Archive for April 21st, 2006

Mark

Commenting onthe last article, Mark corrects me as an agnostic who still wants fairness to the Catholic Church:

“Bob, you know me as a staunch agnostic who scoffs at anything deemed religous, and that of course applies to the Catholic Church. But how does the fact that the Catholic Church has made it a sin to use birth control jive with your theory of sterilizing the white world? Wouldn’t that seem to make the Catholics in favor of increasing their white followers? I know you could say that as a practicality it only applies to the brown races since they are more gullable than whites, but the last time I went to Mass (which was a LONG time ago) the priests were still railing against the use of birth control.”

Comment by Mark

Like everybody else, Mark is correcting me without referrijng to the general point I was trying to make.

Sigh! OK, let’s do the drill:

No, Mark, I am saying that every aspect of Catholicism is for sterility. In fact, aprts of Germany and the Netherlands that went Protestant have lost population relative to the ones that stayed Catholic.

Congratulations. You have made a point you could have made if Bob had never been born.

I also said that Protestant churches are as desperate to prove that Jesus never had a sexual thought in his life as Catholics are, but that was ignored.

So we are back to your correction,, which was all you got out of the article.

Which is exactly what the article is about.

There is a conviction in white countries with Christian cultures that a high morality means steility for us. All mention of genetics is evil because of a mind set deep within us.

I was trying to deal with that mindset.

So, Mark, we have concluded that the only point you got out of the article, that the Catholic Church has been treated unfairly, represents unfairness on Bob’s part.

Once again, congratulations.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

Correction or Basic Destructionism?

Laziness is one of the reasons I don’t get my fundamental points across.

So let me begin at the beginning.

Two thousand years ago the Roman Empire was losing faith in its own gods and its own ideas of causality. Back then they cut animals open and examined he entrails to find out the future. Back then the Oracle at Delphi was oly one of the of how to tell the future. The Oracle always provided a riddle.

One city came to the Oracle to ask whether their mode of attack wold work. The Oracle replied that if they used hat approach a great empire wold be destroyed. They had planned this approach witht eh idea that it woud be successful in destroying he enemy’s empire.

It turned out the strategy was an awful mistake,a ndthe empire that was destroyed was their own.

The Oracle enhanced it reputaton for accurate prediction. This example was also used to show the genius of the Oracle, since it took the subtlest of minds to inerpret it correctly.

Rome was based on pure superstitious Authority to an extent we find it hard to believe today. Ina life-and-death situation, an army woud not go into the field when it was needed because the auspices were unfavorable. Ships would not go ot on certain days of the week because it was the wrong day. They would miss hte favorable wind that day and they would miss the crucial wind and the cargoes woud rot.

You can argue with each example I give nad appear intellecual. That is the standard way of apearing intellectual and missing hte point. I wold request taht each time someone wants to show how much detail tehy know that they also talk abut the general point illustrate and whether it goes where I think it goes.

You see, a person who nitpicks for the sake of nitpicking is enormously destructive. More often than not, there is a POINT being made. Are you differing to show how smart you are or are you making a real poiint?

The point, the truth, the facts are ALWAYS important to bring out. But if you just use yours as way to trip up the general theme, whether you mean to or not, you are being a destructionist.

If you correct, it is good. But you are also taking othe responsibility to explain exactly how your correction ffects the point I am trying to make.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

No Comments