• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Darzin

  • Rank
    Faux political agitator

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,909 profile views
  1. I would say that people rolling coal has almost nothing to do with civilization or not, rolling coal is an example of pure tribalism, people doing that aren't doing that for freedom to rebel against restrictions for the good of society, it's tribal signaling pure and simple. People are doing it as a form of resistance to a system of values they disagree with, it's a way of social signalling. If you read some of the comments about this you'll see the people who do this often mention clouding certain cars such as the Prius with smoke. Certain kinds of people drive pickup trucks, certain kinds of people drive the Prius both are signals of a tribe and value system. People who roll coal are rebelling against another tribe, it's not rational or about freedom vs responsibility I doubt many of the people who roll coal even believe in global warming. Also back to the original question do humans hate civilization? No I don't think so, parts of modernity are stressful but they are a feature of modernity and an open society no t civilization per se. The dissolution of kin groups and the extended family leaves people without a support group and the lightening pace of technology and new social values diminishes people's ability to empathize with and understand older family members. Where before grandma could serve as a guide and experienced teacher, now grandma is obsolete barley able to function in the modern world and likely holding opinions that you would not accept if your friends held them. This is a very different situation then most of history. Despite this, we have all levels of civilization from hunter gathers to developed democracies. Few people from modern open societies seem to want to leave them so I'd say despite the stresses people like the material comforts of modernity enough to not give them up.
  2. Also him blowing up was not essential to the case they had him with the battery and the phone. Him blowing up as just extra, but by showing his mental condition they provided a plausible reason why Jimmy would lie to him. If he had reacted to the empty phone Jimmy would have shown that it had no battery so either way without the rant and without Chuck guessing the empty phone ruse, once that battery was placed on Chuck and he didn't react his case was sunk.
  3. @Ormond Fair enough, I don't have enough knowledge of the original Greek. @karaddin I think what you said is very true these customs often existed for a reason but have now become absurd to maintain in modern society. Take the burka for example, traditionally most families in Afghanistan live in walled compounds with their extended family and burka's were only worn outside of that. It's maybe not the most progressive thing but Afghanistan is a dusty dirty place and it keeps the dirt off when you go and shields you from prying eyes. It's really only for moving from compound to compound and as Afghanistan has often been an unlawful place it's best to have a male relative go with you. These complexes have many houses and large yards so your free to relax with your friends and family uncovered and safe behind their walls, but once you move this to a modern urban environment it becomes horribly restrictive, by limiting you to a small one room apartment and isolating you socially as you're no longer living with a large family group.
  4. I understand not taking the bible literally, but what is the rational for discarding the moral commandments of the bible? It's one thing to understand the creation of six days or the tower of Babel as an allegory those make sense. But when non-fundamentalist Christians begin discarding clear moral commandments they begin to lose me. I understand why they do so, because these moral commandments are ones that many people nowadays find repugnant, and people don't want to believe them. But why toss out some but not others? How can Christians talk about the bible as a moral guide if we can't trust it's morality?
  5. To break it down a little clearer I don't think the natural unnatural argument is valid because the law doesn’t come from that it comes from Leviticus which bans natural things which cause no harm. The old law is repealed but the prohibitions on sexual immorality remain. Acts 15:29 Paul who was at that conference later defines sexual immorality as including male homosexual relations 1st Corinthians 6:9-11. Therefore the law banning sexual immorality has nothing to do with naturalness as the authority for the ban comes from the Old Testament laws and not from Paul. I understand the Orthodox Church is not sola scriptura, but when the laity, scripture tradition and leadership agree I think it’s hard to hold the opposite view without falling into relativism. I personally don’t think homosexual relations are immoral, but I don’t see how they can be justified in a world where Orthodox Christianity is true. As someone who is an Orthodox believer I wonder what you think of my chain of logic above? Hope that helps explain what I’m getting at.
  6. I'm trying to convince you that based on the a priori assumptions of Eastern Orthodoxy the church is right and your wrong on the issue of homosexuality. I'm trying to convince you that if Eastern Orthodoxy is the true faith then homosexuality is a sin and your morality doesn't line up with God's. I think the exception you made is a bit of a cop out, if we can't rely on scripture or tradition to know God's will how can we know it? And guess I'm asking you, to justify a bit why you go to your church.
  7. @Ser Scot A Ellison Paul explicitly condemns homosexuality and says that men who have sex with men, will not inherit the kingdom of God. 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 Now I understand Eastern Orthodoxy does not come from a sola scriptora tradition. Never the less if you are willing to disregard Paul's specific instructions and teachings in this case, do you follow him in others? Do you think his works should be cannon? Perhaps we shouldn't take the bible literally, but even without sola scriptura church law and doctrine has held homosexuality, or at least the act of having sex with a member of the same sex, immoral for more then a thousand years and every single current and past patriarch opposes homosexuality. So you have scripture, tradition and current leadership all in agreement about this. Now let's turn to your argument about it being natural and therefore permitted if we look at the old testament laws we can see many things which were natural and still prohibited, pork and shellfish are naturally occurring and yet God prohibited the Jews from partaking in such delicious treats as bacon. So if there is already a precedent for prohibiting natural things that do no harm surely this can't be a disqualifying factor. It's true that these were rescinded (Acts 15:29) But if you look at the passage that rescinded them the law prohibiting "sexual immorality," were left intact. As per the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and per Paul this includes homosexuality. Now not being from a sola scriptora tradition it's possible the passage is an error, but if it is then the old testament laws are still in force and you will have to give up pork and mixed fibers and homosexuality will still be prohibited. As this comes from the old testament law naturalness cannot be seen as a qualifying factor. Furthermore per acts this council was guided by the Holy Spirit, if the the spirit guided them to remove the laws about pork, why did it not guide them to remove the prohibition about "sexual immorality" which is explicitly left intact? Finally I would like to turn your attention to how the Orthodox Church is behaving in the world today. In America it might not have much influence but in the former Soviet Union it has quite a bit, and while some of it is positive when it comes to LBTQ rights it's basically all negative. In Georgia (country not state) Orthodox priests led a mob to attack a gay rights parade. In Russia an increase in religiosity has led to less acceptance of homosexuality and many priests are preaching in favor of the governments new anti-homosexuality laws. Now I can guess that you might say "well that's a few bad apples," and the church is a flawed human institution, both of those points are true and I don't dispute them, but and this is I feel the whole crux of the matter, I can name hundreds of organizations who do not have any leaders whipping up anti-gay mobs, and hundreds more who would immediately terminate anyone who even breathed a word of doing such a thing, and I personally know people who are working right now to counteract the actions of those priests in Georgia and spread love acceptance and tolerance. How is it that secular organizations with no affirming belief in God and no scriptures to guide them, according to your own moral code, can get morality right better than God's own church? If the teachings of the bible cannot be trusted, and the doctrines and traditions of the church cannot be trusted, and the teachings of church leadership cannot be trusted, and the beliefs of church membership cannot be trusted, and the actions and practices of the church in the world cannot be trusted, then what good is the church? Why should anyone take moral instruction from an institution, that is according to your own moral code, failing in a major area on every possible level?
  8. I for one welcome our new hoon overlords.
  9. Yes I absolutely agree with this the Christian God as written is a horrible monster if he is real well the world is a dark and miserable place. I do have a question for @Ser Scot A Ellison though, I think it's admirable that you are against the bullying of trans and LGBTQ people, however, as an Eastern Orthodox how do you square that with the beliefs of your church? Your church believes that gay people are sinners that they offend God, that God does not want people to be gay or trans. You seem to not believe that? So my question is do you agree with your church on this? and if not why not? Do you personally believe God views being gay as a sin? And if not why not? Because from my reading of the bible it's pretty clear on that topic.
  10. I think Happy Ent is right on the money about this, and for those of you still skeptical about the example of the ax. I have a real world example of this kind of thing. I have a friend from a poor country, whose family is from a village in the most conservative part of that country. He has learned English and had foreigners for friends and room mates, which combined with his natural curiosity have given him a bit more of an "open" perspective, if we are using the above terminology. Anyway, he has a passion for cooking, which is quite rare in his society and culture, as it's quite patriarchal and men generally cook nothing. He went from his home in the capital and visited his family and prepared them some dumplings, now there are a few ways to cook these traditional dumplings, with only vegetables, with beef or with lamb, those are the three ways and if you get them anywhere you will have only those options. My friend did something different he put cheese in them, they were a hit. His family in the village was amazed they loved them, thought they were the best thing ever, but they were puzzled how could you even put cheese in a dumpling? some asked, others asked if he had maybe learned the recipe from some of his foreign friends, but no he had just decided to try it, an answer they accepted but not too easily. Now despite loving them and saying they were wonderful and even bragging to the neighbors about how great they were and despite having all the ingredients in the kitchen and despite the women working all day in the kitchen, and having ample time, these dumplings were not reproduced. No one made them again. At the time and even now. I was a bit confused by all this I mean where I come from minor variations are normal people add ingredients all the time, and not only that cooking was one of the few spheres where these women could shine. A good cook would be highly praised and sought after, a girl who could cook well would have a better choice in husbands, and yet despite these benefits no one continued with this simple change, when my friend left the village there were no more cheese dumplings. You don't need to kill someone who makes a better ax you just need the invention to die with him because no one adopted it. It seems like that shouldn't happen if you think about it rationally and yet I've seen it not happen people whose job it is to cook everyday not adopt a food they like, because why? I guess culture, I admit it was very hard for me to understand but having seen it happen well it's clearly a thing. And the only reason they were even exposed to that is my friend has left the village without that and they would never have been. I wonder if he had stayed and been a farmer like his family if he could have made the leap to a cheese dumpling. From where I come from people experiment with food all the time, but you go to villages in that culture and people just don't it's reproducing the same over and over, even the better off people who have free time. So when you leave a village and go to a tribe with even less. It's not even you'd be killed for making a better ax it's that you wouldn't think to do so, and if you did there is a good chance they's just view you as "special" and "eccentric" and not take your invention to heart.
  11. @fionwe1987 Great suggestions! If I worked for Sony I'd hire you to manage the pacing of this show
  12. Progressives have had victory after victory in the culture, and Trump can do precious little to reverse that. At best Trump is the last gasp of a dying generation, and ethos. The people who voted for him often cite that they can't recognize their country anymore and the reason they can't is progressives have won, in the cities at least and with the youth. The youth are the future and they are more liberal both socially and economically then any generation before them. And yet after one just one major setback, which is demographically doomed to fail. You want through our the system and institute a tyranny, no thanks.
  13. But they make the trains run on time! Seriously Singapore is a scary place, it's a positive dystopia , everything is watched everything is cataloged everything is perfect, and do one thing to mess up that perfection and so help you God, you will wish you didn't.
  14. Dude language only functions based on shared meanings, without that we're all just gibbering at each other madly. Your kind of arguing against the whole basis of language here. We as a society have agreed that words mean certain things and part of speaking languages is using those meanings, you don't just get to make shit up. You've had multiple people cite multiple sources, from multiple countries that the words entitlement and right don't mean what you think they mean. It's not the end of the world just let it go. Part of being a rational person is being able to way evidence against your opinion. So far I see a lot of evidence on one side and your opinion on the other. English is not what DM thinks it is, English is what we as a collective society understand it to be, if you want to make your own language there are clubs for that.
  15. I don't know quite a few conservatives that aren't politicians are blaming Trump and/or the house. http://www.dailywire.com/news/14774/ryan-weve-got-obamacare-foreseeable-future-4-ben-shapiro That's from Ben Shapiro, and then this open letter from Mark Levin, Those are both from pretty deep inside the conservative media bubble, and I believe Glenn Beck has denounced the law and Breitbart earlier was pretty critical of it as well. I don't think Democrats will take the blame for this. I think the most likely scapegoat is Ryan. This bill was his idea from the beginning, it was his job to get the votes, and as we've seen with Boehner, a house speaker can always be replaced by a True Conservativetm