Thomas Jefferson Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Then who in this thread are you calling a sociopath? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 You just randomly posted something about sociopaths on this thread. Yeh, that's likely. MORON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Then who in this thread are you calling a sociopath? See post n.80 You just randomly posted something about sociopaths on this thread. Yeh, that's likely. MORON. More name calling, nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Post 80 does not explain who you were talking about. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe your comment about sociopaths was just totally random and not aimed at anyone on this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Quilp's meme was totally stupid. I do not get my info from "the internet". If I quote from the internet, it's only because it's easier. You can't possibly expect me to somehow magically post years of extensive research that I've done into a post on here. I have to shortern it, dumb it down for you, but usually it's easier to just cite something off Wikipedia but only when I've done research and have confirmed the content to be accurate. I don't just blindly quote wikipedia like some of you lot. Besides, like I said, the internet is no different to any other medium. Just because something's in a book, it doesn't mean it's more reliable than something that's written on a website. There are millions of academic articles on the internet, as well as books and audio and video lectures. This is an area that's a bit of a bug-bear to me and something that needs straightening out as various people at different times have slammed the use of copy and paste from the internet and I personally think that TJ gets targeted, regardless of whether he has a valid point to make or generally fact finding. (No, he hasn't paid me and I'm not him either) Now personally, I will use the internet as the biggest source of information I gather and also include other areas where possible like gossip, radio, newspapers and TV news. If these sources are classed as so-so, then I'd like to know from various 'talk the talks' as to what information is regarded as solid truth and beyond reproach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Manxy, I wouldn't take any notice of them. These are the same clowns who think posting a meme image they've cut and pasted from Google Images amounts to a legitimate counter-argument. The main thing about what article, book or website you cite -- which are generally secondary sources -- is that they themselves cite verifiable primary sources. Lonan3 is a classic example of someone who cites dubious sources when he propagates the well debunked "Jesus Myth" theory (in which Jesus is claimed to have been a fiction based on pagan gods). If he actually did his homework and looked at the citations in the footnotes of the books or websites where he got this idea, he'd see it was a load of bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Harsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Harsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 You're a completely dumb prick, TJ. And an offensive one - possibly a sociopath. I could cite the almost-10,000 posts you've made in just over a year and a half - because I do at least normally quote my sources whereas you have frequently tried to pass it off as your own work - but none of your posts has ever had anything interesting to say. What did I say which was offensive? You're the one insulting BILLIONS of people for whom Jesus is a central aspect of their lives, by claiming he didn't exist and was a copy-cat of pagan deities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Corporations rent seeking from government protection IS an issue. Where are the Napoleon Bonaparts nowadays? Well, yeah, some of them have become capitalists and if they can persuade a bureaucrat to pass a regulation or put in place a loop hole which effectively takes 20p from every member of a country and gives it to his corporation then that's been a good night's work. The thing is there is a flip side to this. The world is full of barriers and restrictions which mean that huge amounts of trade is restricted. The end result of that night's work might be opening up opportunities which bring hundreds of pounds worth of services to people who need them - and yes 20% profits to the people providing those services. There is nothing wrong about making a profit from providing a service people want. I pretty firmly believe the world needs more capitalism, less regulation, and more freedom for capitalist sociopaths to try to sell products to consumers. Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson (the real one!) had a point about enlightened self interest - Capitalism is all about Non-Zero-Sum games. Rent seeking, cronyism is about a Zero-Sum game. The problem is every Non-Zero-Sum game DOES contain a Zero-Sum game at its core. Simple example - Fred wants to sell his latest piece of fancy electronics kit - he needs to get at least £500 for it. Harry realizes that the spec of Fred's box is what he wants in terms of performance, quality etc and he can't afford more than £600 to make buying it a profitable proposition. This situation is Non-Zero-Sum - it is possible for both sides to agree a deal where they both can benefit from the deal and be happy about it. But there is a zero-sum haggle - Fred wants to get Harry to pay £600 for the kit, Harry wants to negotiated the deal down to £500. The power relationship between the two negotiators, their knowledge of the market and each other is what will set the final price and whether it is closer to £600 or £500. Bilderberg should be about ensuring more opportunities for Fred and Harry to get together to do a deal between £500 and £600, it shouldn't be about getting the government to help ensure it's closer to £500 or £600. Now for all the brandy and cigars used to whisper in politician's ears these politicians still then have to go and stand at the dispatch box and announce the new regulations to the world. And the world is a pretty pluralistic place - for every entrepreneur trying to sell a piece of hardware for £600 there is another one wanting to buy it for £500 - and if a competitor is seen getting an unfair advantage they squeal. The world aint perfect - and various paradoxes of Nash, Condorcet, Arrow, Sen, the Prisoner etc - mean it can get snarled up out of equilibria with all sides loosing. And it is important to ensure the end result isn't all the little piggies lined up in the trough. TJ, Lxxx etc are convinced the world is set against them and Bilderberg etc are just about the corrupt carving up the gains from stealing from the poor. I don't really see that - I'll admit there is more than a bit of rent seeking being sought in these meetings, but a lot is also about opening up more Non-Zero-Sum opportunities. I'm sure I'll be called a sheep and shill for saying this, and I do work in the world of bankers, finance and entrepreneurs - yeah the psychopaths are there, but often what results is more Non-Zero-Sum than rent seeking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 TJ, Lxxx etc are convinced the world is set against them and Bilderberg etc are just about the corrupt carving up the gains from stealing from the poor. No, as usual you have it back to front -- I'm convinced that Bilderberg, a small elite, is set against the world. Bilderberg is not the world; ordinary decent people are the world, and Bilderberg are vultures who prey on them. And yes, it is about the corrupt carving up the gains from stealing from the poor, and also from impoverishing the middle class, putting their smaller and medium sized competitors out of business with tax increases which they themselves are excempt from so they can consolidate and expand their monopolies and cartels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 1. It is extremely offensive to be accused of citing 'dubious sources' by someone whose idea of absolute and definitive proof of something like chemtrails is a photo he took of the skies over Douglas when harmless passenger planes were flying over. Someone who just happens to have done extensive original research at one of the world's leading universities, supervised by some of the world's leading scholars. 2. If people are convinced that Jesus was a real person - and if they are convinced that he was also the son of god who created everything - then nothing i say or do is going to make the slightest bit of difference to them. Jesus of Nazareth was a real flesh and blood human being. Maybe he was more than that, but he definitely lived. Your denial of his existence is only an indication that you have some deep psychological issue, perhaps an infantile grasp of theodicy. 3. I selected a few of the 'dumbed-down' sites because you were a part of the debate and it needed to be something you would understand. Not even sure what you're talking about. 4. This has nothing to with the subject of the Bilderberg gathering/meeting. Therefore if you want to pursue it, go to a different thread if you've learned how to use the search facility. It has everything to do with BIlderberg. These people want to see Christianity destroyed, because the church is one of the last institutions in western society to stand in the way of their plans to redefine the role of the family in the social order, to bring about an order based on Plato's Republic, Orwell's 1984, and Huxley's A Brave New World --- the end of the traditional family unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 There is no proof that Jesus existed, you're pushing your boring troll persona too far with that one. It has everything to do with BIlderberg. These people want to see Christianity destroyed, because the church is one of the last institutions in western society to stand in the way of their plans to redefine the role of the family in the social order, to bring about an order based on Plato's Republic, Orwell's 1984, and Huxley's A Brave New World --- the end of the traditional family unit.Hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Jesus did exist which is proven by the existence of Christians in the 1st century -- before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 79 CE. The Jerusalem Church, led by James, was destroyed during that time, which is when power shifted to the churches in Rome and Alexandria. Also, the early church had apostolic succession, which was passed on from apostle to apostle, all the way back to Peter, who was also the first Bishop of Rome. There is plenty of evidence of Christians at this early stage, which proves Jesus existed. Religions don't just invent themselves. This claim that a group of people just made up a historical human being, claiming he had lived only decades earlier, and invented a religion around him is the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever heard. If you actually study the early expansion of Christianity across the known world, you'll see how untenable it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 You need to try harder than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.