Santa must be the only one who still hasn't noticed that Putin33 is insane.

*ago

"Santa must be the only one who still hasn't noticed that Putin33 is insane."

Shouldn't that be a virtue, Ubermensch?

I'm sorry, Putin, I don't understand :P

"40 years Santa would be sitting here applauding RFK and his liberal buddies for domestic surveillance of civil rights groups, and probably telling us all how MLK and Malcolm got what they deserved. Meanwhile he and his liberal buddies take credit for all the civil rights and union work that communists risked life and limb to achieve, while redbaiting like the McCarthyite goon that he is."

And 40 years ago Putin would gladly guard a Siberian detention camp if the party asked him to

Siberian detention facilities are so much worse than the Aryan Nation run privatized slave labor facilities your imperialist pals run.

In fact, Stalin was about to introduce the 35-hour workweek in the Gulags before he died.

You know...I think I can safely say it now...

After 400+ posts,
A heated argument over whether Jefferson was a Christian or Deist,
A heated argument over the right to inject religious sayings into a secular government,
A defense of genocide and infanticide that, quite frankly, I thought I'd never hear,
A poor attempt to equivocate a non-religious play with a religious dogma to bite at me,
A Putin/SC back and forth that I suppose was long overdue at 400 posts in,
A slew of name-calling that, quite frankly, makes me wonder just how old all of you are...

Yep.

I regret this post.

I don't know... I kinda liked the Shakespearianity thing.

Yo forgot probably over 40 posts of your mindless drivel and inaccurate historical/religious/cultural statements.

Obi never reads his posts.

... and the shameless attempts to somehow claim they weren't inaccurate

Oh, right, I DID forget something, SC

A trolling old man with nothing better to do than criticize someone who said he made a mistake

"Maybe some of them wouldn't die. Maybe they'd make it to a neighboring tribe and be welcomed in. Might not be especially likely, but why do you get to decide this? And yes, this even applies to God."

I'm not going to get into the main debate here, PE -- for one thing, I've already had a debate with you, and until it's fully judged and posted, I'm not going to get into another one that would require me to refer back to it.

However, I will point out here that you're being inconsistent. On the one hand, you're insisting that we evaluate this in terms of God's power, _and assume that any course of action using that power would be consistent with His nature and plans._ On the other hand, right here (above) you're insisting that we ignore that power, and specifically His omniscience, treating Him like just another person who doesn't know what would happen to the Amalekite children. How can you have it both ways like this?

Santa is famous for his accuracy.

YOU never addressed my main point, SC.

Which was slave holders in America.

NEVER.

YOU just harped on the fact I used "conquered Africa" and exported slaves to the Americas in the 1700s when I should have used a different term than "conquered Africa," FINE, GET THE FUCK OVER IT.

GET A LIFE!

IN FACT...

I refer you to experts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgd5S-X-_dQ

PLEASE! SEEK HELP!

Remember:

The life you get MAY be your own!

"Oh, right, I DID forget something, SC

A trolling old man with nothing better to do than criticize someone who said he made a mistake "

Jesus christ, it continues. Now he admitted that he made a mistake. After probably over 5 posts where he said he didn't

obi, don't regret it. I don't think I've ever seen the forum quite so unified before as in the judgment by everybody that you were full of crap in this discussion.

And unity is always a worthy goal, right?

I didn't realize a pro-genocide circle jerk with theists patting themselves on the back qualified as unity these days. I think people with a conscience stayed away because you people are frightening and don't recognize reason as valid anyway.

But wherever there's injustice, Super-Putin comes to the rescue. Tremble, filth!

"YOU never addressed my main point, SC.

Which was slave holders in America."

_______

"SantaClausowitz Online (336 )
Wed 07 AM
(+1)
"EVEN WITHOUT the Founders, Mujus, the slaveholders and sellers in America were largely Christian..."

Actually, in your world view, a good portion of your Athiest founders were slaveholders. Slaveholding had little to do with religion. You can put our modern day morals on it all you want, but owning a slave was like owning a car back then. In some parts of the country it was ubiquitous if you had the money and the need."

"SantaClausowitz Online (336 )
Wed 07 AM
(+2)
So let me get this straight. Obi started by arguing that the founders, even though they considered themselves Christians, were not christians. Now he's areguing slaveholders, whether or not they considered themselves christians, they are christians.

Just pointing this out. Absolutely fascinating.

And, again, slavery among christians had little to do with religion, it was driven by economics as were the later religious apologetics for it. Abolitionism on the other hand, was spearheaded by pious christians who were horrified by the institution"

"SantaClausowitz Online (336 )
Wed 01 PM
And what CA just said is disingenuous as well. The argument you make is that Slavery improved under christianity with better conditions, a higher view of slaves etc. This is wrong. Perhaps limited to before new world slavery that could be the case, I don't know enough about that. But what I do know is from the time slavery began in the new world to the late eighteenth century and the emancipation movements, the institution, undder christians, became increasingly brutal and some christians defended this new form of slavery. So while Obi is wrong in saying Christians are alone responsible for slavery you are just as wrong in painting slavery under christians as anything near humane. Obi needs to remember that slavery was an economic institution and christianity was incidental to much of its rise, but you need to remember that for ever Las Casas there were thousands of clergy members of all denominations that were happy to protect the institution."

"SantaClausowitz Online (336 )
Thu 06 AM
(+1)
Hey Obi, I'm still waiting for that information about the huge European African colonies from which they grabbed all their slaves.

And again, you idiot, the fact that slaveholders that bought and sold slaves were christian is incidental. They bought and sold slaves for profit, not for religion. Abolitionists opposed slavery because of their faith. It is not a 1 and 1 comparison.
SantaClausowitz Online (336 )
Thu 06 AM
(+1)
sort of like how the founders were christian but that is incidental to the republic they created. It was based on their understanding of human nature, not the nature of god."
_____

Thats five posts addressing your point

@putin,

"I didn't realize a pro-genocide circle jerk with theists patting themselves on the back qualified as unity these days. I think people with a conscience stayed away [...]"

Oh yeah? From page 7:

"The only way Obi can call Marx an antisemite is if hes illiterate, which Im convinced he is." -- Putin33.

I said I misspoke, or picked a poor choice of words...that doesn't = mistake?

OK, whatever, SC, moving on to others who have a life...

"obi, don't regret it. I don't think I've ever seen the forum quite so unified before as in the judgment by everybody that you were full of crap in this discussion.

And unity is always a worthy goal, right?"

lol...

Which part was I full of crap on, for the record:

That we have a clutch of Christian-right fanatics in this country who listen to FOX News' claims that this is and was founded as a "Christian Country" despite all the historical and legal evidence being to the contrary...

Or that genocide and infanticide is never an acceptable thing under any circumstances and anyone who proudly says in class "YES! I *WOULD* go on and kill a whole group of people if I heard a voice I thought was God telling me it was OK...and I'd be in the moral right, too!" is worthy of being soundly kicked in the ass and sent to a counselor?

Just for the record--which?

;)

Did you mispoke when you said I didn't address your point?

"OK, whatever, SC, moving on to others who have a life..."

This is coming from obi, the teetotler eunich who makes posts that are 5+ pages long. Guess I hit a nerve this time.

I guess I'd have to say that mostly it was your wholesale butchering of every inch of the historical record that you could get your hands on.

Santa, as a historian you should know that many of the leading abolitionists were transcendentalists, who were anything but Christian. There's a reason the League of the South considers the civil war to be a war between godlessness & Christianity.

The south set up a veritable industry of defending the institution on religious grounds. The abolitionists, however, initiated the battle and were largely Christian until the later years when the movement gained popular legs.. As a historian I know that.

"Actually, in your world view, a good portion of your Athiest founders were slaveholders. Slaveholding had little to do with religion. You can put our modern day morals on it all you want, but owning a slave was like owning a car back then. In some parts of the country it was ubiquitous if you had the money and the need."

Agreed, but I was making a demographics point, ie, most slaveholders were Christian, i even say EXCLUDING those founders (but thank you for finally acceding to their not being Christian, though in fairness they were not--with the possibly exception of Franklin--atheists, but deists...but that was still pretty damn good for their day.

"So let me get this straight. Obi started by arguing that the founders, even though they considered themselves Christians, were not christians. Now he's areguing slaveholders, whether or not they considered themselves christians, they are christians.

Just pointing this out. Absolutely fascinating."

Up, this one I remember, and here we go, I just praised you for acknowledging the Founders were not, by and large, Christian, but there you go again...

And while I am NOT arguing that, if you argue that a Founder is Christian despite the evidence being to the contrary, why can't *I argue that most slaveholders were Christian, excluding the Founders, when I DO have the evidence and numbers to back that up?

Inconsistent AND lacking in evidence...

Why, it's like all of your posts summed up in a single incoherence!

(Go ahead, quote that and slam me back for that, prove me right that you have no life but to troll an argument on...)

"And what CA just said is disingenuous as well. The argument you make is that Slavery improved under christianity with better conditions, a higher view of slaves etc. This is wrong. "

Yes. Yes it is. Which is why I never said slavery improved under Christianity...

Why would *I*, the OPPONENT of Christianity in this thread, say that?

Hm?

Unless that's in response to someone else, but then, why include it in a response to me?

Also, in case you haven't guessed--thanks to about 4 theists at any given time piling on me, I've had a hard time keeping up answering as many as I could because, you know, I HAVE 6 CLASSES--See, I had 5 and now I have 6, I even added one this week--AND I TUTOR...

I have a LIFE outside these banalities, SC.

Go on, go out and get one!

Run out into the sun! Be free! Try a troll-free life for a change!

...Or go up to Canada and see if mapleleaf will take you on in a relationship, I think you two could make each other rather happy...

"As a historian I know that."