Of course, you do you. But, traditionally, in these situations people would just not read the comment and move on. They wouldn't announce to everyone that they won't be reading it because it's a weird thing to do. I mean, could you imagin everyone writing that under every comment they didn't read?
The wildness you used to get up to on the multilayer was on a new level. There was nothing like that before. On one level you were fighting back the orange hordes from the front pages, the next level you were fighting wealth hording dragons and ripping them off by playing them at their own game. On the last level they let you have freedom on, they were gearing up to try and kill a god. I mean, I don't know how far antiwork would have gone in the end but it seemed to have been estimated far enough that action had to be taken and the threat neutralised. We might well not have killed that particular God but I reckon we could've given them a bloody nose all the same.
Then they parted ways with the people who actually made the game good and what you ended up with is a shite, soulless over corporatised shell of what it was before, thats little more than the skins from a game you used to enjoy transposed into one that you don't.
I beleive the first would be an appeal to moderation fallacy. I mean, you're right in calling out the illogical BS. I'm just saying I think it's this particular flavour of illogical BS.
I'm sure you can see your way out of one just fine but favourite way to call out an appeal to moderation fallacy is to ask "if I said the sky was predominantly yellow and you, rightly, corrected me and said it was predominantly blue, would it be logical for a third person to conclude that the sky was green?"
Yeah, so equal to them is "well, if I'm not allowed to say that all trans people should be murdered, you're not allowed to say they shouldn't all be murdered!"
"Of course they would say that. Those Liberal, left wing universities, with their peer review, aren't to be trusted.
These hard-right think tanks (masquerading as anything other than a glorified PR firm they are) on the other hand are the definition of unbiased knowledge"
It really doesn't make a difference if you are or aren't and i presumed you were an atheist the whole time.
No one disputes the first part. However, you seem to have convinced yourself it proves your second part which it doesn't.
So, even after having to point out that you toon completely completely the wrong point over the business owners part, you double down, despite STILL literally giving yet more examples of what were all meant to be details specifically about people giving up their wealth for God.
Somehow you've literally taken away the exact opposite point from the one being made every single time and you're arguing my point, against yourself, better than I ever could.
Oh, I see, you are saying that. I forget how many people subscribe to supply side Jesus.
So, we can dismiss anything he is supposed to have said that disagrees with you but we can beleive the ones you believe agree with you? Thats an interesting take.
They gave their professions up to follow Jesus. So, its very in keeping with what I said and belied any idea that their former professions belied anything. That's very much you drawing back from where you wanted to end up and not the other way round.
Remember that "mammon" doesn't mean money. Had Jesus only meant money, when he said that, he would have used the Hebrew word for money or coins and not a completely different word. Even then, very few people had any contact with actual money back in those days and, of the few that did, they would only ever use them to pay taxes. So, telling people not to love something they didnt come into contact with and, even if they did, would hate their contact with it would have been a bit silly. So, he clearly could never have meant that.
Its bizzare that you go on about deliberate misrepresentations in the bible and missed one of the most egregious.
Mammon means wealth or profit above what you need to survive. "The love of profit is the root of all evil." "If you have 2 shirts, your second belongs to the man with no shirt."
Jesus was anti wealth and Christianity, according to what he is recorded to have actually said, is incompatible with capitalism.
Sorry, I'm really not sure of the point you're trying to make here.
I'm not saying the bible is historically accurate, beyond criticism, or that eye witness testimonies aren't problematic. Had I done so, the above would make a lot more sense.
All I'm saying is, of the records that exist, such as they are, he was very vocally anti-wealth. You're replying as though you're disagreeing with what I'm saying. However, you don't seem to refute anything that I've said.
Are you saying he is recorded as being vocally anti-wealth?
You gotta love the old "why vote for better oppression" argument, used despite their admission that one is in fact, considerably better. In this instance, we can literally quantify it as being 33% better.
Thats WHY they killed him. Cant have those "evil blood thirty terrorists" calling for peace now can they? That would ruin the optics of their special military operation or whatever they're calling their invasion of Lebanon.
It's mad that they have operatives so high up in Hezbollah that they can compromise the entirety of their means of communication in one stroke but couldn't use those same operatives and compromised lines of communication to see the October attacks coming.
Hopefully, mossad waited long enough before doing this that no one will think to try and reconcile the two.
You think thats bad, wait until you hear about the shareholders. They dont even have to pretend to work and they'll be paid far more for their lack of trouble. The shareholders have had well in excess of a 77% pay rise and, despite that, want even more.
Crazy right? I bet that's got you really annoyed, considering those are worse than the exact thing you were complaining about above....
I agree with everything but the fact that, of what is reported of Jesus, he was very anti-wealth, over and above what people need to get by and that a actual christianity is incompatible with capitalism.
To me, thats the part that certain types of "christians" need to be metaphorically slapped round the face with.
Of course, you do you. But, traditionally, in these situations people would just not read the comment and move on. They wouldn't announce to everyone that they won't be reading it because it's a weird thing to do. I mean, could you imagin everyone writing that under every comment they didn't read?
That would be a bit silly wouldn't it?