Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

Mr_Nyah

All Australian
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Posts
886
Likes
2,628
Location
Wentz Wagon
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Is calling someone a jesus freak villifying them?
You answered your own question in the post below, but yes it is. Calling someone a "Mohammed freak" would be considered vilification, so logically I don't see why calling someone a "Jesus freak" wouldn't be.

Your next post doesn't sit well with me either. Justifying vilification on the basis that someone 'deserved it' is a troubling precedent to set, especially because what constitutes 'deserving it' is entirely subjective.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ferball

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Posts
10,468
Likes
19,214
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The more you type about this its clear the less you actually know. Pretty much everything you just typed is incorrect.

There are even letters from the British crown demanding the recognition of indigenous legal rights that were ignored by NSW and other Colonial Governers at the time. Over 150 years old.
Also as an edit - How can you compare Rome v Carthage to the invasion of Australia? That's ludicrous. Then you accuse me of missing the point.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Posts
564
Likes
2,617
Location
under the stars
AFL Club
North Melbourne
One night there was a spider in the house (allegedly) I was asleep on the couch. She reckons she had to knock it off the shower in to a bucket and it went "Thunk" when it landed in there. Was so big it's legs were spanning the bucket. I never saw it - slept thru the whole thing. Lucky she didn't leave it on my chest for when I woke up.

I don't mind the ones in enclosures. Its the big grey ones that crawl round the house that are freaky. Leg spans as big as plates.
This thread is becoming too scary. I thought the eel head was bad enough, now we have the Roman Army and a giant spider called Sparkle Fangs.
Ferbs, you live in Kingdom of the Spiders, I know, but are "the big grey ones that crawl round the house" your wife's pets too? Like, are they all just kind of loose, like a pack of dogs?

I had a spider that lived in my ceiling light fixture above my stove once. I never saw him come out, but whenever you boiled water in a pot, he'd dangle his little legs out the edge of the fixture, and I could see his little spider face in there, looking out. His name was Patrick. I think he liked the steam baths. One day he just disappeared, stopped coming out, so I think he must have died in there. But I've never looked.

Do you think maybe Sparkle Fangs could open a Game Day thread?
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Posts
10,468
Likes
19,214
AFL Club
North Melbourne
You answered your own question in the post below, but yes it is. Calling someone a "Mohammed freak" would be considered vilification, so logically I don't see why calling someone a "Jesus freak" wouldn't be.

Your next post doesn't sit well with me either. Justifying vilification on the basis that someone 'deserved it' is a troubling precedent to set, especially because what constitutes 'deserving it' is entirely subjective.
Would it?

Perhaps if you added "so therefore they must be a fundy terrorist or child ******* wife beater" otherwise no it isn't.

Besides i was raised by catholics so i can put the boot into that stupid complex of religions and the campaigners that use it as an excuse for discrimination and hatred (in full actual defiance of what its sposed to be about according to the actual words of Jesus) whenever i feel like it.

If you want to claim some special relationship with god that leaves everyone else on the planet as damned to burn in a fire forever then be a complete hypocrite about it tough ****. I don't know jack **** about Islam compared to what i know about Christianity so i'll put the boot in whenever I like. Especially to pricks who go around gloating about people burning to death but being unable to die so it happens forever.

If you are gonna be a hypocrite about jebus then tough ****.

 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Posts
10,468
Likes
19,214
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It’s worth noting that the ancient writers did often exaggerate fielded numbers and losses on the field, even with Cannae.

Some people bemoan Hannibal for not attacking Rome, but he didn’t have the military strength for a prolonged siege. Scipio smacked the Carthagians in Spain and then again at Zama.

Strategically, it was a huge gamble to launch the war. The Romans had a lot of loyal allies in Italy, with the exception of the Italian Gauls/Celts. Plus, the Carthaginian military was smaller and less cohesive than the Roman military, the former being heavily reliant on Numidians and Merc’s.
They raised one of their largest if not the largest armies they had ever raised and as Val mentioned Cato went after them harder than ever as a result.

Whatever we might think with hindsight, Rome was scared (and probably was scarred/traumatised) from then on. It might seem that way now but would you have taken that chance or been that confident if you were a Roman senator with Hannibal running up and down the peninsula seemingly at will and beating your armies with seeming ease? I also think the reason Hannibal attacked so aggressively was the knowledge that Rome was more than capable of besieging Carthage and had much greater long term military resources. So a gamble but only in the sense that eventually Rome was gonna stomp Carthage anyway as the fight to dominate the Mediterranean so he's better off going hard at them.

As val mentioned Hannibal was tactically astute and he made a habit of attacking his enemies supply lines as much as their troops. It was one of strengths imo - his understanding of and prioritising attacking logistics.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Posts
10,468
Likes
19,214
AFL Club
North Melbourne
This thread is becoming too scary. I thought the eel head was bad enough, now we have the Roman Army and a giant spider called Sparkle Fangs.
Ferbs, you live in Kingdom of the Spiders, I know, but are "the big grey ones that crawl round the house" your wife's pets too? Like, are they all just kind of loose, like a pack of dogs?

I had a spider that lived in my ceiling light fixture above my stove once. I never saw him come out, but whenever you boiled water in a pot, he'd dangle his little legs out the edge of the fixture, and I could see his little spider face in there, looking out. His name was Patrick. I think he liked the steam baths. One day he just disappeared, stopped coming out, so I think he must have died in there. But I've never looked.

Do you think maybe Sparkle Fangs could open a Game Day thread?
I honestly try not to think about it.

The big grey ones aren't really pets but I'd probably cop an earful if I deliberately hurt them. They are Isopeda and Holconia sp. most likely if anyone wants to look up some pictures.

They aren't all the size of dinner plates. Just the extremely big ones. Most are only about the span of your hand.

Sparkle Fangs is young (my daughter named it obviously) probably only an inch or so across atm so it might be while before she opens the gd thread. I'll see if I can get a photo and she can make an appearance tho.
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Posts
36,694
Likes
60,791
Location
NSW
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
They raised one of their largest if not the largest armies they had ever raised and as Val mentioned Cato went after them harder than ever as a result.

Whatever we might think with hindsight, Rome was scared (and probably was scarred/traumatised) from then on. It might seem that way now but would you have taken that chance or been that confident if you were a Roman senator with Hannibal running up and down the peninsula seemingly at will and beating your armies with seeming ease? I also think the reason Hannibal attacked so aggressively was the knowledge that Rome was more than capable of besieging Carthage and had much greater long term military resources. So a gamble but only in the sense that eventually Rome was gonna stomp Carthage anyway as the fight to dominate the Mediterranean so he's better off going hard at them.

As val mentioned Hannibal was tactically astute and he made a habit of attacking his enemies supply lines as much as their troops. It was one of strengths imo - his understanding of and prioritising attacking logistics.
Yes and no, Roman allied cities in the south were quick good at denying the Carthagians logistics and they often had to be procured from northern Italy and even North Africa/Spain. The loss of Spain spelled the demise of Carthage.

It was a strategic gamble and he did make strategic blunders.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Posts
10,468
Likes
19,214
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Yes and no, Roman allied cities in the south were quick good at denying the Carthagians logistics and they often had to be procured from northern Italy and even North Africa/Spain. The loss of Spain spelled the demise of Carthage.

It was a strategic gamble and he did make strategic blunders.
It was only a gamble in the sense that it might not have worked. In terms of what to do with "the Roman problem" it was probably the best option. Rome did what they were gonna do eventually anyway. Its fits with Hannibal's personality. He was a daring and bold character who took what seemed like outrageous chances but it was more his vision and nerve that enabled to see those situations as opportunities than his irrational nature.

I meant attacking enemy logistics not so much organising his own. I thought his army in italy was much more mobile and self contained partly for that reason. He was using the vulnerability of enemy supply lines to his own advantage to he must have been acutely aware of his vulnerability that far from support. Although he was actually a pretty good logistican or whatever they are called. I dunno how long he was in Italy for but it was around a decade and a half and he maintained a successful effective army for that entire time. No mean feat at all. He beat some of Rome's best generals and made their armies look second rate, took down some their greatest leaders at the time.

He is one of the greatest military leaders of all time. Probably at least as good as the guy who eventually beat him. Maybe better.

As Val mentioned that battle at Cannae was one of the great tactical battles of all time. It was oriental or eastern in its manipulation of "energy" - more like Aikido or Tai Chi than Mouy Thai or western traditional Boxing for example. That battle is still studied today by militaries across the world, millennia later.
 

Mr_Nyah

All Australian
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Posts
886
Likes
2,628
Location
Wentz Wagon
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Would it?

Perhaps if you added "so therefore they must be a fundy terrorist or child ******* wife beater" otherwise no it isn't.

Besides i was raised by catholics so i can put the boot into that stupid complex of religions and the campaigners that use it as an excuse for discrimination and hatred (in full actual defiance of what its sposed to be about according to the actual words of Jesus) whenever i feel like it.

If you want to claim some special relationship with god that leaves everyone else on the planet as damned to burn in a fire forever then be a complete hypocrite about it tough ****. I don't know jack **** about Islam compared to what i know about Christianity so i'll put the boot in whenever I like. Especially to pricks who go around gloating about people burning to death but being unable to die so it happens forever.

If you are gonna be a hypocrite about jebus then tough ****.

Yes, it would. Your disdain for Christianity and your lack of disdain for Islam is clouding your judgement on that one. Both are terms of disdain and disgust for someone based on nothing other than their religious persuasion.

The second half of your post doesn't do you any justice. You've no doubt had bad experiences with Christianity and I'm not here to downplay those or tell you that you can't feel that way - of course you can. But I'd say two things:

- Firstly, your bad experiences with some bad eggs doesn't mean you should have carte blanche to vilify people based on your bad experiences. By that (horribly flawed) logic, a person that has been mugged by an Indigenous person should be free to be a vile racist. Both attitudes are equally wrong. I feel bad for you, and as a person of faith it's horrible when I hear of the damage caused by people that use my God's name as a shield for their own horrific behaviour. But it doesn't justify religious vilification any more than bad behaviour would justify racial or sexual or any other kind of vilification.

- Second, I think you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what Christianity is (no doubt influenced by the bad experiences throughout your life). Otherwise, I don't really understand how a Christian talking about Hell would be considered hypocritical. Yes, Jesus talked about loving people. But Jesus also talked a lot about Hell and judgement - fundamental aspects of Christian doctrine. To not talk of Hell and judgement would be far more hypocritical of a Christian.

Anyhoo, I'm not here to get into a prolonged religious debate, and I'm not here to change your mind on Christianity. In my opinion, it's just important for people to apply the same principles and standards across the board wherever possible, which is why I responded in the first place. Carry on, and I do love Roman history so I've enjoyed reading your other posts :thumbsu:
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Posts
36,694
Likes
60,791
Location
NSW
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
It was only a gamble in the sense that it might not have worked. In terms of what to do with "the Roman problem" it was probably the best option. Rome did what they were gonna do eventually anyway. Its fits with Hannibal's personality. He was a daring and bold character who took what seemed like outrageous chances but it was more his vision and nerve that enabled to see those situations as opportunities than his irrational nature.

I meant attacking enemy logistics not so much organising his own. I thought his army in italy was much more mobile and self contained partly for that reason. He was using the vulnerability of enemy supply lines to his own advantage to he must have been acutely aware of his vulnerability that far from support. Although he was actually a pretty good logistican or whatever they are called. I dunno how long he was in Italy for but it was around a decade and a half and he maintained a successful effective army for that entire time. No mean feat at all. He beat some of Rome's best generals and made their armies look second rate, took down some their greatest leaders at the time.

He is one of the greatest military leaders of all time. Probably at least as good as the guy who eventually beat him. Maybe better.

As Val mentioned that battle at Cannae was one of the great tactical battles of all time. It was oriental or eastern in its manipulation of "energy" - more like Aikido or Tai Chi than Mouy Thai or western traditional Boxing for example. That battle is still studied today by militaries across the world, millennia later.
He was in Italy for well over a decade, so his logistical train was pretty good (off-the-land) and he had an established land route through Spain and running through Northern Italy. And as you said, his army were a smaller disciplined force.

He did beat some smart cookies and some very good Roman armies, but as we both know, it took the Marian reforms for the Roman army to become a truly elite force.

I would still put him in a the tactical/operationally brilliant, strategically average category of historical generals, as history is determined by your success at the end. He can join guys like Rommel, Model, Konev, Patton, Pompey, Montgomery, Clark, Kessering and Guderian, although he would be the best in this category. Guys like Rokossovsky, Manstein, Saladin (big fan of his), Cyrus the Great, Caesar (his campaign in Gaul is a superb military study), old Genghis Khan and even Nimitz, I would put in the good at both strategy and operations category.

What the Mongols achieved in such a short time puts Genghis, and his sons to a lesser degree, right up the top of best strategists and generals that have ever existed. At the tactical/operational level, there was none better than Hannibal Barca.
 
Last edited:

ferball

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Posts
10,468
Likes
19,214
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Yes, it would. Your disdain for Christianity and your lack of disdain for Islam is clouding your judgement on that one. Both are terms of disdain and disgust for someone based on nothing other than their religious persuasion.

The second half of your post doesn't do you any justice. You've no doubt had bad experiences with Christianity and I'm not here to downplay those or tell you that you can't feel that way - of course you can. But I'd say two things:

- Firstly, your bad experiences with some bad eggs doesn't mean you should have carte blanche to vilify people based on your bad experiences. By that (horribly flawed) logic, a person that has been mugged by an Indigenous person should be free to be a vile racist. Both attitudes are equally wrong. I feel bad for you, and as a person of faith it's horrible when I hear of the damage caused by people that use my God's name as a shield for their own horrific behaviour. But it doesn't justify religious vilification any more than bad behaviour would justify racial or sexual or any other kind of vilification.

- Second, I think you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what Christianity is (no doubt influenced by the bad experiences throughout your life). Otherwise, I don't really understand how a Christian talking about Hell would be considered hypocritical. Yes, Jesus talked about loving people. But Jesus also talked a lot about Hell and judgement - fundamental aspects of Christian doctrine. To not talk of Hell and judgement would be far more hypocritical of a Christian.

Anyhoo, I'm not here to get into a prolonged religious debate, and I'm not here to change your mind on Christianity. In my opinion, it's just important for people to apply the same principles and standards across the board wherever possible, which is why I responded in the first place. Carry on, and I do love Roman history so I've enjoyed reading your other posts :thumbsu:
There are plenty of good Christians including members of my own family and I certainly don't exhibit any disdain for them of the way they practise their faith. if the jesus freaks did the same thing the world would be a much better place.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ferball

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Posts
10,468
Likes
19,214
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Just about hell.

I get the feeling that some people relish the idea of it happening to other people. I'm not criticising Christians for believing in the idea, just for getting off on other people being there and I always get that sense from comments like Folau's. Their saviour was tortured and killed to give everyone the chance to avoid the place and they are there smugly pointing out those people are going there and they deserve it. Something something mote something, something something beam in your own. Its like people who believe in prosperity theology and warrior jesus.

There is a world of difference between copping **** for your own choices and copping **** for other things like the colour of you skin or whatever genetic differences you may been born with.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Posts
10,468
Likes
19,214
AFL Club
North Melbourne
For example Mr_Nyah did you know that every church in Sunbury - lITERALLY aLL IN sUNBURY:drunk: - has opened its doors to homeless people this winter to provide beds, shelter and probably even a feed when the local shelters overflow and they will. All denominations and they have been overwhelmed with volunteers from every congregation, they are working together and so far it appears to be a successful and even beautiful thing.

I've got nothing but respect and admiration for that.

Those people are walking their talk.
 

Groin guru

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 21, 2017
Posts
8,066
Likes
25,071
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Thread starter #2,664
Yes, it would. Your disdain for Christianity and your lack of disdain for Islam is clouding your judgement on that one. Both are terms of disdain and disgust for someone based on nothing other than their religious persuasion.

The second half of your post doesn't do you any justice. You've no doubt had bad experiences with Christianity and I'm not here to downplay those or tell you that you can't feel that way - of course you can. But I'd say two things:

- Firstly, your bad experiences with some bad eggs doesn't mean you should have carte blanche to vilify people based on your bad experiences. By that (horribly flawed) logic, a person that has been mugged by an Indigenous person should be free to be a vile racist. Both attitudes are equally wrong. I feel bad for you, and as a person of faith it's horrible when I hear of the damage caused by people that use my God's name as a shield for their own horrific behaviour. But it doesn't justify religious vilification any more than bad behaviour would justify racial or sexual or any other kind of vilification.

- Second, I think you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what Christianity is (no doubt influenced by the bad experiences throughout your life). Otherwise, I don't really understand how a Christian talking about Hell would be considered hypocritical. Yes, Jesus talked about loving people. But Jesus also talked a lot about Hell and judgement - fundamental aspects of Christian doctrine. To not talk of Hell and judgement would be far more hypocritical of a Christian.

Anyhoo, I'm not here to get into a prolonged religious debate, and I'm not here to change your mind on Christianity. In my opinion, it's just important for people to apply the same principles and standards across the board wherever possible, which is why I responded in the first place. Carry on, and I do love Roman history so I've enjoyed reading your other posts :thumbsu:
lol. Come on now. This is ferbal you're talking about. Anecdotal evidence seeping out of his pores.
 

Mr_Nyah

All Australian
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Posts
886
Likes
2,628
Location
Wentz Wagon
AFL Club
North Melbourne
For example Mr_Nyah did you know that every church in Sunbury - lITERALLY aLL IN sUNBURY:drunk: - has opened its doors to homeless people this winter to provide beds, shelter and probably even a feed when the local shelters overflow and they will. All denominations and they have been overwhelmed with volunteers from every congregation, they are working together and so far it appears to be a successful and even beautiful thing.

I've got nothing but respect and admiration for that.

Those people are walking their talk.
Absolutely love that, and didn't know it was happening - thanks for pointing it out. Being honest, that is my experience with Christians, I haven't come across the holier-than-thou judgmental types at all across my life. I understand they exist, as people like yourself have had to deal with them, and it seems that stories like yours are common sadly, but I haven't ever experienced it myself.

I can see that (I think) you're using "Jesus freaks" as a way of distinguishing between what you'd call 'good' Christians and 'bad' Christians, and given that context I'd actually mostly agree with you then that it's not vilification. If you're not calling all Christians "Jesus freaks" - just the bad ones - then I don't really think it's an issue of vilification.

I can't speak to Folau's comments, no-one knows his heart, but I HOPE that he made the comments out of genuine concern that these people are going to Hell, according to Christian doctrine, rather than out of smug happiness. I think that a lot of people that don't understand Christianity assume that it's the latter, but until I see otherwise I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would be very disappointed if I found out it was based on judgement rather than as a warning though. But that's a huge can of worms I don't have time to open sorry :p
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Posts
10,468
Likes
19,214
AFL Club
North Melbourne
He was in Italy for well over a decade, so his logistical train was pretty good (off-the-land) and he had an established land route through Spain and running through Northern Italy. And as you said, his army were a smaller disciplined force.

He did beat some smart cookies and some very good Roman armies, but as we both know, it took the Marian reforms for the Roman army to become a truly elite force.

I would still put him in a the tactical/operationally brilliant, strategically average category of historical generals, as history is determined by your success at the end. He can join guys like Rommel, Model, Konev, Patton, Pompey, Montgomery, Clark, Kessering and Guderian, although he would be the best in this category. Guys like Rokossovsky, Manstein, Saladin (big fan of his), Cyrus the Great, Caesar (his campaign in Gaul is a superb military study), old Genghis Khan and even Nimitz, I would put in the good at both strategy and operations category.

What the Mongols achieved in such a short time puts Genghis, and his sons to a lesser degree, right up the top of best strategists and generals that have ever existed. At the tactical/operational level, there was none better than Hannibal Barca.
You've got a much more detailed and extensive knowledge of this stuff than me but that German fella with the name like an lightweight industrial band didn't achieve his strategic aims either except in the very short term did he?

(I mean Manstein in case you are wondering?)

As for Temuchin - never underestimate the power of thousands of mad horsemen led by an even madder one who was inspired by climbing to the top of a snow covered mountain then meditating while tripping hard on shrooms.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Posts
10,468
Likes
19,214
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Absolutely love that, and didn't know it was happening - thanks for pointing it out. Being honest, that is my experience with Christians, I haven't come across the holier-than-thou judgmental types at all across my life. I understand they exist, as people like yourself have had to deal with them, and it seems that stories like yours are common sadly, but I haven't ever experienced it myself.

I can see that (I think) you're using "Jesus freaks" as a way of distinguishing between what you'd call 'good' Christians and 'bad' Christians, and given that context I'd actually mostly agree with you then that it's not vilification. If you're not calling all Christians "Jesus freaks" - just the bad ones - then I don't really think it's an issue of vilification.

I can't speak to Folau's comments, no-one knows his heart, but I HOPE that he made the comments out of genuine concern that these people are going to Hell, according to Christian doctrine, rather than out of smug happiness. I think that a lot of people that don't understand Christianity assume that it's the latter, but until I see otherwise I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I would be very disappointed if I found out it was based on judgement rather than as a warning though. But that's a huge can of worms I don't have time to open sorry :p
Once upon a time I was alot more of an intolerant dickhead when it came Christians but I'd hope I've grown out of that.

I'm not a Christian and don't believe that stuff but sometimes it seems to me that if that Mythos (as in belief system and all that is associated with it,) is true than it was hijacked by the devil a long time ago. That guy Kenneth Copeland for example - Satan Spawn for sure. I'm sure there is something in the bible about false profits during the end times. That bloke has made more profits than most.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Posts
2,577
Likes
2,005
Location
Moist island
AFL Club
North Melbourne
You state that as if any of the other political interests are actually better.
We’ll see Snake! The current financial disposition is in almost in crisis! The way capitalism is scaled tips too far to one end, capitalism works (apart from the inevitable “idiocracy” occurrence of course, discussion for another time) if the scales are balanced then the economy is functional! We are in an absolute swamp of pig ****! If you have property sell.. its also interesting to know Buffet is about to pounce after he has pretty become liquid!
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
42,773
Likes
77,647
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
We’ll see Snake! The current financial disposition is in almost in crisis! The way capitalism is scaled tips too far to one end, capitalism works (apart from the inevitable “idiocracy” occurrence of course, discussion for another time) if the scales are balanced then the economy is functional! We are in an absolute swamp of pig ****! If you have property sell.. its also interesting to know Buffet is about to pounce after he has pretty become liquid!

There is no "we" mate.

I checked out of the game a long time ago.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Posts
10,468
Likes
19,214
AFL Club
North Melbourne
We’ll see Snake! The current financial disposition is in almost in crisis! The way capitalism is scaled tips too far to one end, capitalism works (apart from the inevitable “idiocracy” occurrence of course, discussion for another time) if the scales are balanced then the economy is functional! We are in an absolute swamp of pig ****! If you have property sell.. its also interesting to know Buffet is about to pounce after he has pretty become liquid!
Capitalism doesn't really work it will always lead to global warming even without CO2 or greenhouse gasses.

Its just humans have always sold each other stuff while we did other things as well. Markets work fine when they aren't the be all and end all of existence, just something to make it a bit better.

We live in a society that ... because this discussion mentioned jesus - worships Mammon. Even more to the point it whorships it.

You cannot be the slave of two masters! You will like one more than the other or be more loyal to one than the other. You cannot serve both God and money. - the bible somewhere.

Funny yeah. We stopped being the slave of god sometime after Fred N noticed he was dead. No conflict anymore.

 
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Posts
36,694
Likes
60,791
Location
NSW
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
Capitalism doesn't really work it will always lead to global warming even without CO2 or greenhouse gasses.

Its just humans have always sold each other stuff while we did other things as well. Markets work fine when they aren't the be all and end all of existence, just something to make it a bit better.

We live in a society that ... because this discussion mentioned jesus - worships Mammon. Even more to the point it whorships it.

You cannot be the slave of two masters! You will like one more than the other or be more loyal to one than the other. You cannot serve both God and money. - the bible somewhere.

Funny yeah. We stopped being the slave of god sometime after Fred N noticed he was dead. No conflict anymore.

That's part of the problem, generations become accustomed to a certain standard of living and the need to make life better just feds itself and continues to expand. It's why we have wasteful crap like clothes for pets, etc.

It is also why there is such a high level of resistance to renewable energy outcomes. Some people feel that they are going to sacrifice much of their current standard of living, when they feel they really shouldn't. For example, the modern renewable energy argument has been around since the 1950s, with some theories pursuing an emphasis of humanity returning to a more agrarian based society, with major alterations to what we have now with modern farming/cattle/energy production. Subsequently, there are opposing people that seek to create technologies to lessen gases from cows, to create energy efficient cars, seek to push the need for nuclear energy and use technologies that don't necessarily require massive changes to the West's current lifestyle. In other words, an almost economic rationalist's approach to climate change and using capitalism's capacity to innovate.
 
Top Bottom