Is Ariel Castro a Murderer?

[Asclepias]

Which is what I said.

If someone else kills the fetus, that's bad; if she kills the fetus, that is a-ok!

Kind of like I can kick my dog but you can't kick my dog?
Oh wait, I can't kick my dog either.

Here is the king of our kind of logic...Enjoy, as this is very good.. Loved the abortion questions in comparisons of, and this by the way that he phrased them or posed them in the ways that he did to these young people of today (note how the blonde was still trying to hold on at all cost in order to try and brow beat the test, even though she was whipped and left wondering in confusion afterwards)...Cool stuff.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQvsnKB4yk]THE TRUE NAZI REALITY TODAY -180 The Documentary- Ray Comfort - YouTube[/ame]

That was hilarious!! Its amazing how easy it is to manipulate people. They need to show this video at more colleges so they can get more people to vote Republican. I wonder how many people actually told him to screw off. Luckily everyone is not freshman in college and has independent thought.

 

[beagle9]

Kind of like I can kick my dog but you can't kick my dog?
Oh wait, I can't kick my dog either.

Here is the king of our kind of logic...Enjoy, as this is very good.. Loved the abortion questions in comparisons of, and this by the way that he phrased them or posed them in the ways that he did to these young people of today (note how the blonde was still trying to hold on at all cost in order to try and brow beat the test, even though she was whipped and left wondering in confusion afterwards)...Cool stuff.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQvsnKB4yk]THE TRUE NAZI REALITY TODAY -180 The Documentary- Ray Comfort - YouTube[/ame]

That was hilarious!! Its amazing how easy it is to manipulate people. They need to show this video at more colleges so they can get more people to vote Republican. I wonder how many people actually told him to screw off. Luckily everyone is not freshman in college and has independent thought.

Yes young people are not as philosophically smart as they think they are, now are they ? Then the same young people think they are smart enough to make assertions as to how the world should be or it should not be, and then we are all supposed to just listen to them because they are going to be our future ????????? WOW !

How about them listening to us for a change again ? Hec they might just get a taste of wisdom based on years and years of experience, and based upon the trials along with the errors that did follow, and they may actually learn something instead of thinking that they know something when they are actually clueless, just as the video exposes of their weakened intellect that was shown and/or illustrated to all of us in this video. They seem for the most to be good people though, and that was refreshing to see and hear, but some were way out of sync within their thinking, and also within their speaking as was illustrated.

 

[Asclepias]

Here is the king of our kind of logic...Enjoy, as this is very good.. Loved the abortion questions in comparisons of, and this by the way that he phrased them or posed them in the ways that he did to these young people of today (note how the blonde was still trying to hold on at all cost in order to try and brow beat the test, even though she was whipped and left wondering in confusion afterwards)...Cool stuff.

THE TRUE NAZI REALITY TODAY -180 The Documentary- Ray Comfort - YouTube

That was hilarious!! Its amazing how easy it is to manipulate people. They need to show this video at more colleges so they can get more people to vote Republican. I wonder how many people actually told him to screw off. Luckily everyone is not freshman in college and has independent thought.

Yes young people are not as philosophically smart as they think they are, now are they ? Then the same young people think they are smart enough to make assertions as to how the world should be or it should not be, and then we are all supposed to just listen to them because they are going to be our future ????????? WOW !

You can do adults the same way. All the guy did is use a sales technique on them. Its a pretty simple formula but he brought religion into the mix which is a devastating technique if you are not grounded in your philosophies. I use the same tactic everyday but only for good. Its called leading people to where you want them to go with questions.

 

[beagle9]

Kind of like I can kick my dog but you can't kick my dog?
Oh wait, I can't kick my dog either.

Here is the king of our kind of logic...Enjoy, as this is very good.. Loved the abortion questions in comparisons of, and this by the way that he phrased them or posed them in the ways that he did to these young people of today (note how the blonde was still trying to hold on at all cost in order to try and brow beat the test, even though she was whipped and left wondering in confusion afterwards)...Cool stuff.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQvsnKB4yk]THE TRUE NAZI REALITY TODAY -180 The Documentary- Ray Comfort - YouTube[/ame]

That was hilarious!! Its amazing how easy it is to manipulate people. They need to show this video at more colleges so they can get more people to vote Republican. I wonder how many people actually told him to screw off. Luckily everyone is not freshman in college and has independent thought.

Do you think that these people felt that they were being manipulated somehow, and this by someone who was just to smart for them (or) did they instead think that they could actually reason with the topics and questions in a rational intelligent way or manor, and this in regards to the ways in which the questions were being posed and then asked of them ? Hmmm.

 

[beagle9]

Kind of like I can kick my dog but you can't kick my dog?
Oh wait, I can't kick my dog either.

Here is the king of our kind of logic...Enjoy, as this is very good.. Loved the abortion questions in comparisons of, and this by the way that he phrased them or posed them in the ways that he did to these young people of today (note how the blonde was still trying to hold on at all cost in order to try and brow beat the test, even though she was whipped and left wondering in confusion afterwards)...Cool stuff.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQvsnKB4yk]THE TRUE NAZI REALITY TODAY -180 The Documentary- Ray Comfort - YouTube[/ame]

That was hilarious!! Its amazing how easy it is to manipulate people. They need to show this video at more colleges so they can get more people to vote Republican. I wonder how many people actually told him to screw off. Luckily everyone is not freshman in college and has independent thought.

Now you do know that when you get to the point of having to tell someone to screw off, then they have finally won the argument or debate against you don't you ?

 

[Asclepias]

Here is the king of our kind of logic...Enjoy, as this is very good.. Loved the abortion questions in comparisons of, and this by the way that he phrased them or posed them in the ways that he did to these young people of today (note how the blonde was still trying to hold on at all cost in order to try and brow beat the test, even though she was whipped and left wondering in confusion afterwards)...Cool stuff.

THE TRUE NAZI REALITY TODAY -180 The Documentary- Ray Comfort - YouTube

That was hilarious!! Its amazing how easy it is to manipulate people. They need to show this video at more colleges so they can get more people to vote Republican. I wonder how many people actually told him to screw off. Luckily everyone is not freshman in college and has independent thought.

Do you think that these people felt that they were being manipulated somehow, and this by someone who was just to smart for them (or) did they instead think that they could actually reason with the topics and questions in a rational intelligent way or manor, and this in regards to the ways in which the questions were being posed and then asked of them ? Hmmm.

I know for sure a few of them realized they were being manipulated. He actually turned off two of them and they just wanted him out of their face. The other ones were either too dumb or they saw something in what he was saying that rang true to them. Most people have no defense for what he did unless they realize how he did it and the reason it works. The questions were in classic order to elicit a yes response. Once you get 2 or 3 responses of "yes" then you pop the real question. Most people feel they have to agree or the person asking the question might think they are stupid. Classic

 

[beagle9]

That was hilarious!! Its amazing how easy it is to manipulate people. They need to show this video at more colleges so they can get more people to vote Republican. I wonder how many people actually told him to screw off. Luckily everyone is not freshman in college and has independent thought.

Do you think that these people felt that they were being manipulated somehow, and this by someone who was just to smart for them (or) did they instead think that they could actually reason with the topics and questions in a rational intelligent way or manor, and this in regards to the ways in which the questions were being posed and then asked of them ? Hmmm.

I know for sure a few of them realized they were being manipulated. He actually turned off two of them and they just wanted him out of their face. The other ones were either too dumb or they saw something in what he was saying that rang true to them. Most people have no defense for what he did unless they realize how he did it and the reason it works. The questions were in classic order to elicit a yes response. Once you get 2 or 3 responses of "yes" then you pop the real question. Most people feel they have to agree or the person asking the question might think they are stupid. Classic

Auhh, but one thing you seem to be disregarding, and that is no matter how the questions were given, and in what order they were given in, the rational is still the same in those questions (never changes), so if you are one with good reasoning and good character, then a trickster in which you regard this man to be, and that lays within this man's character according to you, should have never gotten through in these ways, but if you are one that is weak and hiding something in your life or you have been living a lie most of your life, then you will fail under these circumstances badly. The ones who were strong in character, and were strong in their reasoning (passed) with flying colors, but the ones who failed needed help in their lives be it by experience or by furthering their education, especially the one with the Mohawk and tattoo's (i.e. the skinhead). Now the two girls painted silver were cool for whom had those hats on, as I liked them because they seemed to be of good character as they were being tested, and therefore they wrestled with the questions in a calm cool and rational manor, and they appeared that they had a big ole heart that just steered them in the right directions in which one could easily tell about them, so I gave them a passing grade. The old man who answered with a direct no non-sense attitude, and who had lost so much during the time period he was asked about was interesting, and especially while being asked about the man in which he loathed so much (Hitler), who was the direct culprit in his mind and truth known, passed with flying colors because he could not be fooled or tricked, and actually I thought that he would be a very interesting man to sit down with in order to learn about the past in which he was a part of as well.

Undoubtedly there was some rational used in the sentencing of Castro in concerns of the aborted baby, and it was the right rational used, and the correct sentencing in which he had gotten. The old man talked about in the video would have been a tougher judge on Castro wouldn't you think?

 

[Asclepias]

Do you think that these people felt that they were being manipulated somehow, and this by someone who was just to smart for them (or) did they instead think that they could actually reason with the topics and questions in a rational intelligent way or manor, and this in regards to the ways in which the questions were being posed and then asked of them ? Hmmm.

I know for sure a few of them realized they were being manipulated. He actually turned off two of them and they just wanted him out of their face. The other ones were either too dumb or they saw something in what he was saying that rang true to them. Most people have no defense for what he did unless they realize how he did it and the reason it works. The questions were in classic order to elicit a yes response. Once you get 2 or 3 responses of "yes" then you pop the real question. Most people feel they have to agree or the person asking the question might think they are stupid. Classic

Auhh, but one thing you seem to be disregarding, and that is no matter how the questions were given, and in what order they were given in, the rational is still the same in those questions (never changes), so if you are one with good reasoning and good character, then a trickster in which you regard this man to be, and that lays within this man's character according to you, should have never gotten through in these ways, but if you are one that is weak and hiding something in your life or you have been living a lie most of your life, then you will fail under these circumstances badly. The ones who were strong in character, and were strong in their reasoning (passed) with flying colors, but the ones who failed needed help in their lives be it by experience or by furthering their education, especially the one with the Mohawk and tattoo's (i.e. the skinhead). Now the two girls painted silver were cool for whom had those hats on, as I liked them because they seemed to be of good character as they were being tested, and therefore they wrestled with the questions in a calm cool and rational manor, and they appeared that they had a big ole heart that just steered them in the right directions in which one could easily tell about them, so I gave them a passing grade. The old man who answered with a direct no non-sense attitude, and who had lost so much during the time period he was asked about was interesting, and especially while being asked about the man in which he loathed so much (Hitler), who was the direct culprit in his mind and truth known, passed with flying colors because he could not be fooled or tricked, and actually I thought that he would be a very interesting man to sit down with in order to learn about the past in which he was a part of as well.

Undoubtedly there was some rational used in the sentencing of Castro in concerns of the aborted baby, and it was the right rational used, and the correct sentencing in which he had gotten. The old man talked about in the video would have been a tougher judge on Castro wouldn't you think?

Thats what gets a lot of people. The rationale was not the same at all. People prefer to think they have a blanket code of ethics or morals but they don't. Humans are not wired that way. The main rationale he used while preying on peoples belief in God was "thou shall not kill". There is no room for ambiguity in that. You should not kill even in self defense. People don't think or react like that in real life. Most people would swear they act the same in every situation and its just not true. Once the guy made that the main point it was easy to convince (at least for the moment) most people. This works because of our instinctually need to appear congruent in our thinking to other people. If you watch the levels of stress he caused in some people you would see they were struggling to remain congruent instead of thinking rationally. The guy is a trickster because he is well versed in the human mind. I laughed at what he did to the Nazi guy. He made him look like he was stupid but that same question gets most people because of how the brain works.

 

[beagle9]

I know for sure a few of them realized they were being manipulated. He actually turned off two of them and they just wanted him out of their face. The other ones were either too dumb or they saw something in what he was saying that rang true to them. Most people have no defense for what he did unless they realize how he did it and the reason it works. The questions were in classic order to elicit a yes response. Once you get 2 or 3 responses of "yes" then you pop the real question. Most people feel they have to agree or the person asking the question might think they are stupid. Classic

Auhh, but one thing you seem to be disregarding, and that is no matter how the questions were given, and in what order they were given in, the rational is still the same in those questions (never changes), so if you are one with good reasoning and good character, then a trickster in which you regard this man to be, and that lays within this man's character according to you, should have never gotten through in these ways, but if you are one that is weak and hiding something in your life or you have been living a lie most of your life, then you will fail under these circumstances badly. The ones who were strong in character, and were strong in their reasoning (passed) with flying colors, but the ones who failed needed help in their lives be it by experience or by furthering their education, especially the one with the Mohawk and tattoo's (i.e. the skinhead). Now the two girls painted silver were cool for whom had those hats on, as I liked them because they seemed to be of good character as they were being tested, and therefore they wrestled with the questions in a calm cool and rational manor, and they appeared that they had a big ole heart that just steered them in the right directions in which one could easily tell about them, so I gave them a passing grade. The old man who answered with a direct no non-sense attitude, and who had lost so much during the time period he was asked about was interesting, and especially while being asked about the man in which he loathed so much (Hitler), who was the direct culprit in his mind and truth known, passed with flying colors because he could not be fooled or tricked, and actually I thought that he would be a very interesting man to sit down with in order to learn about the past in which he was a part of as well.

Undoubtedly there was some rational used in the sentencing of Castro in concerns of the aborted baby, and it was the right rational used, and the correct sentencing in which he had gotten. The old man talked about in the video would have been a tougher judge on Castro wouldn't you think?

Thats what gets a lot of people. The rationale was not the same at all. People prefer to think they have a blanket code of ethics or morals but they don't. Humans are not wired that way. The main rationale he used while preying on peoples belief in God was "thou shall not kill". There is no room for ambiguity in that. You should not kill even in self defense. People don't think or react like that in real life. Most people would swear they act the same in every situation and its just not true. Once the guy made that the main point it was easy to convince (at least for the moment) most people. This works because of our instinctually need to appear congruent in our thinking to other people. If you watch the levels of stress he caused in some people you would see they were struggling to remain congruent instead of thinking rationally. The guy is a trickster because he is well versed in the human mind. I laughed at what he did to the Nazi guy. He made him look like he was stupid but that same question gets most people because of how the brain works.

You choose to interject in bold or to add such as you have added above, but he didn't ever suggest this in his questioning, but only that he made comparisons in certain ways on the differences between one subject/thing and the other, and then he wanted to know what those differences could be or were as according to those in which he was asking such of, then he freely as it always should be let those people decide or answer for themselves, even seeing them changing some of their own views on the things in which he did the comparisons on. Interesting.

It goes on in college class rooms all the time, but it's ok I guess to go on there, just as long as it is done in the proper forum or format in which to gain an accepted response on by those who are conducting themselves in these ways in the class room, but out on the street I guess it is a big no, no according to those whom think that some things can only be done in certain structured settings or environments, and not on the fly as they cannot understand when this happens or rather they see it as a huge threat to what they have learned themselves or have been taught in a structured and more strict environment or in which they were teaching in a more strict and structured environment.

Some answered wisely, while others answered the best they knew how, and others were just pure idiots when trying to answer these simple morally based questions, along with the comparisons that were being made in them.

What's wrong with being well versed in the human mind, does that make a person a trickster because of ? I think it all depends upon the way it is used when well versed in the human mind, and if it is used in this decent way, in which it is for good, but if used in another way, it could be for bad, and we have had a lot of that in which creates the responses that some had given in which were bad.

 

[Asclepias]

Auhh, but one thing you seem to be disregarding, and that is no matter how the questions were given, and in what order they were given in, the rational is still the same in those questions (never changes), so if you are one with good reasoning and good character, then a trickster in which you regard this man to be, and that lays within this man's character according to you, should have never gotten through in these ways, but if you are one that is weak and hiding something in your life or you have been living a lie most of your life, then you will fail under these circumstances badly. The ones who were strong in character, and were strong in their reasoning (passed) with flying colors, but the ones who failed needed help in their lives be it by experience or by furthering their education, especially the one with the Mohawk and tattoo's (i.e. the skinhead). Now the two girls painted silver were cool for whom had those hats on, as I liked them because they seemed to be of good character as they were being tested, and therefore they wrestled with the questions in a calm cool and rational manor, and they appeared that they had a big ole heart that just steered them in the right directions in which one could easily tell about them, so I gave them a passing grade. The old man who answered with a direct no non-sense attitude, and who had lost so much during the time period he was asked about was interesting, and especially while being asked about the man in which he loathed so much (Hitler), who was the direct culprit in his mind and truth known, passed with flying colors because he could not be fooled or tricked, and actually I thought that he would be a very interesting man to sit down with in order to learn about the past in which he was a part of as well.

Undoubtedly there was some rational used in the sentencing of Castro in concerns of the aborted baby, and it was the right rational used, and the correct sentencing in which he had gotten. The old man talked about in the video would have been a tougher judge on Castro wouldn't you think?

Thats what gets a lot of people. The rationale was not the same at all. People prefer to think they have a blanket code of ethics or morals but they don't. Humans are not wired that way. The main rationale he used while preying on peoples belief in God was "thou shall not kill". There is no room for ambiguity in that. You should not kill even in self defense. People don't think or react like that in real life. Most people would swear they act the same in every situation and its just not true. Once the guy made that the main point it was easy to convince (at least for the moment) most people. This works because of our instinctually need to appear congruent in our thinking to other people. If you watch the levels of stress he caused in some people you would see they were struggling to remain congruent instead of thinking rationally. The guy is a trickster because he is well versed in the human mind. I laughed at what he did to the Nazi guy. He made him look like he was stupid but that same question gets most people because of how the brain works.

You choose to interject in bold or to add such as you have added above, but he didn't ever suggest this in his questioning, but only that he made comparisons in certain ways on the differences between one subject/thing and the other, and then he wanted to know what those differences could be or were as according to those in which he was asking such of, then he freely as it always should be let those people decide or answer for themselves, even seeing them changing some of their own views on the things in which he did the comparisons on. Interesting.

It goes on in college class rooms all the time, but it's ok I guess to go on there, just as long as it is done in the proper forum or format in which to gain an accepted response on by those who are conducting themselves in these ways in the class room, but out on the street I guess it is a big no, no according to those whom think that some things can only be done in certain structured settings or environments, and not on the fly as they cannot understand when this happens or rather they see it as a huge threat to what they have learned themselves or have been taught in a structured and more strict environment or in which they were teaching in a more strict and structured environment.

Some answered wisely, while others answered the best they knew how, and others were just pure idiots when trying to answer these simple morally based questions, along with the comparisons that were being made in them.

What's wrong with being well versed in the human mind, does that make a person a trickster because of ? I think it all depends upon the way it is used when well versed in the human mind, and if it is used in this decent way, in which it is for good, but if used in another way, it could be for bad, and we have had a lot of that in which creates the responses that some had given in which were bad.

Did I interject or is that not what "thou shall not kill" means? Its implicit that it means "not at all" especially when your mind then goes to "turn the other cheek". He definitely suggested it if you remember the questions regarding taking out hitlers mother. I agree it was very interesting especially because of what I do. I dont think it is wrong to be well versed in the human mind at all. I think it is a great plus for anyone with honorable intentions. However, he used it to try and steer people to a conclusion he wanted for political purposes. To use the element of religion was unsavory. That to me was not an honorable use of the skill nor in the long run will it be effective. Most if not all are going to find a justification to keep their original opinions.

 

[beagle9]

Thats what gets a lot of people. The rationale was not the same at all. People prefer to think they have a blanket code of ethics or morals but they don't. Humans are not wired that way. The main rationale he used while preying on peoples belief in God was "thou shall not kill". There is no room for ambiguity in that. You should not kill even in self defense. People don't think or react like that in real life. Most people would swear they act the same in every situation and its just not true. Once the guy made that the main point it was easy to convince (at least for the moment) most people. This works because of our instinctually need to appear congruent in our thinking to other people. If you watch the levels of stress he caused in some people you would see they were struggling to remain congruent instead of thinking rationally. The guy is a trickster because he is well versed in the human mind. I laughed at what he did to the Nazi guy. He made him look like he was stupid but that same question gets most people because of how the brain works.

You choose to interject in bold or to add such as you have added above, but he didn't ever suggest this in his questioning, but only that he made comparisons in certain ways on the differences between one subject/thing and the other, and then he wanted to know what those differences could be or were as according to those in which he was asking such of, then he freely as it always should be let those people decide or answer for themselves, even seeing them changing some of their own views on the things in which he did the comparisons on. Interesting.

It goes on in college class rooms all the time, but it's ok I guess to go on there, just as long as it is done in the proper forum or format in which to gain an accepted response on by those who are conducting themselves in these ways in the class room, but out on the street I guess it is a big no, no according to those whom think that some things can only be done in certain structured settings or environments, and not on the fly as they cannot understand when this happens or rather they see it as a huge threat to what they have learned themselves or have been taught in a structured and more strict environment or in which they were teaching in a more strict and structured environment.

Some answered wisely, while others answered the best they knew how, and others were just pure idiots when trying to answer these simple morally based questions, along with the comparisons that were being made in them.

What's wrong with being well versed in the human mind, does that make a person a trickster because of ? I think it all depends upon the way it is used when well versed in the human mind, and if it is used in this decent way, in which it is for good, but if used in another way, it could be for bad, and we have had a lot of that in which creates the responses that some had given in which were bad.

Did I interject or is that not what "thou shall not kill" means? Its implicit that it means "not at all" especially when your mind then goes to "turn the other cheek". He definitely suggested it if you remember the questions regarding taking out hitlers mother. I agree it was very interesting especially because of what I do. I dont think it is wrong to be well versed in the human mind at all. I think it is a great plus for anyone with honorable intentions. However, he used it to try and steer people to a conclusion he wanted for political purposes. To use the element of religion was unsavory. That to me was not an honorable use of the skill nor in the long run will it be effective. Most if not all are going to find a justification to keep their original opinions.

Of course you agree that we are smart enough to know what
"thou shall not kill" means in the fullness of it's definition right, as it was written with lead way of course, and this we also learn if one reads on in the Bible about the stipulations or rules of engagement that are involved if having to do the opposite of what the written commandment said or as it had been spoken to us upon that stone in which was carved out so many centuries ago. It all goes along within the context in which it was spoken to us upon when it was written, in so that we all know what its full meaning is of course, yet only after a complete study is done on it's complete meaning do we truly understand what it's complete meaning is that is found within the contextual sense of the phrase as we should all learn it to be, and should know it to be in the contextual sense that it is to be applied after reading further on in the book in order to understand it all as such in this way.

Now if you read this of course to mean "thou shalt not kill" anything, if your life or your families life and/or if human life in general is not in danger of being killed or threatened at all to be killed in and of itself, then you are right, because these things that were written are based upon that fact or context in which it is applied in this way, but of course it all comes with the footnotes in which one has to read on in debt in order to know what the stipulations and/or the rules of engagement are beyond the commandment as was written, and this study is necessary if having to apply the opposite of what the commandment says to some within the literal sense they see it in, in which they try and hold it to without waver in which it was written upon that stone/talent for us within their understanding of it as to abide by in the literal sense, but without the educational sense in which it has with it upon further study of the commandment they fail in this thinking, and therefore it had commanded us of course to not kill if at all possible, but in some cases if we must kill, then the rules must be applied in which the Bibles reads to us also, and this in such cases that we might find ourselves involved in, and yet hopefully never will we be involved in that moves us beyond what the commandment speaks to us in the literal sense, and if we do have to go beyond it, then we must abide by the rules in which are laid out in many areas of the Bible, and is attached to the many stories and instances where such a rule was changed temporarily when it had to be, and all because of the evil in which abides by no rules at all that of course gives us the lead way in which is written also about in the text, and that leads us out of the of the path of pure evil taken us out, instead of us protecting ourselves as it should be, and in which God had given us the written authority to do if we so have to in special circumstances and cases in which may rise up against us.

Violating the commandments with no good reason, thus making us murderous and sinful in the act of killing ,has a fine line in which we are to abide by once understanding this sort of thing as is read.

The act of turning the cheek as it is spoken about, has many parable meanings in life, but if an act against you is meant to take your life, then self defense as is allowed, as is also found within the Bible, and it should be adequately applied by the understanding of the rules of engagement that is laid out for you also in the Bible.

 

[Asclepias]

You choose to interject in bold or to add such as you have added above, but he didn't ever suggest this in his questioning, but only that he made comparisons in certain ways on the differences between one subject/thing and the other, and then he wanted to know what those differences could be or were as according to those in which he was asking such of, then he freely as it always should be let those people decide or answer for themselves, even seeing them changing some of their own views on the things in which he did the comparisons on. Interesting.

It goes on in college class rooms all the time, but it's ok I guess to go on there, just as long as it is done in the proper forum or format in which to gain an accepted response on by those who are conducting themselves in these ways in the class room, but out on the street I guess it is a big no, no according to those whom think that some things can only be done in certain structured settings or environments, and not on the fly as they cannot understand when this happens or rather they see it as a huge threat to what they have learned themselves or have been taught in a structured and more strict environment or in which they were teaching in a more strict and structured environment.

Some answered wisely, while others answered the best they knew how, and others were just pure idiots when trying to answer these simple morally based questions, along with the comparisons that were being made in them.

What's wrong with being well versed in the human mind, does that make a person a trickster because of ? I think it all depends upon the way it is used when well versed in the human mind, and if it is used in this decent way, in which it is for good, but if used in another way, it could be for bad, and we have had a lot of that in which creates the responses that some had given in which were bad.

Did I interject or is that not what "thou shall not kill" means? Its implicit that it means "not at all" especially when your mind then goes to "turn the other cheek". He definitely suggested it if you remember the questions regarding taking out hitlers mother. I agree it was very interesting especially because of what I do. I dont think it is wrong to be well versed in the human mind at all. I think it is a great plus for anyone with honorable intentions. However, he used it to try and steer people to a conclusion he wanted for political purposes. To use the element of religion was unsavory. That to me was not an honorable use of the skill nor in the long run will it be effective. Most if not all are going to find a justification to keep their original opinions.

Of course you agree that we are smart enough to know what
"thou shall not kill" means in the fullness of it's definition right, as it was written with lead way of course, and this we also learn if one reads on in the Bible about the stipulations or rules of engagement that are involved if having to do the opposite of what the written commandment said or as it had been spoken to us upon that stone in which was carved out so many centuries ago. It all goes along within the context in which it was spoken to us upon when it was written, in so that we all know what its full meaning is of course, yet only after a complete study is done on it's complete meaning do we truly understand what it's complete meaning is that is found within the contextual sense of the phrase as we should all learn it to be, and should know it to be in the contextual sense that it is to be applied after reading further on in the book in order to understand it all as such in this way.

Now if you read this of course to mean "thou shalt not kill" anything, if your life or your families life and/or if human life in general is not in danger of being killed or threatened at all to be killed in and of itself, then you are right, because these things that were written are based upon that fact or context in which it is applied in this way, but of course it all comes with the footnotes in which one has to read on in debt in order to know what the stipulations and/or the rules of engagement are beyond the commandment as was written, and this study is necessary if having to apply the opposite of what the commandment says to some within the literal sense they see it in, in which they try and hold it to without waver in which it was written upon that stone/talent for us within their understanding of it as to abide by in the literal sense, but without the educational sense in which it has with it upon further study of the commandment they fail in this thinking, and therefore it had commanded us of course to not kill if at all possible, but in some cases if we must kill, then the rules must be applied in which the Bibles reads to us also, and this in such cases that we might find ourselves involved in, and yet hopefully never will we be involved in that moves us beyond what the commandment speaks to us in the literal sense, and if we do have to go beyond it, then we must abide by the rules in which are laid out in many areas of the Bible, and is attached to the many stories and instances where such a rule was changed temporarily when it had to be, and all because of the evil in which abides by no rules at all that of course gives us the lead way in which is written also about in the text, and that leads us out of the of the path of pure evil taken us out, instead of us protecting ourselves as it should be, and in which God had given us the written authority to do if we so have to in special circumstances and cases in which may rise up against us.

Violating the commandments with no good reason, thus making us murderous and sinful in the act of killing ,has a fine line in which we are to abide by once understanding this sort of thing as is read.

The act of turning the cheek as it is spoken about, has many parable meanings in life, but if an act against you is meant to take your life, then self defense as is allowed, as is also found within the Bible, and it should be adequately applied by the understanding of the rules of engagement that is laid out for you also in the Bible.

I have to disagree with you there. I for one was not aware that in the Bible there are exceptions to killing. So no I would not be considered "smart" enough nor do I believe the majority of people know this. Every single person I have ever discussed this with thought as I did. I'm always down to learn new things. Can you provide some guidance or suggest some places to look for this information. Thanks for bringing that up.

 

[beagle9]

Did I interject or is that not what "thou shall not kill" means? Its implicit that it means "not at all" especially when your mind then goes to "turn the other cheek". He definitely suggested it if you remember the questions regarding taking out hitlers mother. I agree it was very interesting especially because of what I do. I dont think it is wrong to be well versed in the human mind at all. I think it is a great plus for anyone with honorable intentions. However, he used it to try and steer people to a conclusion he wanted for political purposes. To use the element of religion was unsavory. That to me was not an honorable use of the skill nor in the long run will it be effective. Most if not all are going to find a justification to keep their original opinions.

Of course you agree that we are smart enough to know what
"thou shall not kill" means in the fullness of it's definition right, as it was written with lead way of course, and this we also learn if one reads on in the Bible about the stipulations or rules of engagement that are involved if having to do the opposite of what the written commandment said or as it had been spoken to us upon that stone in which was carved out so many centuries ago. It all goes along within the context in which it was spoken to us upon when it was written, in so that we all know what its full meaning is of course, yet only after a complete study is done on it's complete meaning do we truly understand what it's complete meaning is that is found within the contextual sense of the phrase as we should all learn it to be, and should know it to be in the contextual sense that it is to be applied after reading further on in the book in order to understand it all as such in this way.

Now if you read this of course to mean "thou shalt not kill" anything, if your life or your families life and/or if human life in general is not in danger of being killed or threatened at all to be killed in and of itself, then you are right, because these things that were written are based upon that fact or context in which it is applied in this way, but of course it all comes with the footnotes in which one has to read on in debt in order to know what the stipulations and/or the rules of engagement are beyond the commandment as was written, and this study is necessary if having to apply the opposite of what the commandment says to some within the literal sense they see it in, in which they try and hold it to without waver in which it was written upon that stone/talent for us within their understanding of it as to abide by in the literal sense, but without the educational sense in which it has with it upon further study of the commandment they fail in this thinking, and therefore it had commanded us of course to not kill if at all possible, but in some cases if we must kill, then the rules must be applied in which the Bibles reads to us also, and this in such cases that we might find ourselves involved in, and yet hopefully never will we be involved in that moves us beyond what the commandment speaks to us in the literal sense, and if we do have to go beyond it, then we must abide by the rules in which are laid out in many areas of the Bible, and is attached to the many stories and instances where such a rule was changed temporarily when it had to be, and all because of the evil in which abides by no rules at all that of course gives us the lead way in which is written also about in the text, and that leads us out of the of the path of pure evil taken us out, instead of us protecting ourselves as it should be, and in which God had given us the written authority to do if we so have to in special circumstances and cases in which may rise up against us.

Violating the commandments with no good reason, thus making us murderous and sinful in the act of killing ,has a fine line in which we are to abide by once understanding this sort of thing as is read.

The act of turning the cheek as it is spoken about, has many parable meanings in life, but if an act against you is meant to take your life, then self defense as is allowed, as is also found within the Bible, and it should be adequately applied by the understanding of the rules of engagement that is laid out for you also in the Bible.

I have to disagree with you there. I for one was not aware that in the Bible there are exceptions to killing. So no I would not be considered "smart" enough nor do I believe the majority of people know this. Every single person I have ever discussed this with thought as I did. I'm always down to learn new things. Can you provide some guidance or suggest some places to look for this information. Thanks for bringing that up.

The guidance is all throughout the Bible, where as you are to interpret it all in a moral context the stories where one was sadly forced to kill another in self defense and/or to be killed thus leaving the evil one who wanted the good person dead living instead, and if that happened then evil would therefore reign supreme upon the earth. Evil does not reign supreme upon this earth, and that is only because we had taken the measures needed in which to re-enforce that good reign supreme upon the earth instead of evil, and the only way we know how to do this is by what we have been learned through out time, and we have used within the context of our learning as is found through out the Bible as a guideline unto us.

In some cases it was so bad in places, that God actually had stood beside the armies in order that they defeat the evilness that which sought to reign supreme in the areas in which we read about in the Bible or in present time. Another example here in our times, was with the Nazi's and their attempt to reign supreme during their short run in time, at least until they were destroyed by good in which had allied themselves together for the purpose of good, in order to destroy that which was evil during that time period. Now we have a responsibility to not fall into the trap in which the Germans had fallen into, where as they began believing and following an evil leader unto their total detriment in the situation, and more than that, we have an obligation to up hold ourselves in a way in which justifies what we had done in order to liberate the people from what the German military at the time was doing to so many people, so if we begin sliding down into the pit also, then we are no better than that what we had fought against, so it is that I see that we have an obligation to not become evil in the least, or we will become the ultimate hypocrites for doing what we did against the Germans in the war, and that is absolutely unacceptable. This has placed a huge responsibility on us as Americans in the world, so it is that we must hold ourselves to the up most moral standards as best that we can in life or be accused by the ones in which we had defeated as evil, to therefore be considered now by them as us being unjustified for what we had done in the fight against them if we are also just as evil as they were, but only better at hiding it these days. Now this is not a slam against the German people of today, because I feel that they have broken the chain which had bind them, and they are surely a better people today than they were under Nazi leadership, but in war many terrible things happen, and many people realize that they never want those things to happen again, but if not for the killing involved, there is a chance that evil would reign supreme upon the earth, and that wasn't going to happen in that time so we did what we had to do.

I think the old man would have wanted those brothers heads on a platter with Castro's don't you ? If they are innocent, then it is not good for man with those kind of convictions to be a judge over the case, as his emotions would have gotten the best of him, but it is hard to believe that the brothers didn't know what that scumbag from hell was doing for several years.

 

[Asclepias]

Of course you agree that we are smart enough to know what
"thou shall not kill" means in the fullness of it's definition right, as it was written with lead way of course, and this we also learn if one reads on in the Bible about the stipulations or rules of engagement that are involved if having to do the opposite of what the written commandment said or as it had been spoken to us upon that stone in which was carved out so many centuries ago. It all goes along within the context in which it was spoken to us upon when it was written, in so that we all know what its full meaning is of course, yet only after a complete study is done on it's complete meaning do we truly understand what it's complete meaning is that is found within the contextual sense of the phrase as we should all learn it to be, and should know it to be in the contextual sense that it is to be applied after reading further on in the book in order to understand it all as such in this way.

Now if you read this of course to mean "thou shalt not kill" anything, if your life or your families life and/or if human life in general is not in danger of being killed or threatened at all to be killed in and of itself, then you are right, because these things that were written are based upon that fact or context in which it is applied in this way, but of course it all comes with the footnotes in which one has to read on in debt in order to know what the stipulations and/or the rules of engagement are beyond the commandment as was written, and this study is necessary if having to apply the opposite of what the commandment says to some within the literal sense they see it in, in which they try and hold it to without waver in which it was written upon that stone/talent for us within their understanding of it as to abide by in the literal sense, but without the educational sense in which it has with it upon further study of the commandment they fail in this thinking, and therefore it had commanded us of course to not kill if at all possible, but in some cases if we must kill, then the rules must be applied in which the Bibles reads to us also, and this in such cases that we might find ourselves involved in, and yet hopefully never will we be involved in that moves us beyond what the commandment speaks to us in the literal sense, and if we do have to go beyond it, then we must abide by the rules in which are laid out in many areas of the Bible, and is attached to the many stories and instances where such a rule was changed temporarily when it had to be, and all because of the evil in which abides by no rules at all that of course gives us the lead way in which is written also about in the text, and that leads us out of the of the path of pure evil taken us out, instead of us protecting ourselves as it should be, and in which God had given us the written authority to do if we so have to in special circumstances and cases in which may rise up against us.

Violating the commandments with no good reason, thus making us murderous and sinful in the act of killing ,has a fine line in which we are to abide by once understanding this sort of thing as is read.

The act of turning the cheek as it is spoken about, has many parable meanings in life, but if an act against you is meant to take your life, then self defense as is allowed, as is also found within the Bible, and it should be adequately applied by the understanding of the rules of engagement that is laid out for you also in the Bible.

I have to disagree with you there. I for one was not aware that in the Bible there are exceptions to killing. So no I would not be considered "smart" enough nor do I believe the majority of people know this. Every single person I have ever discussed this with thought as I did. I'm always down to learn new things. Can you provide some guidance or suggest some places to look for this information. Thanks for bringing that up.

The guidance is all throughout the Bible, where as you are to interpret it all in a moral context the stories where one was sadly forced to kill another in self defense and/or to be killed thus leaving the evil one who wanted the good person dead living instead, and if that happened then evil would therefore reign supreme upon the earth. Evil does not reign supreme upon this earth, and that is only because we had taken the measures needed in which to re-enforce that good reign supreme upon the earth instead of evil, and the only way we know how to do this is by what we have been learned through out time, and we have used within the context of our learning as is found through out the Bible as a guideline unto us.

In some cases it was so bad in places, that God actually had stood beside the armies in order that they defeat the evilness that which sought to reign supreme in the areas in which we read about in the Bible or in present time. Another example here in our times, was with the Nazi's and their attempt to reign supreme during their short run in time, at least until they were destroyed by good in which had allied themselves together for the purpose of good, in order to destroy that which was evil during that time period. Now we have a responsibility to not fall into the trap in which the Germans had fallen into, where as they began believing and following an evil leader unto their total detriment in the situation, and more than that, we have an obligation to up hold ourselves in a way in which justifies what we had done in order to liberate the people from what the German military at the time was doing to so many people, so if we begin sliding down into the pit also, then we are no better than that what we had fought against, so it is that I see that we have an obligation to not become evil in the least, or we will become the ultimate hypocrites for doing what we did against the Germans in the war, and that is absolutely unacceptable. This has placed a huge responsibility on us as Americans in the world, so it is that we must hold ourselves to the up most moral standards as best that we can in life or be accused by the ones in which we had defeated as evil, to therefore be considered now by them as us being unjustified for what we had done in the fight against them if we are also just as evil as they were, but only better at hiding it these days. Now this is not a slam against the German people of today, because I feel that they have broken the chain which had bind them, and they are surely a better people today than they were under Nazi leadership, but in war many terrible things happen, and many people realize that they never want those things to happen again, but if not for the killing involved, there is a chance that evil would reign supreme upon the earth, and that wasn't going to happen in that time so we did what we had to do.

I think the old man would have wanted those brothers heads on a platter with Castro's don't you ? If they are innocent, then it is not good for man with those kind of convictions to be a judge over the case, as his emotions would have gotten the best of him, but it is hard to believe that the brothers didn't know what that scumbag from hell was doing for several years.

Now that you mention it I do remember reading some of those incidents in the Bible. My only problem with the Bible is that it frequently contradicts itself. To me that shouts of human influence and or interpretation. The Bible is full of wisdom but I do doubt it is actually the writings of people inspired directly by God. For example. Why in some cases was there no need for an actual war? God just struck people blind on the "bad" side or something like that and in other instances the "good" side took heavy casualties. Then that raises the question of wars we lost like the Vietnam war. Were we evil or wrong in that war?

i agree that the older gentleman would have probably wanted the whole Castro family offed. Seems from his statements he thinks evil is something transmitted via genes. I orginally thought the brothers were aware of what was going on but the victims have not stated anything to support that. Seems at least 2 of them were fighters and would not have failed to mention it.

 

[beagle9]

I have to disagree with you there. I for one was not aware that in the Bible there are exceptions to killing. So no I would not be considered "smart" enough nor do I believe the majority of people know this. Every single person I have ever discussed this with thought as I did. I'm always down to learn new things. Can you provide some guidance or suggest some places to look for this information. Thanks for bringing that up.

The guidance is all throughout the Bible, where as you are to interpret it all in a moral context the stories where one was sadly forced to kill another in self defense and/or to be killed thus leaving the evil one who wanted the good person dead living instead, and if that happened then evil would therefore reign supreme upon the earth. Evil does not reign supreme upon this earth, and that is only because we had taken the measures needed in which to re-enforce that good reign supreme upon the earth instead of evil, and the only way we know how to do this is by what we have been learned through out time, and we have used within the context of our learning as is found through out the Bible as a guideline unto us.

In some cases it was so bad in places, that God actually had stood beside the armies in order that they defeat the evilness that which sought to reign supreme in the areas in which we read about in the Bible or in present time. Another example here in our times, was with the Nazi's and their attempt to reign supreme during their short run in time, at least until they were destroyed by good in which had allied themselves together for the purpose of good, in order to destroy that which was evil during that time period. Now we have a responsibility to not fall into the trap in which the Germans had fallen into, where as they began believing and following an evil leader unto their total detriment in the situation, and more than that, we have an obligation to up hold ourselves in a way in which justifies what we had done in order to liberate the people from what the German military at the time was doing to so many people, so if we begin sliding down into the pit also, then we are no better than that what we had fought against, so it is that I see that we have an obligation to not become evil in the least, or we will become the ultimate hypocrites for doing what we did against the Germans in the war, and that is absolutely unacceptable. This has placed a huge responsibility on us as Americans in the world, so it is that we must hold ourselves to the up most moral standards as best that we can in life or be accused by the ones in which we had defeated as evil, to therefore be considered now by them as us being unjustified for what we had done in the fight against them if we are also just as evil as they were, but only better at hiding it these days. Now this is not a slam against the German people of today, because I feel that they have broken the chain which had bind them, and they are surely a better people today than they were under Nazi leadership, but in war many terrible things happen, and many people realize that they never want those things to happen again, but if not for the killing involved, there is a chance that evil would reign supreme upon the earth, and that wasn't going to happen in that time so we did what we had to do.

I think the old man would have wanted those brothers heads on a platter with Castro's don't you ? If they are innocent, then it is not good for man with those kind of convictions to be a judge over the case, as his emotions would have gotten the best of him, but it is hard to believe that the brothers didn't know what that scumbag from hell was doing for several years.

Now that you mention it I do remember reading some of those incidents in the Bible. My only problem with the Bible is that it frequently contradicts itself. To me that shouts of human influence and or interpretation. The Bible is full of wisdom but I do doubt it is actually the writings of people inspired directly by God. For example. Why in some cases was there no need for an actual war? God just struck people blind on the "bad" side or something like that and in other instances the "good" side took heavy casualties. Then that raises the question of wars we lost like the Vietnam war. Were we evil or wrong in that war?

i agree that the older gentleman would have probably wanted the whole Castro family offed. Seems from his statements he thinks evil is something transmitted via genes. I orginally thought the brothers were aware of what was going on but the victims have not stated anything to support that. Seems at least 2 of them were fighters and would not have failed to mention it.

Agree on the Castro analogy, and we will have to read the Bible in a way that allows us to truly understand what God is thinking in all of this, but it has to be read with an open mind and not with a biased one, where as one attempts to read it in order to contradict it as well, but it is best to read it not looking for contradictions and such, but to read it in a friendly and sought after wisdom sort of way.

Yes man's writings are to be looked at as based upon his separate perspectives and interpretations of the events that were surrounding him, but if you read you will see that even though they were different, they still were climbing up on all sides of the same mountain, and they were reaching for the same goals in their writings and interpretations of, in order to explain how to reach the top for us also. They had written unto us for our understanding and interpretations of as well in which we are to find within these things, and either we interpret them with an open mind or become a slave to that of being closed minded, and that of being of one notion or having a one track thinking to be found within it all.

 

[Asclepias]

The guidance is all throughout the Bible, where as you are to interpret it all in a moral context the stories where one was sadly forced to kill another in self defense and/or to be killed thus leaving the evil one who wanted the good person dead living instead, and if that happened then evil would therefore reign supreme upon the earth. Evil does not reign supreme upon this earth, and that is only because we had taken the measures needed in which to re-enforce that good reign supreme upon the earth instead of evil, and the only way we know how to do this is by what we have been learned through out time, and we have used within the context of our learning as is found through out the Bible as a guideline unto us.

In some cases it was so bad in places, that God actually had stood beside the armies in order that they defeat the evilness that which sought to reign supreme in the areas in which we read about in the Bible or in present time. Another example here in our times, was with the Nazi's and their attempt to reign supreme during their short run in time, at least until they were destroyed by good in which had allied themselves together for the purpose of good, in order to destroy that which was evil during that time period. Now we have a responsibility to not fall into the trap in which the Germans had fallen into, where as they began believing and following an evil leader unto their total detriment in the situation, and more than that, we have an obligation to up hold ourselves in a way in which justifies what we had done in order to liberate the people from what the German military at the time was doing to so many people, so if we begin sliding down into the pit also, then we are no better than that what we had fought against, so it is that I see that we have an obligation to not become evil in the least, or we will become the ultimate hypocrites for doing what we did against the Germans in the war, and that is absolutely unacceptable. This has placed a huge responsibility on us as Americans in the world, so it is that we must hold ourselves to the up most moral standards as best that we can in life or be accused by the ones in which we had defeated as evil, to therefore be considered now by them as us being unjustified for what we had done in the fight against them if we are also just as evil as they were, but only better at hiding it these days. Now this is not a slam against the German people of today, because I feel that they have broken the chain which had bind them, and they are surely a better people today than they were under Nazi leadership, but in war many terrible things happen, and many people realize that they never want those things to happen again, but if not for the killing involved, there is a chance that evil would reign supreme upon the earth, and that wasn't going to happen in that time so we did what we had to do.

I think the old man would have wanted those brothers heads on a platter with Castro's don't you ? If they are innocent, then it is not good for man with those kind of convictions to be a judge over the case, as his emotions would have gotten the best of him, but it is hard to believe that the brothers didn't know what that scumbag from hell was doing for several years.

Now that you mention it I do remember reading some of those incidents in the Bible. My only problem with the Bible is that it frequently contradicts itself. To me that shouts of human influence and or interpretation. The Bible is full of wisdom but I do doubt it is actually the writings of people inspired directly by God. For example. Why in some cases was there no need for an actual war? God just struck people blind on the "bad" side or something like that and in other instances the "good" side took heavy casualties. Then that raises the question of wars we lost like the Vietnam war. Were we evil or wrong in that war?

i agree that the older gentleman would have probably wanted the whole Castro family offed. Seems from his statements he thinks evil is something transmitted via genes. I orginally thought the brothers were aware of what was going on but the victims have not stated anything to support that. Seems at least 2 of them were fighters and would not have failed to mention it.

Agree on the Castro analogy, and we will have to read the Bible in a way that allows us to truly understand what God is thinking in all of this, but it has to be read with an open mind and not with a biased one, where as one attempts to read it in order to contradict it as well, but it is best to read it not looking for contradictions and such, but to read it in a friendly and sought after wisdom sort of way.

Yes man's writings are to be looked at as based upon his separate perspectives and interpretations of the events that were surrounding him, but if you read you will see that even though they were different, they still were climbing up on all sides of the same mountain, and they were reaching for the same goals in their writings and interpretations of, in order to explain how to reach the top for us also. They had written unto us for our understanding and interpretations of as well in which we are to find within these things, and either we interpret them with an open mind or become a slave to that of being closed minded, and that of being of one notion or having a one track thinking to be found within it all.

You have some great points and I thoroughly enjoyed this. Too bad people cant do this more often instead of insulting each other.

 

[The Rabbi]

From the dictionary

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Everything else is just your backwards, misogynic opinion.

So the Holocaust was not murder. Got it.

I ran across a quote someone attributed to you in another thread. Did you really say too many people go to college? Kinda lets me know what type of logic I'm dealing with talking to you.

Translation: I'm really stupid and ill informed and out of my depth.

Yes, too many people go to college. That is a truth. Go read a book called Real Education by Charles Murray. Of course that book will make your head explode so you'll probably just ignore it or make some snide comment about Republicans.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats what gets a lot of people. The rationale was not the same at all. People prefer to think they have a blanket code of ethics or morals but they don't. Humans are not wired that way. The main rationale he used while preying on peoples belief in God was "thou shall not kill". There is no room for ambiguity in that. You should not kill even in self defense. People don't think or react like that in real life. Most people would swear they act the same in every situation and its just not true. Once the guy made that the main point it was easy to convince (at least for the moment) most people. This works because of our instinctually need to appear congruent in our thinking to other people. If you watch the levels of stress he caused in some people you would see they were struggling to remain congruent instead of thinking rationally. The guy is a trickster because he is well versed in the human mind. I laughed at what he did to the Nazi guy. He made him look like he was stupid but that same question gets most people because of how the brain works.

You choose to interject in bold or to add such as you have added above, but he didn't ever suggest this in his questioning, but only that he made comparisons in certain ways on the differences between one subject/thing and the other, and then he wanted to know what those differences could be or were as according to those in which he was asking such of, then he freely as it always should be let those people decide or answer for themselves, even seeing them changing some of their own views on the things in which he did the comparisons on. Interesting.

It goes on in college class rooms all the time, but it's ok I guess to go on there, just as long as it is done in the proper forum or format in which to gain an accepted response on by those who are conducting themselves in these ways in the class room, but out on the street I guess it is a big no, no according to those whom think that some things can only be done in certain structured settings or environments, and not on the fly as they cannot understand when this happens or rather they see it as a huge threat to what they have learned themselves or have been taught in a structured and more strict environment or in which they were teaching in a more strict and structured environment.

Some answered wisely, while others answered the best they knew how, and others were just pure idiots when trying to answer these simple morally based questions, along with the comparisons that were being made in them.

What's wrong with being well versed in the human mind, does that make a person a trickster because of ? I think it all depends upon the way it is used when well versed in the human mind, and if it is used in this decent way, in which it is for good, but if used in another way, it could be for bad, and we have had a lot of that in which creates the responses that some had given in which were bad.

Did I interject or is that not what "thou shall not kill" means? Its implicit that it means "not at all" especially when your mind then goes to "turn the other cheek". He definitely suggested it if you remember the questions regarding taking out hitlers mother. I agree it was very interesting especially because of what I do. I dont think it is wrong to be well versed in the human mind at all. I think it is a great plus for anyone with honorable intentions. However, he used it to try and steer people to a conclusion he wanted for political purposes. To use the element of religion was unsavory. That to me was not an honorable use of the skill nor in the long run will it be effective. Most if not all are going to find a justification to keep their original opinions.

Geezus, we could fuel a small city just with the methane gas from that bullshit.

 

[Asclepias]

So the Holocaust was not murder. Got it.

I ran across a quote someone attributed to you in another thread. Did you really say too many people go to college? Kinda lets me know what type of logic I'm dealing with talking to you.

Translation: I'm really stupid and ill informed and out of my depth.

Yes, too many people go to college. That is a truth. Go read a book called Real Education by Charles Murray. Of course that book will make your head explode so you'll probably just ignore it or make some snide comment about Republicans.

Is that the limit of your intelligence? Can you carry on a conversation with someone that disagrees with you without resorting to name calling like a child? Its OK if you cant but you look sort of stupid. "Too many people go to college" needs to have a qualifier. I dont need to read a book on it just yet. Why would you say something like that?

 

[The Rabbi]

I ran across a quote someone attributed to you in another thread. Did you really say too many people go to college? Kinda lets me know what type of logic I'm dealing with talking to you.

Translation: I'm really stupid and ill informed and out of my depth.

Yes, too many people go to college. That is a truth. Go read a book called Real Education by Charles Murray. Of course that book will make your head explode so you'll probably just ignore it or make some snide comment about Republicans.

Is that the limit of your intelligence? Can you carry on a conversation with someone that disagrees with you without resorting to name calling like a child? Its OK if you cant but you look sort of stupid. "Too many people go to college" needs to have a qualifier. I dont need to read a book on it just yet. Why would you say something like that?

You're such a gasbag. Every post drones on with the sound of your own brilliance.
Too many people go to college needs no qualifier. It is evident. If you dont want to read Murray's book where he lays out just why that is the case then I can't help you. Willful ignorance is the worst kind.