Wheels within wheels.

[Kinser79]

EtI Wrote:Like I said, you can't stop because you know I'm right.

Well it's good to know you don't understand how arguments work.

EtI Wrote:See, like I said, you have trouble with "nihilism."

Matter is lack of action. Of course my actions can't have anything to do with "matter." "Matter" as you materialists describe it, cannot act.

1.  Never denied I had trouble with nihilism.  It is the ultimate expression of idealism.

2.  Wrong.  Even if I were to agree that "spirit" was the acting force, it would still act upon matter to be detected.  An undetectable force acting on an other undetectable force is undetectable.

EtI Wrote:Back atcha!

So you agree that the vast majority of your posts are meaningless drivel.  Excellent we're getting somewhere.

EtI Wrote:No need; you would knock whatever I post. I'm sure it's on there but it goes back a long way. I don't have time to search for it just to respond to someone who doesn't debate respectfully or honestly.

1.  I'm going to take that as evidence that Eric in fact did not invent any 2 stroke theory. 
2.  I'm going to take that as evidence that even if he did he doesn't have documentation of it (which is essentially the same as 1).
3.  There is no need to be respectful towards those who have done nothing to earn my respect.  Respect is earned, the furthest I'm going to go is to treat others as I would like to be treated until they treat me differently.  Since you Eric already have, well you get exactly what you deserve.  So I guess it all comes back in the end now doesn't it.

EtI Wrote:That's silly. They can comment any time they like on your "theory." Mikebert is the most likely to comment, probably, and if he's only nitpicking, it's probably because he doesn't think much of it. Which would be the correct thought.

Or perhaps they are waiting for the village idiot to go away so they can examine it.  Their silence gives me several distinct outcomes though.

1.  What I'm describing is pretty much what they've already concluded independently. Which makes it boring.
2.  What I'm describing is nothing more than a culmination of existing theories compacted into one format.
3.  I'm completely wrong but they're digging up actual evidence because I'm going to ask hard questions as soon as they do say anything.  And yet so far the only person who has commented (except to nitpick) is someone who has neither evidence nor argument.

Furthermore I don't think you're in a position to tell me what Mike thinks.  He may or may not think much of this theory.  I don't think much of many of his.  The man can speak for himself.

EtI Wrote:Marx founded and started Marxism in 1848. If you claim it started in the 1890s in a 2T, you're just wrong. The 2T was when revisionism happened.

Marx was not himself a Marxist, so it would be pretty hard for him to have found it then.  Marx had almost no followers except for Engels (who was basically his sugar daddy) until the founding of the first international.  Marx's ideas did not gain traction until the second international which happened in the GPS 2T.  To deny this is to deny recorded history.  Indeed the term Marxism didn't even get coined until late in the 1st international.

I know that facts are usually inconveniences for you Eric but those are the facts.

EtI Wrote:You conveniently forget your idea. Your idea is that if someone rejects materialism, (s)he rejects every part of Marxism. Not true. You have rejected the best parts of it and still embrace the worst.

Really?  So Karl Marx went off and studied some sort of mystical nonsense then rather than the modes and methods of production in Mid-19th century Britain?  You sure you want to go there cause the Collected works of Karl Marx would go against that.  All 50 volumes of them. 

Marxism is a materialist philosophy and no amount of word play is going to change that fact.  A rejection of materialism as a whole necessitates a rejection of Marxism--every part of it.  A rejection of Marxism does not necessitate a rejection of materialism.  There are plenty of non-Marxist materialist philosophers.

Lenin Wrote:The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the eighteenth century in France, where a resolute struggle was conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism has proved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, true to all the teachings of natural science and hostile to superstition, cant and so forth. The enemies of democracy have, therefore, always exerted all their efforts to “refute”, under mine and defame materialism, and have advocated various forms of philosophical idealism, which always, in one way or another, amounts to the defence or support of religion.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w...ar/x01.htm


I must therefore conclude that you did indeed fail your Americanism vs. Communism course in high school.  And I'm being generous here, magnanimous even.

EtI Wrote:The Nation of Islam is Islam; period.

So then you're telling me that all Muslims believe that white people were created by a "scientist" on the Island of Patmos called "Yakub", that these same Muslims all believe that white people are the embodiment of Satan, and that Islam itself is only open to black peoples and that the final prophet is Elijah Muhammad.

I'm no Imam, but I already know from a cursory glance of Sunni and Shia materials that have been translated into English that all of these components are in direct contradiction to mainline Islam.  And the last one precludes the NOI from being Islmamic entirely because Muhammad (the Arabian one) is supposed to be the last prophet of Allah.

In short Osama Bin Ladin would call Louis Farrakhan an infidel.  And on the basis of mainline Islam (let alone the strict puratanical Wahabbite version Bin Ladin believed in) Bin Ladin would be correct.

But that is not the point.  The Nation of Islam for all its faults does indeed have a theology, with a deity and all the other trappings of a religion.  It is Islamic in name only.  Which is why and how Malcolm X could convert to Islam.  It runs far deeper than "I don't like this preacher I'm going to the mosque across the street".

EtI Wrote:No need to disprove a mere insult

Wrong.  The sentence:  "I suppose 'real spirituality' is any 'spirituality that Eric likes'".  Is a statement.  The sentence:  "Eric is a moron."  Is an insult.  Unfortunately it insults morons, I imagine you should strive to learn enough to one day be classified as a moron.

EtI Wrote:The fact remains that genuine spirituality during Awakenings is not traditional or fundamentalist Christian, although it can also be Christian as well as other religions. Your statements devaluing non-Christian spirituality are mere prejudice against non-Christians.

I never claimed that "genuine spirituality" didn't have to take traditional or even fundamentalist Christian forms.  That is a straw man argument you insist on tackling.  I said that in Majority Christian Countries (such as the US) non-Christian phenomena are of lesser social importance.  It is like arguing that the salinity of the Atlantic Ocean has been changed because I pissed into it.

As for having non-Christian prejudice...well if it makes you feel better I'm the wrong kind of black according to some people too.  Considering I'm still an atheist, having seen no evidence for god(s), I'm certainly not a Christian.

EtI Wrote:Why wait? I already proved it. Just try to breathe without any connection to the environment, or eat, or drink, or even be conscious.

I'll wait.

Air is matter, not this "mystical" spirit nonsense you keep bringing up.  Furthermore the atmosphere would exist whether you or I did.  Holding my breath is not a valid test for "We are all connected".

But I do have one.  You can send me a telepathic message.  I might not be able to measure it but I would experience it.  Observation is typically the first step to devising a hypothesis which can lead to an experiment.

I'll wait.

EtI Wrote:Same god damned thing, and the worst scam being perpetrated on Americans today. You piddling over details means less than nothing. No, classical liberalism is not merely concerned with federal power. It wants less state power too. It is merely the doctrine that less government is better. Libertarianism pure and simple.

Still wrong and still not an argument.  /molyneux

I'm not going to comment further because you're as clueless about libertarianism and classical liberalism as you are Marxism.  Seriously dude I know I pay social security taxes buy a fucking clue already.

EtI Wrote:You are god too.

Really and what sort of evidence do you have for that?  And I mean real evidence not some solipsistic clap trap about "we are all one" and other New Age woo woo.  If I'm god and you are god, prove it empirically.  Anything else is beneath consideration.  Woo-woo might stroke your ego but it does absolutely nothing for mine.  If I want to be told how great I am I have a boyfriend to do it.

I'm going to skip over your rehashing of an other post to your website.  I already told you I'm not going there.  Mostly because I don't want to lose my lunch over the color scheme.  Also you added nothing in that passage other than your usual drivel about Kinser is wrong because Kinser.

EtI Wrote:Paul preached wisdom,

That is debatable.  Have you read the New Testament?

EtI Wrote:not just "about an idea about a Jewish guy."

Yeah, he pretty much did preach exactly about a Jewish Guy who was supposedly the son of YHWH.  That's sort of the basis of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is the Jewish God's son.  Again have you read the New Testament?

EtI Wrote:If another person has an inkling of it, communications about it can be meaningful.

So these experiences, like all other experiences can only be described to other people, not directly shared with them.  This addressed my point how exactly?  No, wait, I know this one.  It didn't.  It is some bullshit you posted thinking you'd make yourself appear smarter than you really are.

Let us take experiences outside of the woo-woo realm and discuss sushi for a moment.  I don't know if you have had or like sushi but that's not relevant, it is conceivable that you've eaten some at some point--in fact most people on this board probably have.  We could discuss the texture of the rice, the combinations of fish and seaweed, the cut of the fish and so forth.  But the point is we would require a frame of reference to start with.

It would be impossible for me to have a conversation about sushi with a Bushman for example.  They simply have no frame of reference.

The rest of your passage is a bunch of shit as usual.  It is clear to everyone that I've not had a Mystical Experience as you'd define it, and well I'm about as likely to have one as a Bushman is to go to a New York sushi bar.  Because I'm closed minded?  No.  Because for the most part these experiences seem to be centered on the insane, and feeble minded.  I'm neither so....

EtI Wrote:Sorry, you brought no evidence for your mindless assertion

Didn't need to.  I didn't make an assertion.  I said that your assertion is bullshit which means the burden of proof is on you, the person making the original assertion.  It is logically impossible to prove a negative.  Just as we don't prove someone in court innocent.

EtI Wrote:Mystics are the sanest people.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.  You're a mystic and you probably need to be in a mental ward.  I'd venture to guess the only reason you're not is you're only a threat to other people's wallets and not their person.

Myself when I hear people say "God talks to me" I automatically think "You need to be on thorazine".

EtI Wrote:I've heard that theory; I disagree. No time to disprove yours right now

Translation:  Kinser said something that was true and I have to disagree but I have absolutely no evidence to back myself up, do not even have mystical nonsense to attempt to befuddle him and everyone else with bullshit.

As I suspected.

EtI Wrote:But the fact that Pelosi and McConnell and McCain and Feinstein et al are doing just fine as leaders proves my point. Boomers will be leaders too well into the 1T.

Pelosi still leading the Dims in the House is evidence of their party's weakness.  They are doubling down on the very things that have lost them major bench coverage in the House and the states.

McConnell is still relatively healthy and leads primarily through delegating tasks.  He's never been exactly hands on.  McCain is actually reviled by everyone in the GOP now except for the NeoCons which if the Dims have a hope of surviving they're going to take on board due to party-shift.

Feinstein is a joke.

It should be noted that neither McCain nor Feinstein are in senate leadership except perhaps as committee chairs/ranking members and well they had to pick someone and the Senate goes on seniority.

It should be noted that usually after the 4T ends Congress has a massive purge, and those who get purged are almost always Prophets and their Nomad Hangers on.  See the 1866 mid-terms and 1946 mid-terms.

Assuming the end date for the 4T is 2028 then the mid-term following it will be 2030 but it may be as late as 2032.

Sorry but even the youngest Boomers are going to be far too old to be in the drivers seat.  Y'all won't live forever.  Thank whatever gods may exist for that too.

EtI Wrote:trump and all the other oligarchs are the Establishment, and you support it fanatically. You support oligarchy now.

We really need a ROFLMAO emoji.

I know you only consume fake news Eric, but still, even you should know that Trump's biggest enemies in DC are not the Dims.  Trump's biggest threat are the establishment GOP--Lyin' Ryan and the like. I believe Rags said something along the lines of Gingrich "Newts don't care to have their swamps drained."  As such he clearly is not part of the establishment.  He may or may not be an oligarch, but I'm fine with that.

I think the Dims don't want the swamp drained because they buried some bodies in there.  

Well I'm not an anarchist that's for sure.  As for financially supporting oligarchy, well yeah.  If I don't pay my taxes men with guns will come to my house and put me into a cage.  I don't like putting my cat into a cage, I have a feeling I wouldn't like being in a cage myself either.  I will say this though I support having less oligarchy than more oligarchy which cannot be said of you.

EtI Wrote:You support Uncle Tom, since Drump is the least pro-gay, pro-Latino, pro-woman president ever. You are a traitor.

Actually yes, considering I've read Uncle Tom's Cabin yes I would say Uncle Tom was the hero in that book.  Really the other stuff. 

1.  Daddy doesn't want to import people who want to throw me and my bf off roofs.  That's a big plus in his column.  the Dims want to import them by the ship loads.  Bad Dims, Bad!

2.  Daddy has hired loads of women for his cabinet and  White House staff not to mention there are more Female Executives in the Trump Organization than in any other major conglomerate.  Furthermore he did even better, he hired those women cause they were good and knew their shit, not because "has vagina" like the Dims would.  So Daddy's smart while the Dims are well dim.

3.  Considering some of the backward assholes that have been president he'd be hard pressed to be the most backward of them if he tried.  Wilson a darling of the Dimocrat party set race relations back by decades during his tenure and re-segregated governmental offices that had been integrated under William McKinley!  In short Republicans care about qualifications, Dimocrats care about skin color.

4.  Treason is legally defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy of these United States, per the Constitution (an other document I know you've never read).  Unless one is going to make the STUPID argument that the President of these United States is in fact an enemy of these United States I cannot possibly be a traitor.

On the other hand wanting to change the demographics of the country very well could be considered treason.  After all the Dims want to import military aged men from a demographic which is overwhelmingly terroristy.

Yes terroristy is a word, I just coined it.

EtI Wrote:super Baloney. There's no Zer over 12.

Eric people have trouble putting birth years on Millies too.  I know Howe seems to think the oldest were born some time around 2005, he could be right.  But I find that those born in 1999, 2000, and 2001 are heavily conservative already.  Even if they are very late wave Millies they are a whisper of things to come.  Or have you conveniently forgotten all about generational cusps being a thing.

EtI Wrote:<snip> Eric denying science</snip>

Let me put it simply.  If space is infinite, and we can measure the distance between earth and alpha centaurii then the infinite can be at least partially measured.  My point stands.

EtI Wrote:Yet you always fail.

Depends on what your definition of fail is.  If I expose you for the ignoramus you are then I have succeeded.  So far I've always succeed.