Dave wrote:

I understand that watching Christians being fed to the lions was a very
popular spectator sport in Rome at one time, and that the sponsors of those
events were wildly popular.

Which, if one applies the axiom you seem to be positing in another
thread, would imply that such practices were "correct" ;-)

Cheers
Martin

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:25:25 -0800, Stephen Trapani
said:

Don't know about two meter, but I'm not on the side of anyone or anything in
your food fight, other than truth. So when you say "most of the Afghanies
[sic] hate the Taliban," my BS detector lights up and says to me that you're
not in a position to make that judgment based on direct experience. So I ask
for the basis of the conclusion. Your answers to that question have been
less than satisfactory thus far.
So let me see. You educated yourself about the historic brutality of the
Taliban regime and when I said most Afghanis didn't like it, *that* set
off your BS meter??

I didn't have to educate myself on the topic, Steve.

Aha, there's your problem. You need to learn more about the Taliban and
how they treated their citizens.

What set off my BS
meter was your apparent smug assumption, with no supporting evidence, that
the mass of people from this very different culture must necessarily share
your point of view. Might be true. Might not.

Well, unless you think they are monkeys or subhuman in some way, the
same things that hurt you, hurt them. If your father is kidnapped and
killed, if your sister is brutalized and oppressed, if anyone who
objects has to live in constant fear, you hate it and so do they.

I understand that watching Christians being fed to the lions was a very
popular spectator sport in Rome at one time, and that the sponsors of those
events were wildly popular.

The similar stadium executions in Afghanistan were popular also. Does
that mean that either of them a morally good way to treat people? No.
Your "tolerance" of other "cultures" is causing you to support brutality
against people and is immoral. You should change.

Stephen

Dave wrote:

I understand that watching Christians being fed to the lions was a very
popular spectator sport in Rome at one time, and that the sponsors of those
events were wildly popular.

There is no evidence that this ever happened. There was relatively
little persecution of the early Christians, and most incidents involved
individuals who were deemed enemies of the state for political, not
religious reasons.

If nothing else, the extremely small number of Christian in the First
Century and shortly thereafter made them hardly worth bothering with.
The is a saying amongst Biblical scholars (probably hyperbole) that "In
the year 100 there were 100 Christians."

"jeff" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

I understand that watching Christians being fed to the lions was a very
popular spectator sport in Rome at one time, and that the sponsors of
those
events were wildly popular.

There is no evidence that this ever happened. There was relatively little
persecution of the early Christians, and most incidents involved
individuals who were deemed enemies of the state for political, not
religious reasons.

If nothing else, the extremely small number of Christian in the First
Century and shortly thereafter made them hardly worth bothering with. The
is a saying amongst Biblical scholars (probably hyperbole) that "In the
year 100 there were 100 Christians."

And in the year 2009, there might actually be 2009 of them. I've seen scant
evidence of them, though.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:30:41 -0500, jeff said:


There is no evidence that this ever happened.

You seem to have missed the point.


I think Jeff's interested in intellectual honesty.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Dave wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:30:41 -0500, jeff said:

There is no evidence that this ever happened.

You seem to have missed the point.

Why would you assume that I care about your point?

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:56:09 -0800, Stephen Trapani
said:

What set off my BS
meter was your apparent smug assumption, with no supporting evidence, that
the mass of people from this very different culture must necessarily share
your point of view. Might be true. Might not.
Well, unless you think they are monkeys or subhuman in some way, the
same things that hurt you, hurt them. If your father is kidnapped and
killed, if your sister is brutalized and oppressed, if anyone who
objects has to live in constant fear, you hate it and so do they.

Q.E.D.

And now you allege that the majority of Afghanis have had relatives
kidnapped and killed by the Taliban? What is your support for that
proposition?

Of course those were just two examples of the numerous different types
of brutality and oppression the Taliban is famous for.

I understand that watching Christians being fed to the lions was a very
popular spectator sport in Rome at one time, and that the sponsors of those
events were wildly popular.
The similar stadium executions in Afghanistan were popular also. Does
that mean that either of them a morally good way to treat people? No.
Your "tolerance" of other "cultures" is causing you to support brutality
against people and is immoral. You should change.

As I've said before, I'm not backing the Taliban. My interest is in
intellectual honesty and truth. I ask you to support the propositions you
put forth, and you're unable to do so. Sputtering indignance is not an
adequate substitute.

I'm not going to write out a long description of the Taliban rule in
Afghanistan because you're too lazy to type a few words into google. Why
would I do that? I provided you with two good sources, but you said you
had no need to educate yourself.

And you *are* backing the Taliban because you continue to deny that they
were brutal and hated by their people and refuse to even look into the
matter yourself, probably because you know what you will find. And you
don't want to have your nice little fantasy world blown right out of the
water, where everyone respects everyone else's way of living, where we
are all equally good and just and only see things from a different
perspective, where the US is in no danger at all and has no
responsibility to fight evil people.

Stephen

On 24 Jan 2009 10:41:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:56:09 -0800, Stephen Trapani
said:

What set off my BS
meter was your apparent smug assumption, with no supporting evidence, that
the mass of people from this very different culture must necessarily share
your point of view. Might be true. Might not.

Well, unless you think they are monkeys or subhuman in some way, the
same things that hurt you, hurt them. If your father is kidnapped and
killed, if your sister is brutalized and oppressed, if anyone who
objects has to live in constant fear, you hate it and so do they.

Q.E.D.

And now you allege that the majority of Afghanis have had relatives
kidnapped and killed by the Taliban? What is your support for that
proposition?

I understand that watching Christians being fed to the lions was a very
popular spectator sport in Rome at one time, and that the sponsors of those
events were wildly popular.

The similar stadium executions in Afghanistan were popular also. Does
that mean that either of them a morally good way to treat people? No.
Your "tolerance" of other "cultures" is causing you to support brutality
against people and is immoral. You should change.

As I've said before, I'm not backing the Taliban. My interest is in
intellectual honesty and truth.

Too Funny!

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:31:52 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:30:41 -0500, jeff said:


There is no evidence that this ever happened.

You seem to have missed the point.


I think Jeff's interested in intellectual honesty.

Perhaps, but you are conversing with Dave at the moment. Intellectual
Honesty does not apply unless Dave questions yours.

Dave wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:49:28 -0500, jeff said:

You seem to have missed the point.
Why would you assume that I care about your point?

Perhaps I give you too much credit for rationality.

Perhaps a relevant point if I had been engaged in this particular
discussion. However, I merely dropped in to shed a small bit of light
on an often misunderstood historical point.