Chastity cages and Christianity

Wow again. There I a term you may not be familiar with. In slang, a troll is a person who posts or makes inflammatory comment on forums or chat lines.
I was just pulling your chain. Sorry for the mixup.

 

With that way of thinking then nothing ever written in a book can be taken as fact. That could pose a problem for you. I thought you were the one with the high intellect. Oh wait that's jaysaysyes.

 

I’ve been to American more than once and travelled extensively. People there seem no more “free” than people in the UK, in that they are oppressed by an economic system based on usury (which is therefore entirely incompatible with Judeo-Christian ethics), and kept in a state of ignorance by mass media brainwashing. In rural America I found many warm and wonderful people but their knowledge of the wider world was risible. In their day to day life practice and behaviour towards their neighbours many ordinary Americans seem very close to having what I’d see as a communist outlook (i.e. civic cohesion and brotherly love) but unfortunately duped by decades of propaganda into completely misunderstanding what that word really means.

 

No, you can cite your sources to determine whether or not they are reputable, and break those numbers down to show how the data was sourced. Otherwise it’s just a wild assertion.

 

Sorry, I have been away from this planet for twenty years and therefore never seen the word being applied in this fashion every five minutes as a way of avoiding intelligent discussion. So do I take it as a synonym for “Russian bot”?

 

Incidentally I don’t recall ever claiming to have a “high intellect”, that sounds a bit arrogant and narcissistic. I do try to be a critical thinker and maintain an open mind though. Hence being prepared to research intelligently argued atheistic positions despite being an observant Christian.

 

Were you just bowling against him in a cricket match or doing net practice though? If so it doesn’t really count.

 

And you do have a sense of humor. Who knew?

 

I did. Also people who know me in real life. I’m considered quite the japester.

 

You can look it up. It is written in many history books. The number 100 million is an estimate. It may be more or less, but does it matter. That"s like saying there is a big difference between a serial killer that kills 19 victims or 20 victims. They are still a really bad serial killer. No offense.
In other words your point is mute. I get the feeling you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Now stay on subject and post an incredibly long winded post on the mathematical and metaphysical reasons God exists.

 

Hahaha yes I once knew a violent psychopath who had committed a horrific multiple stabbing. He was grumbling about the time he’d spent incarcerated and claiming it was due to some complex conspiracy against him. I said “actually I think it’s cos you stabbed that guy 19 times with a box cutter”, to which he replied “if you look into it you’ll see it was 18 times, and besides, he was majorly pissing me off”. I said “The fact that you quibble about the number of wounds is almost as disturbing as the deed itself” - which made him laugh heartily. Like many psychopaths he was actually very enjoyable company.

 

I just happen to be arrogant and narcissistic. Aren't all Americans by your account.

 

You may want to look up the definition of communism. It is a matter of importance here because there are many politicians that want our government to move more towards a socialist form. I don’t think a politician to decide if I should get a hip surgery or when I can have a tumor removed. You can keep that for yourself, thank you very much.
Our government was created to be limited. The bigger the government gets, the smaller the citizen gets. The more power the government has the less freedom the citizen has.
Curiously, those same politicians that are pushing for a socialist government also are anti-christian. Why do you think that is?

 

Now that is funny!

 

ok, so a brief overview of articles on Stalin suggest he may have ordered the execution of around one million people, but it can be argued that around ten million more had their lives abbreviated by the harsh conditions of the camps and forced relocations. Historians who want to include deaths by famine, asserting that the famines were somehow part of a deliberate policy, put the figure far higher but the most inflated figure I could find was that “as many as 60 million MAY have died”. This is me trying to substantiate your claim by reading the most critical pieces, rather than those by soviet apologists.

 

What do you mean by "give a mandate"? Do you know how our government works? We are a democratic republic. We vote in members of our congress and vote for our president. We don'"t always vote on the winner. How our current government acts does not directly reflect what each American believes in. That is an awfully simple way to try and insult someone.

 

It seems that we have hijacked this thread and if I was someone else watching this, I would tell us to 'Get a room'. And since I hardly know you I would prefer that not to happen. So I am signing off

 

But that all depends on a notion that communism means government control over the population. It doesn’t - it means control of the economy BY the population. Socialism of the soviet type involved centralised authority but this was always viewed as a transitional stage in the development of communism.
What you have in capitalism is an economy owned by a tiny minority class and administered for private profit against the material interests of the population. Small government stands back and allows that wholesale exploitation to run riot (this is what’s ironically described as the “free market). Big government takes a more interventionist approach but always and only in the interests of the exploiter class, who fund the political parties.
Of course in the contemporary form of capitalism, the means of production is largely controlled by large, private, speculative institutions such as hedge and pension funds, rather than by factory owners with top hats. But these institutions act not to generate social affluence, but to maximise short term shareholder profit.
There were certainly shortcomings to the Soviet project but even in its worst manifestation it was preferable to contemporary American imperialism.

 

Ahhh, so you realise you’re incorrect and are embarrassed.
It’s a tad eccentric to imagine a third party objecting to this discussion, and then feel obliged to defer to this figment of your imagination!

 

No I didn’t say all Americans are arrogant or narcissistic. I said many are warm, wonderful and uneducated. It’s not your fault. You are an extremely young country. Collectively, you resemble a giant, obese baby, crashing around, screeching and shitting - with no parent to scoop you up and put you back in your cot.

 

Unfortunately we in the UK are like your frail, demented grandmother, quite unable to deal with you.

 

you are of course 100% correct in your analysis of why the concept of a “democratic republic” on the American model is utterly unfit for purpose - and have accidentally refuted your own earlier assertion about how much “freedom” you have… unless you meant the freedom to be entirely politically impotent.

 

That is your opinion. Being politically impotent does not mean you are not free. Check out our constitution and the freedoms it guarantees.

 

There is such a thing as a highly educated idiot. It is a good thing to be young and to grow without the parent ruining the growing baby.

 

You are starting to sound like that old professor that no one likes at the university. I was just thinking of others. Something you might want to consider once in a while.