (7:18-23 “Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into a man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”) It’s also in Mark that he says that if your hand, foot, or eye offend you, cut it off or pluck it out, as applicable, because it’s better to be maimed and enter the kingdom of God than to be cast whole into hell fire “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (9:43-50). He definitely preaches to the poor, and is no admirer of the rich. It’s in Mark that he says it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. But note the context. A rich young man comes and asks what he must do. Jesus says he must keep the Commandments. The man says, I do that, what else? (10:21-23 “Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor [note that he DOESN’T say “give to me”], and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved; for he had great possessions. And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!”). Riches are bad because they separate you from God, but disdain of riches doesn’t seem to be tied to any political program. Which makes sense, because Jesus also thinks the end is at hand (9:1, “Verily I say unto you, That there shall be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”) People who think the world is about to end rarely specialize in political agitation. Now he very much preaches to the Jews. (A “Syrophenician” woman asked him to help with her possessed daughter, and he said bluntly (7:26-28) “Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and feed it unto the dogs. And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.” And for her humility and quick wit her daughter is cured.) But within a couple of generations universal salvation was being preached in his name around the Mediterranean. And you can see that what we have in Mark would appeal to ordinary people, Jew or non-Jew. Survivorship bias is real, texts and messages change. But it’s easier for me to believe that people who proselytized in his name took elements from his preaching that were actually there. Rather than that they took a first-century version of a Weather Underground leader and, more or less instantly, turned his message on its head.> |
|
| May-01-21 | | rbd: Part 2
Aren't you missing something, <keypusher> ? 2) you say like <jesus was very influential , his influence spread very quickly like a wild fire and very widely> So , why was he influential ? Did you ask yourself that or you completely missed the only point that matters about jesus? Do you think that jesus was influential because of the things you posted in this post of yours ? All that you posted here , which you call his teachings , can that nonsense which you label as teachings really influence anyone ? This is the question that you need to ask otherwise you missing the point completely. And that is why i like to stay away from this site , generally - such superficial conversations and despite that people like <diademas> and <moronovich> have such high opinion of themselves ..... |
|
| May-01-21 | | rbd: Part 3
If you want to know what jesus was like , then you need to look for the answer to the question "why was jesus so influential ?" Of course you and i both know that all those stories about resurrection , walking on water and other miracles are laughable children's stories . So if we discount those stupid stories , was jesus influential because some idiots believed stupid stories (and still do) or there was something else which was cause of his influence - that is where you guys need to focus. 2) and focus of <nok> on his political thoughts/actions is completely ridoculous. There is no reason to believe that jesus ever expressed any political thoughts publicly. Take the example of raman mahrishi - he spent all years of his long life in colonial india under imperial british rule (except last 3 years of his life) , however , he never talked about anything political , never got involved in politics - he was one of the greatest spiritual sages of modern india and there are many , many such examples. 3) jesus was killed because of his spiritual views , not because of his political view/actions - a simple google search would reveal that. . |
|
| May-01-21 | | rbd: Pary 4
<Keypusher> and <diademas> are like : 1) anything that is written in bible has little historical significance. So from that perspective , there is no reason to believe that jesus existed. 2) so , let us discount bible
3) however , it is highly probable that jesus existed because reverence for him spread very fast like fire and spread very widely. Me : ok. Fair enough. I am listening. Go on pleass. <Keypusher> and <didaemas> are like : 4) well, now let us try to figure out what jesus was like. 5) and for that , let us go through bible
Me : 1)gentleman , isn't your point (5) contradicting your point (2)? It is.
2) earlier , you guys said like <only way to know what jesus was like is divine intervention> Well, divine intervention is sufficient but not necessary - high level of maturity and clarity/depth of understanding would also do. I know someone who has that kind of maturity and he is not at all spiritual . He got that level of maturity by observing life/world and his own mind independently without ever formally studying psychology/spirituality/philosophy etc. And he understands that part of bible when told to him which requires that kind of maturity to understand that part of bible. So , from historical perspective , bible is worthless . However , from the perspective of 'philosophy'/spirituality , some part of bible is very mature. You guys are focusing on that part of bible which is not only worthless from the perspective of 'philosophy'/spirituality but worthless from the perspective of history as well . In short , you are trying to infer value from that part of bible which does not have any value and while you are at it you are wearing your fancy hats of world's best detective/investigative journalist/lawyer etc. |
|
May-09-21
| | keypusher: <rbd> I would leave <diademas>, I don't think he tried to determine Jesus's character from the Gospel of Mark. You made a valid point against me, however. I said, more or less: <1) anything that is written in bible has little historical significance.:>
<5) [to learn about Jesus], let us go through bible> As you point out, there is a contradiction between those positions. What happened is, between saying <1> and <5>, I read the Gospel of Mark, paying attention to the preaching. And as I wrote on the Rogoff page, I thought a more or less coherent (not to mention vivid) personality emerged. I could imagine a first-century Jew from Palestine, a poor man from a humble background, saying the things the man in the Gospel said. And I could see that message being spread to non-Jews around the Mediterranean, as it was, not too long after Jesus's death. So, implicitly, I changed my mind. I decided we could, not know exactly, but have what you might call some strong suspicions about what the man described in Mark's gospel was like. And we could have suspicions (not confident knowledge) about what his message was like. <3) jesus was killed because of his spiritual views , not because of his political view/actions - a simple google search would reveal that.> Can you explain? Because I don't see this. In fact, a big problem for me is that I don't understand why Jesus's message (as reported in the gospel I read) would cause the Romans to execute him. The story in the gospels is basically that the high priests of the Temple stir up a mob against him, and Pilate agrees to crucify him to pacify the mob. Is that plausible? I guess. Later, as recounted in the Book of Acts, the silversmiths of Ephesus riot against the Christians, because they don't want to lose their trade in making silver shrines to Diana (see Acts 19:23-41). Something similar may have happened with those who changed money or sold animals for sacrifice in the Temple, whom Jesus attacked. See Mark 11:15-17. |
|
May-09-21
 | | OhioChessFan: <key: Because I don't see this. In fact, a big problem for me is that I don't understand why Jesus's message (as reported in the gospel I read) would cause the Romans to execute him.> Very good. It's worth noting that the execution of Jesus, as prophesied, would be one carried out by Rome. If you didn't know about the cross, and were told a first century Jew upset the Jewish leadership, you'd surely assume he was executed by stoning. <The story in the gospels is basically that the high priests of the Temple stir up a mob against him, and Pilate agrees to crucify him to pacify the mob. Is that plausible? I guess. > The Jewish problem for the Roman leaders was never ending. <Later, as recounted in the Book of Acts, the silversmiths of Ephesus riot against the Christians, because they don't want to lose their trade in making silver shrines to Diana (see Acts 19:23-41). Something similar may have happened with those who changed money or sold animals for sacrifice in the Temple, whom Jesus attacked. See Mark 11:15-17.> I think that was a contributing factor. |
|
May-09-21
 | | Diademas: <keypusher: <rbd> I would leave <diademas>> I'm afraid this will prove to be counterproductive. |
|
May-11-21
| | keypusher: < Diademas: <keypusher: <rbd> I would leave <diademas>>
I'm afraid this will prove to be counterproductive.> Sorry, I meant "I would leave <out> diademas." Surely <rbd> will never leave you. |
|
| May-14-21 | | rbd: <keypusher: < Diademas: <keypusher: <rbd> I would leave <diademas>> I'm afraid this will prove to be counterproductive.>
Sorry, I meant "I would leave <out> diademas." Surely <rbd> will never leave you.> I give opportunities to people to raise their level . If they show that they can not , at least in this life time , then i leave them alone for this life time and wait for next life time. So , in previous life time , i gave up on <diademas> and waited for this life time . Turns out that i am about to give up on <diademas> in this life time too. And for his next birth ? Well , in all the likelihoid , this is my last birth in this f#$ked up planet - i am going to get enlightenedin in this lifetime , it seems . So , perhaps , someone else will have to carry the burden of <diademas> in next birth. |
|
| May-14-21 | | rbd: Part 2
Translation/summary is that i anyway post very little on this web site these days and desire to post on this site is getting diminished everyday , so i don't care much about the characters on this site or what goes on in here , i guess i have outgrown interactions on rogoffland ..... Sometimes , i am like ,<what the hell ...what is this nonsense <george wallace>/<big pawn> talking about *> , however , intensity of that reaction/impulse is so weak/mild that soon i might stop caring altogether it seems *
<big pawn>/<george wallace> : <premise : a very large number of people , 'x' (say) believe that election was stolenConclusion: election was stolen .>
Me : refutation -
Premise - a large number of people , 'x' , believes election was stolen , a large number of people , 'y' , believes election was fair. Both saw the same thing
Conclusion : one of the two groups is stupid
Premise 1 : either group 'a' containing 'x' number of people is stupid or group 'b' containing 'y' number of people is stupid Premise 2 : large number of people (if not all) in group 'a' believe in resurrection of jesus , jesus walking on water , ark of noah and such Conclusion : group 'a' is stupid and therefore election was fair. Please note guys that it is a deductive argument . To refute this , you have to show that at least one of the premises is false. Either do that or accept that election was fair or be considered stupid P.s - why is there a significant decrease in number of cultist fools believing in lie? Because some of the cultist fools have been deprogrammed. |
|
May-15-21
 | | perfidious: < Diademas: <keypusher: <rbd> I would leave <diademas>> I'm afraid this will prove to be counterproductive.> Them's the breaks. (laughs) |
|
| May-15-21 | | rbd: <keypusher><<3) jesus was killed because of his spiritual views , not because of his political view/actions - a simple google search would reveal that.> Can you explain? Because I don't see this. In fact, a big problem for me is that I don't understand why Jesus's message (as reported in the gospel I read) would cause the Romans to execute him> Here is the hypothesis which not everyone would believe 1) jesus existed - the reason to bekieve this is the same that <keypusher> gave : reverence for jesus spread very rapidly and very widely around the time he is supposed to live 2) nothing in bible is of historical significance 3) jesus was executed because of his spiritual views not his political views (a simple google search will reveal that) - no reason to believe he ever expressed political views. 4) lastly - what were his spiritual views and why were they heretic : Part of bible is useful because of spiritual/philosophical importance. That part is believed to be philosophy of Absolute. Ramana mahrishi says : <Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement “I AM THAT I AM” in EXODUS (Chap. 3).> And the process is <be still and know that i am god> Ramana mahrishi <all vedanta is contained in these two biblical statements> These two statements and many other are believed to be about non personal god Absolute. Many people believe that bible is about non personal god Absolute : if we reach high level of purity (by dissolving anger, pride , greed etc) , dispassion/detachment , clarity/depth of thinking/undersranding , we see that we are eternal Absolute , body/consciousness dies not us , there is no god other than us. https://www.google.com/amp/s/selfre... https://ramana-talk-mailer.appspot.... |
|
| May-15-21 | | rbd: Part 2
Q: “Do non-dual Christian leaders such as yourself [illa], Richard Rohr and Cynthia Bourgeault have to worry that your non-dual teachings will be deemed heretical by the Church Illa : The Church cannot condemn non-dual consciousness because non-duality is the heart of the Gospel message. https://christogenesis.org/are-non-... Non dual is non personal god Absolute |
|
| May-15-21 | | rbd: Part 3
Many people believe that it is very very clear that bible is about non dualism, about non personal god Absolute (no confusion whatsoever) - i gave links in support of this assertion in my previous two posts. 2) if so , then it is probable that jesus was killed because religious authorities of his time considered his views heretical And because it is not easy to understand philosophy of Absolute , very soon his teachings were perverted into a religion about personal god and external heaven/hell. |
|
| May-15-21 | | rbd: Btw , i got email from <ybr> - he said that he learned a lot from <johnlspouge> , <keypusher> and others and this phase of his education is complete and it is time for him to move on from this site. . |
|
| May-15-21 | | diceman: <rbd:
Btw , i got email from <ybr>> Heh, heh! |
|
| May-15-21 | | thegoodanarchist: socks keep turning up everywhere!
I think the elves that live in the dryer and steal socks are then bringing them over to this website and placing them in forums. |
|
| May-16-21 | | rbd: Hey <diceman> , <thegoodanarchist> - your help is needed to keep <george wallace>/<big pawn> out of loony bin Check it out
<George Wallace: <Warning>
If you people don’t start treating me a little nicer, I’m going to have to stop posting on this page> Little fella is on the verge of meltdown and openly begging for attention. Ever since <ybr> defeated him in debate on <omv argument> and other subjects , he is feeling very miserable , apparently. <Big pawn>/<george wallace> openly begging for attention and nobody obliging him except me I can not do it alone - you guys have to help him Tell him that you guys also believed in resurrection of jesus , jesus walking on water , ark of noah , personal god , <dem stole election> and other such nonsense , however, you got deprogrammed of your cultist nonsense and there is hope for <big pawn>/<geirge wallace> too |
|
| May-16-21 | | rbd: <diceman> , <thegoodanarchist> - i have also posted in <keypusher> forum refutation to the nonsense you guys keep spouting in your echo chambers viz <dems stole elections> , a few posts above this post. Hope you find it helpful. |
|
May-16-21
| | Diademas: Happy birthday to us!
🇧🇻
https://www.norwegianamerican.com/s... |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 44 OF 49 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
