I just read a blog entry which claims that bigfeet are not Nephilim because Nephilim weren’t hairy. Where does the Bible say that? No where. In fact it’s known that at least one famous person in the Bible was very hair, like a fur covered animal, Esau. If a watcher mated with a hairy human, guess what you might get? The “none were hairy” absurd claim was made by Michaels Heiser. It does anger me a little that he said that because it’s a hasty generalization not based on evidence, and it looks like he knew better and was just being lazy and arrogant.
There’s no reason to rule out bigfoot creatures as not being Nephilim. It makes sense that they are since they apparently have the ability to become invisible, super strength as in the ability to uproot fully grown trees and at least one kind is known to turn them upside down and ram them into the ground even, fully grow trees. It would explain their human-like intelligence in that some are said to be able to speak fluent human-languages, their size, ability to become invisible, extreme toughness, ability to withstand bullets (some of them at least) and visible supernatural features in their design, like glowing eyes and six toes. If some or all UFOs, as in the class kind really are demonic, then it shouldn’t be surprising they’d have an affinity to these creatures since they would be half “watcher” according to the book of Enoch, as in part of those beings called Watchers which were similar to angels and who were permanently condemned, except perhaps for a few.
My guess is that the gorilla ape-stock that many came from went extinct like many dinosaurs and giant mammals did for various reasons, including human causes. Remember that mankind did not inhabit the entire planet at all times, and that vast amounts of Earth were mostly wild for thousands of years, plenty of time for slow moving not-fast breeding apes to become extinct from surprise attacks by humans and Nephilim, over hunting, diseases, meteor strikes, forest fires and bigger and faster animals preying on them. The mammoths in America were wiped out along with many other kinds of creatures, so it’s easily possible that the gorilla ape-stock that Bigfeet came from went extinct. I doubt Bigfeet are half-monkeys or chimps, since none are reported to have tails and they don’t have that monkey or chimpanzee look or walk, therefore the monkeys in South America probably are not their ancestors, but rather this ape-stock that no longer exists.
As for the somewhat Bigfeet-like creatures reported in Africa in one or two places, who knows what they are since they are more like half man half orangutang.
It could also be that some or all Nephilim of the Bigfeet type came in part from a more man-like creature than a gorilla, and that this more man-like creature also went extinct, or perhaps they still exist in Africa as those man-like creatures reported there that I mentioned.
I’m bringing this issue up as a Christian, because I’ve become fully aware of what a problem laws against eating cats and dogs are now. Here is why is should be legal to eat them:
1. They are animals and the Bible permits man to eat ALL animals. And this isn’t an article debating 7th Day Adventists and Judaics, but the SECULAR LAWS against eating these animals, so pardon that you two cults.
2. Not all dogs and cats are worthy of raising nor is it practical to try and keep every single one alive. THAT IS VERY OBVIOUS no matter how many immature adults there are whining and crying, “You ************ monster! I hope you die and rot in Hell!” In fact, responses like that show the type of heart and mind these animal worshiping morons have. I have no doubt that many of them are homosexuals – the Bible links the two conditions together. Many cats live feral, and so have feral temperaments, they are WILD ANIMALS, the same with wolves and some dogs, like dingos. Wild animals are food for mankind, not just pets. Of course not everything is good to eat, AND OF COURSE NOT EVERYTHING IS GOOD FOR PETS! Even some house-raised cats have what one person, a vet. I think, called cats that had sudden emotional changes: “Jekyll and Hyde” temperaments. He wasn’t referring to a change in personality, but literally going from purring to very hostile, like when being petted, for no apparent reason. My guess is that some cats are born with traits that are incompatible, for example the wild is not completely bread out of them and certain genes meant for wild aggressiveness remain, like a Bobcat and other wildcats would still have even if you raised them as kittens. Now, is it safe to have such cats; if you raised it and it has enough temperamental genes so that it is highly unlikely to do anything other than whine or paw you, that is stretch out it’s arm with nails extended and land it’s paw on you, or fake doing so as a warning, and has shown it will do no more than that, then sure, it’s reasonable safe to have it for a while, but, do you want to keep that cat long enough to find out if it will one day lunge at you and sink its teeth into you, family, friends or other pets? There are a few rare stories of domestic type cats turning extremely hostile and which go on the offensive though not having been attacked. It’s rare, but the possibility still remains that a temperamental cat may one day turn into such a cat. Now consider: should such cats be allowed to breed, or is it better to prevent them from tainting the domestic cat gene pool so that they are never gotten rid of? Consider too that cats exposed to temperamental cats can become aggressive due to that behavior, just as with humans causing other humans to do bad things by provocative behavior. Should DOGS that have SUDDEN TEMPER CHANGES be bread? NO, WAY. And some say cats are more dangerous then dogs because cat bites are harder to treat. Further, cat scratches can leave bad scars. Dog’s don’t have sharp nails.
3. Rabbits are pets in America, yet even in America, a country with pet laws galore, it still allows rabbits to be raised for food, hunted for food, and the skin of rabbits used for whatever! Now rabbits can be just as loving and friendly as cats and dogs! Now why the contradiction in laws?!
4. I have no doubt that it is mainly ATHEISTS, HOMOSEXUALS, CATHOLICS WHO DO NOT OBEY THEIR CHURCH and ANTI-CHRISTIANS who try and force their FEELINGS on others through violent behavior and pressuring law makers to pass such laws by threats and guilt-tripping by using false logic and putting a moral spin on it.
5. Can the poor of the world afford to have a major textile and food source banned like it is now in many countries? Consider countries in upheaval due to poverty: Greece, Spain, Bulgaria, Belarus, Ukraine, Ireland. There are other very poor countries in Europe, and Russia has areas of great poverty. In America there are many very poor cities, towns and native American reservations. Is it MORAL to tell the poor in those places: “Now now now you are monsters deserving of Hell if you try and eat cats and dogs or use their fur to keep yourselves warm, because you can always use tree leaves, grow hemp (oh wait, growing hemp is banned in America…), and buy very short lasting made in China clothing that easily dirties and wears out using what little income you have.” So says morons, the mentally ill, ignorant rich people.
6. Imagine if these same evil people succeeded in getting a ban on the eating of any meat and use of any fur and if the world respected the ban, as in did not go against it, not as in thinking it honorable. Wouldn’t poverty become extremely severe, especially if as no doubt wouldn’t happen in the world’s current state of corruption: nothing was done to compensate for the loss of those major resources? And wouldn’t that lead to mass deaths, rebellion against other laws and a break down in civilizations? OF COURSE IT WOULD! OBVIOUSLY! So why then should ANY such nonsensical law concerning a ban on healthy foods be obeyed or created? Such laws LEAD TO A BREAK DOWN IN CIVILIZATION, TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GOVERNMENTS WHO PASS SUCH LAWS!
The world is being torn apart by stupid and oppressive laws like this. These horrible things oppress the world:
1. Public schools pressuring students to believe in secular science dogma: evolution and big bangism over clear creative design
2. Persecution for belief in and obedience to God’s word
3. Attempts to extract tax money from people to subsidize the suppression of carbon dioxide, which is a naturally occurring gas which plants need to live
4. Chlorofluorocarbons banned to save the ozone layer, which isn’t effected by such things, but as a result of that chemical being banned, refrigerant costs being much more which helps perpetuate poverty (and remember poverty leads to air pollution when people resort to burning wood for warmth and cooking when they can’t afford electricity to warm up and cook)
5. Eating cats and dogs being banned, now even in China (though it still goes on because of the severe poverty including among police and many Chinese and Koreans having no other good option for income or food)
6. Police arresting people over one-person-accusations with no evidence other than their word – and those arrested paying what amounts to extortion money to get out of jail to return to their dismal lives all the poorer, and as a result, more likely to steal and end up in jail for it and have whatever they stole end up being owned by police who steal it themselves or put it up for auction to continue being able to effectively BULLY citizens.
7. The banning of various types of weapons from the citizenry (which governments do to have an advantage over their citizens) and to make it harder for them to hunt as well as they could in order to keep them dependent on government subsidized farm food.
8. Citizens being fooled into eating harmful substances like aspartame and fluoride and “pharmaceutical drugs” which are not safe, and some very addictive
9. Citizens being pressured to use or forced to use vaccines, some of which at least are harmful
10. Citizens being forced to conform to housing standards they can’t afford, which can and I’m sure often does result in them losing their houses or not even being able to afford building a house.
11. The American government permitting China’s government to artificially keep it’s currency low, suppress labor worker requests in China for better wages and treatment, sell toxic plastics to Americans, and allowing China to massively out trade us, costing Americans millions of jobs every few years, China persecuting Christians and political dissidents by sending them off to jails and prisons while letting a mass of criminals be employed and free. In effect, China is saying to America: you Christians in America are not to be respected, we are taking advantage of you, and the rest of America is only a temporary meal for us till we become so powerful we can conquer your land and populate it with our own semi-slaves.
12. The American government not permitting “children” to work for wages, unless, absurdly, it’s for acting, causing a severe shortage of income for many Americans.
13. The American government doing a deliberately poor job or preventing illegal immigrants from stealing jobs that no doubt Americans would take in their poverty, costing American citizens millions of jobs every few years.
14. The British and American government fighting their own citizens over a “drug war” and locking millions of them up over it, costing Americans their jobs and a life and indirectly ruining the lives of others who relied on those being sent to jail or prison.
And back to temperamental cats, and kittens, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t risk raising one at all – if you are going to take reasonable precautions I wouldn’t say you were sinning or being irrational or unreasonable, just that you are opening yourself up to the possibility of a bad outcome.
Consider this too: if animals can get to Heaven based on good or bad behavior (and I’m not saying that is how salvation works for humans, it isn’t, since humans are addicted to sin), you are risking an animal you love going to Hell if you know it has a self-control problem. It is better to end that animal’s life or to let it live wild where it will mainly interact only with other cats in a natural state then to risk it shedding someone innocent person’s blood or infecting them with some disease and killing them.
Are you willing to accept being called “cruel” to animals should a law be passed that says, “It is cruel to kill any animal” or “It is cruel to hunt animals”? But if that is what atheists, homosexuals and the mentally ill insist is true, aren’t they right? Aren’t they God, aren’t their feelings right just because, aren’t their opinions right and yours wrong because they insist it is and insult you over it? No.
I’ll try to make this short and to the point. Atheism is a dangerous mind set because it is a delusional state of mind in which a person has convinced themselves that morality comes not from a God who may send you to suffer forever in Hell if break his morality/by disobeying his commandments/laws, but from man, and is therefore something that is not permanent and in which there is no danger of eternal suffering for disobeying. I can give all kinds of horrific examples of how then an atheist could then justify what most people would call psychopathic behavior. As in what most people would call evil acts committed without showing any guilt over it. I say “most people”, because most people are not atheists, unless you count Buddhists of the East, but among them are some noble Buddhists, not including the Tibetans, who seem to have a ten commandments of their own, though it seems to have been borrowed from the actual ten commandments ironically.
Clear examples of atheism leading to murderous psychopathic behavior were given by the atheist leaders Stalin, Hitler (who, being a clever atheist, used religion to mask his agenda of subjugating everyone), Mao and perhaps Pol Pot, whose atheism though not stated is perhaps evidenced by his complete lack of promoting any religion. The murders of those atheists combined exceed the murders of the Catholic cult for the past 1000 years. In just 100 years those atheists murdered or killed over 50 million people. There are about 300 million people in the United States, imagine if 50 million of them were suddenly wiped out by some disease spread by an atheist biologist going around the country releasing his virus into water supplies.
I met one narcissist atheist who regularly trolls the internet – he’s a stalker of mine, who claimed that it wasn’t the fault of atheism, but communism. In other words: just ignore that they were atheists and focus only on communism. Talk about “intellectually dishonest”. Just imagine the field day atheists would have if a communist Christian had murdered 50 million people. They’d ignore the communism and trump up, “He believed in those horrible ten commandments!” Actually no they wouldn’t, because they conveniently ignore the ten commandments, knowing they are good, at least instinctively, so would more likely say with pretentiousness, “See what good religion is?! It lead to such a great loss, oh the tragedy. Religion is the cause of all wars.” In other words they’d be vague, ignoring specifics, pretending all religions are the same, ignoring what type of Christian this person was (meaning failing to examine if he was someone who misinterpreted the Bible and had a very warped understanding of it, or simply didn’t care if he was disobeying it). Most atheists I encounter off or on the net are either mentally ill or are very stupid and ignorant and think in this way. “Religion is to blame” is their excuse for their hypocritical behavior. Kind of like saying, “Religion made me do it/hurt that person.” Consider the irony of that excuse! An atheist is more likely to blame religion for their evil behavior than a religious person is likely to blame their religion I imagine.
People with the permanent mental disorder known as narcissistic personality disorder seem more likely to be atheists than of some traditional type of Christian religion LIKE Catholicism, Lutheranism or the Calvinistic branches. That is because those religions teach that God should be worshiped and never anything else, which is what the Bible clearly states in many ways in many places within itself. A narcissist DOES NOT want to worship anyone, but himself, but because of his craving for attention is compelled in a way to mutually worship, though in a lesser way than himself, anyone who gives him the attention he desires. A narcissist is permanently bent towards an evil disposition, and so if he is also an atheist, becomes a criminal-minded person. Such people, horrifically, can rise all the way to leadership of countries with millions of people and have: Stalin, Hitler, Mao and possibly others. It seems impossible to many I imagine, that people who would seem to be so mentally unhealthy could gain such power, but it is possible because there can be those among them that have just enough patience, cleverness, know-how when it comes to lying to pull it off. And consider that it is probably not the hardest thing in the world to form a gang which can grow in power through theft, murder, stalking, bullying and technology, including through gun use till it takes over and takes a part of a large country. Consider also the “psychopath/serial killer” next door, who by pretending to be a normal good person by his behavior and words, imitating those he or she instinctively senses are the opposite of them, manages to blend in, while secretly, sometimes when alone or with a partner they think or is like themselves, tortures or murders others in darkness or isolation from the rest of civilization.
Some might think that in a world where governments are plagued with narcissists and psychopaths, that the world can still get by advancing till it weeds them out, and they look to the present state of the world as an example I imagine. For example Hitler was eventually gotten rid of, even if he did manage to escape to Indonesia, and George Bush Jr. was not elected again, and Popes given to murdering their opposition are no longer in power, seemingly, and the Dalai Lama (who was part of a long line of very evil oppressors in Tibet) was ousted by China (yet many Tibetans want him back!). But I think rather than it isn’t that such evil has been done away with or is being done away with, or being coped with successfully, I think what has happened is that more clever narcissists have come to power, ones who having studied history, seeing what keeps a person in power or not, have learned how to mask even better their evil personality and evil intent. A certain clever narcissist in power of the most powerful country today works in a very stealthy and slick way to pick apart what he personally does not like, which besides being the world in general, is mostly those who are for capitalism, a republic and Christianity.
A major problem in attempting to eliminate narcissism and atheism is that such people have already corrupted many others with their beliefs, including theists, so much so that they still support them even when they do great evils. For example Hitler, Mao, the Dalai Lama and I’d bet Stalin, all still have many supporters. It’s similar to how the ancient Jews under Egypt’s oppressive rule chose in their evil disposition to lose patience in their time of freedom WHILE SUFFERING to then, nonsensically, want to go back under a time of oppression WHILE FEELING GOOD, like eating after doing work, and so on. And many see the teaching of evolutionism and Big Bangism as having freedom them from oppression (and perhaps they instinctively sense that those teachings are what helped bring to power such evil leaders), and think that if they are gotten rid of, that “bad religion” would come back into “the schools” and “brainwash” everyone into being “slaves” again (slaves of what?) or technologically backwards (as if ipods, phones, cars and telescopes to play with didn’t exist because of Moses, Christ and the apostle Paul – but it’s disobedience to God that hinders technological progress actually). So, many people suffering now in America, Russia, Tibet or China, due to their poverty or being oppressed by current leaders desire to go back to an even worse time with worse leaders, who they rationalize as being better because, “At least they did such and such like Putin/Obama etc. and did not do such and such like those men.” But they ignore or don’t see that such times were hardly, if at all, better than now. Though I can probably easily argue that the early 1900s were much better than now (more traditional Christian values were upheld throughout the world, Darwinism and Big Bang propaganda was not so wide spread or rather did not have as many believers), I can just as easily show it was about as bad as it is right now in 2014. Examples: WW1 and WW2 and other wars besides those, the many cults that existed then most of which still seem to be around and even larger now, the many deceptions being spread and bad policies, like the Prohibition, lies about hemp and marijuana, so it’s not hard to show that the recent past was not much better. I’m sure too that there were many crimes being committed by police from 1900 to 1945, when traditional Christian values were nearing a slow but severe erosion in America and Europe, starting at about 1958 it seems to me. That was a time when Elvis rose to power and the U.S. “military-industrial complex”.
“Don’t ask, ‘Why were the old days better than these?’ For it is not to be wise that you would ask such questions.” – Ecclesiastes 7:10, King Solomon
How To Obtain Freedom from Corrupt Government During A Time of Broken Government and Unaffordable Or Non-existent Needful Services
It seems obvious: make enough money to buy some reliable transportation, items to keep you comfortable for a long time, and move to some place that is statistically safe with friendly neighbors that will help you out if you help them out. The problem is, unless you are wealthy, you’re not going to be able afford to do that, and not any time soon. And with a predator government about and an increasing likelihood of war, you’re most likely going to have to improvise.
A very rich person can afford to prepare himself for this buy buying a lot of real estate far from the dangerous city and to build himself a big secure house with a large farm, and to hire a medical staff, farm hands, handymen, and well armed security guards with bazookas and anti-aircraft guns. He can store up so much wealth and reliable in-house help that he can sustain himself for decades. He can live like Stony Stark, with little fear of harm so long as he treats his hired help well. But hardly anyone can live that way.
The alternative for the people with average incomes and for the poor, is to agree to live that way, to basically agree to live under a mini monarchy with everyone fulfilling their role peacefully and to the best of their ability and knowing they aren’t going to get paid in money, but rather in protection, food, drink, and goods, like clean and new clothes. Basically it is like a group of people organizing themselves into a business corporation, and if the CEO does too bad a job, they replace him r find a new CEO. A mini government like that it seems to me, much more reliable than a giant beauracy where the “king” can hide behind layers and layers of employees if he wrongs some or neglects them. In the case of a small one like that, the house leader is forced to do a good job or possibly be killed or kicked out by his own security team. And the security team has to watch out for a rebellion from the farm help, handymen and medics if they wrong the house head. It’s a balanced government where everyone agrees they all can’t be king, and need a leader and reasonable comfort and freedom.
The other alternative is somewhat disorganized in which everyone is their own king, and lives a life in which they hope their neighbor or whoever they come across will help them in their chosen safe location has enough skill or goods to help them live comfortably. So a person choosing to live wherever may post an ad, “I’m choosing to live in this new development area here, it’s cheap, the government may break down, I’m a medic, is there anyone good at defense who can come down and live here who will agree to serve as a defense person if the government breaks down, in exchange I will provide medical services.” And eventually you hopefully end up with a community with people of complimentary skills who, in time of a disaster can still live comfortably. They each manage any family they have, each hopefully have guard dogs, and are able to make a nice wall around their community if there is none.
Problems can arise if you end up with someone of very different beliefs than you, someone hostile to what you believe, someone possibly so mentally ill they will cause severe problems among the community. Now a “king” with tight control could easily get rid of that person from his land, but depending on the size of a non-centralized community whose agreed to live together, you may not be able to oust this trouble maker, and he may cause disastrous splits amongst the community.
Now in America, you aren’t allowed in a public corp to discriminate against someone for their religion, and you’re likely to get banned from somewhere like Craigslist if you directly ask, “Any Christians willing to move next to me who are good at…”. So, you have to be stealthy about it. It’s safest to ask members of your own church if you have one, or members of some like-minded group.
It seems to me that the safest states to move to in a time of government break down, in America, is upper California, Washington State, Oregon and Vancouver in Canada and the islands around that area. Something to watch out for is ending up living near communities with opposing beliefs, who may side with roving bands of remnants of the former federal or state government to get rid of you for some reason. So, it will take some good wisdom and physical health to avoid all kinds of trickery and traps that opposing groups may have for you to increase their own comfort and survival odds.
If you can’t afford your own land, and it truly does not seem as if you’re every going to get the money to, I advice becoming as advanced as you can in survival, buying survival tools and rugged camping equipment, finding a partners who are agreeable with you in beliefs with complimentary skills which you may lack or are physically poor at due to some disability, whether sewing or spear throwing or arrow making, and master some spot in the wilderness and to make it yours if no one else has already done so. If you end up in conflict with someone else who claims to “own” the land after a government break down, make sure you know of some other decent spot where you can survive to live at. Getting into conflicts with others that aren’t necessary decreases your chance of survival. Of course the problem is, “Who should back down, if both do than no one will get the land and it will be wasted.” If no one can agree to back down, then you can leave it up to “God” so to speak, or “dice”. You offer to agree to whatever numbers you choose that turn up on cast dice. And if the person disputing with you won’t agree to that, then perhaps it is best that both parties agree to leave the land alone and live away from each other. If you sense the person is so hostile your life is in danger even if you live far from them, it’s best to live even farther out if your odds are survival are about as good. Why risk your life otherwise? The hostile person I suppose will eventually be his own downfall, just as North Korea is always on the verge of disaster due to its bad leadership. It has to rely on more reasonable outside their country to survive.
Today a user named “loic” in response to my detailed logical Biblical rebuke of various gun wielding teabaggers, aka Republicans, I got what is debatebly an ad hominem response, “Damn…did somebody pissed in your corn flakes this morning ?……” and a bunch of pretentious drama dots as you can see.
In response to my response, a narcissist moron teabagger troll-moderator ” jfrey123 / I aim to misbehave…” jumped in to the imaginary rescue and “nuked” me he claimed, in other words, deleted all my responses in true narcissistic style.
His reply was:
Originally Posted by Gullwing View Post
I think you are lost]
He’s talking about the user I nuked above him. They joined just to insult all of us for shooting homeless people.”
Who joined to insult all of us for shooting homeless people? And who is “us”? Your response is a non sequitur, it makes no sense.
“Back to topic:”
Why didn’t you stay on topic in the first place instead of making an insane response? Was your stupid reply anything near useful to the detailed remarks I made? Obviously not stupid guy.
“I agree with Joe, self defense is self defense.”
So, squelch my logical replies because you personally did not like that I rebuke the morons’ insulting babble and a year late, you, the moderator, then give your little opinion as if it were fact, and insult me. Infantile, typical narcissist behavior.
“You’re not defending your own home or dwelling, so it’s not a home defense scenario. But if you have a right to be there”
And super idiot, as I pointed out, the narcissist moron who started the thread DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO BE ON THE ABANDONED PROPERTY AND WAS THEREFORE TRESPASSING. FAIL.
“and your fear of being harmed would excite the fears of a reasonable person,”
The point is, infant, he had no reason to be in the abandoned house. As his narcissistic statement clearly shows, he is mentally ill, even his user description points to him being mentally ill: ” Smoggo / Farter”, and clearly then as I said to him, should not own a gun. Smoggo started the thread with:
Are there squatter’s rights in NV?
Ok,This might seem as a “no-brainer” to many of you,but here was the situation: My friend who had to leave his house here in Las Vegas (he left lv and the house) had a realtor check it out and borrow the key to gain access to the house from me. The realtor returned saying the key didn’t work and the locks had been changed on the front door and could see the paintmarks of changing devices.
My friend asked me to investigate the situation,which I did,right after work. I looked over the place and it seemed like there was nobody there,but I could only see the living room from the outside,all bedrooms have solar screens I could not see through at night (8:30 pm). The locks had indeed been changed on the front door and the garage door had been left partially open,although previously locked. I went through the garage and found the interior garage door unlocked.
I opened the door and went in a bit then saw what looked like bedding in the master bedroom that had all previously been removed. I had a poor quality flashlight and a kel tec p-11 with one mag (not a spare) on me at the time,so I retreated because I didn’t know what might be inside the house…a person or multiple people possibly being armed.
All that said (sorry it was soo long),here is the question(s):if I had gone further and encountered someone squatting,would their right be to defend themselves from me seeing as I was the intruder? If they jumped out of nowhere,possibly unarmed,would I be in the wrong if I used lethal defensive force? Remember,the house has no lights nor power.
I do have a ccw,and all my weapons are registered and legal. Thanx for any input
(picture of an ugly dancing fat woman) <—-included cuz it looks like my exwife,just slimmer lol
edit: was it weak of me to leave the place like that?
you have cause to defend yourself.
Clearly the rant of someone who is immature, looking for trouble and praise over his gun and his stupid actions which risked his life and that of others, and possibly children over his arrogance and lack of maturity. The rest of jfrey’s comment is,
“We had a case up here last month: Guy had a house listed for rent, one of the neighbors called him up to say they thought someone was in there. Homeowner went to investigate. …”
Stupido: THE REPLY I MADE POINTED OUT THAT SMOGO IS NOT THE OWNER AND THAT THE OTHER USER, WHO SUGGESTED LYING TO THE POLICE AND MAKING A FALSE EVICTION AND THANKING EVIL GOVERNMENT FOR BEING BIASED TOWARDS THOSE WITH MORE POWER, WAS ALSO STUPID AND WRONG TO GIVE THAT ADVICE, ESPECIALLY BEING THAT IT IS CORRUPT GOVERNMENT THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE ALWAYS COMPLAINING ABOUT. You, an infantile narcissist, jfrey, couldn’t stand my just rebuke of these hypocrites so like a true narcissist erased what you couldn’t bear made you and your clique of morons look stupid and instead made a non sequitur and switched the subject, another logical fallacy called BAIT AND SWITCH. You also threw the baby out with the bathwater even if I had made an ad hominem attack a you seem to imply below. That other user for my readers to know, had said:s perhaps is what you are implying with your enormous copy paste signature below, clearly your lazy way of justifying squelching free speech and hiding the truth.
“Your best bet is to tell metro you’re acting as an agent of the owner and want the trespassers removed. If Metro doesn’t you’ll have to actually file an eviction and start with a 3 day nuisance.
Thankfully Nevada and Clark County are very pro property owner/landlord.”
Again: is bias logical or good, is oppressing the poor good? As I told them, the Bible says, “Those who oppress the poor insult their Maker, but helping the poor honors him.” and anyone who continues to do evil will end up in Hell and that that will be your permanent home.
jfrey’s comment also included this GIANT signature into the end:
“Looking for a Ruger 10/22 rifle or cheap charger pistol for an SBR project. Beat up is fine as long as it functions. PM me if you got one.
10 Commandments of Logical Debate:
1. Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument.” (Ad hominem).
Is that why you hastily made this generalization, “They joined just to insult all of us for shooting homeless people.”? You’re so wrong in the head you hypocritical moron copy paster, the 10 commandments of logical debate come from the Bible:
First you shall acknowledge your Maker and love him with all your heart and no blaspheme him or worship anything else other than him, if you cannot love him with all your heart YOU ARE TO FEAR HIM, because you are an illogical sinner. The Bible is FULL of ad hominem attacks the way you stated it, which was wrong. An ad hominem attack as atheists often quote is referring to AN ARGUMENT THAT AVOIDS THE ARGUMENT WHEN THE ARGUMENT HAS MERIT BY MERELY ATTACKING THE CHARACTER OF THE ONE WHO MADE THE ARGUMENT BY BRINGING UP IRRELEVANT CHARACTER FLAWS. That is why in court it is acceptable and common for a lawyer to ATTACK THE CHARACTER OF A WITNESS has questionable morality. You made an ad hominem attack indirectly by claiming to have nuked me without explanation.
“2. Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack.”
Is that why you said, “They joined just to insult all of us for shooting homeless people.” and deleted my comments so no one could see the evidence for your claim?
Moron who is being pretentious like a typical narcissist, ever heard of “Thou shalt not bear false testimony” and “Do not lie”? Instead you, a narcissist, replace that with your pretentious hypocritical statement. You misrepresented the argument by switching the subject and deleting my comments. (Straw man fallacy). More accurately and less pretentiously stated you idiot, a straw man is simply making up an argument someone didn’t make. You, being a narcissist, think that lengthening your babble and adding “Thou” to it makes you moral and wise, another fallacy.
“3. Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. (Hasty generalization)”.
Is that why you hastily said, “They joined just to insult all of us for shooting homeless people.”? Blind hypocrite. And so if I see a group of blacks with black hair and they all tell me that all blacks have black hair, I can’t say, “Well then, all blacks have black hair”? Idiot. What you made was a hasty generalization by stereotyping all “hasty generalizations” as many atheists do. Are you an atheist? Is
“4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true.” (Begging the question). Like you hastily deciding my comments should be deleted out of your assumption that because you personally disliked them it was right to do so? AND THAT ISN’T BEGGING THE QUESTION YOU MORON. BEGGING THE QUESTION IS MAKING A STATEMENT OR ASKING A QUESTION THAT HAS NO POINT TO IT WITH THE IMPLICATION, OR THE PERSON MAKING THAT STATEMENT OR QUESTION THINKING THEY ARE MAKING A POINT. Example is you quoting these various fallacies and implying that when you delete a comment that your copy paste makes a point as to why, wrong, it does not.
“5. Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. (Post Hoc/False cause):
And who does this, idiot? So liberals do this so much so that you include this in your copy-paste on logical fallacies? LOL. What a rant, and think about it, this teabagger imbecile leaves this as his signature after every moronic thing he says.
“6. Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (False dichotomy)”. No idiot, you don’t reduce an argument down to two possibilities ARBITRARILY. And why would you say two and not one or three, or four? Is two magically bad? That supposed logical fallacy then is a BEGGING THE QUESTION FALLACY, IT MAKES NO POINT. The fallacy is FALSE DICHOTOMY, not “DICHOTOMIES ARE FALSE”. An example of a true dichotomy is: “If the universe was not a random event creation, then it must have been a deliberate creation”. There is no other is no other logical possibility, there is no third possibility. Your a stupid copy paster who makes hasty decisions.
“7. Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false. (Ad ignorantum)”
Grammar check. Since your copy paste makes no sense, it is a non sequitur fallacy. What idiot copies something that is supposed to be about logical thinking, AND DOES NOT CAREFULLY READ WHAT HE PASTES BEFORE PASTING IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER, AND STILL DOES NOT READ WHAT HE’S REPEATING ENDLESSLY? A super idiot.
“8. Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof reversal)”
Because? No idiot, the way you stated/copy-pasted the fallacy makes no sense. No one makes a claim, “God exists” and then when an atheist says, “Prove it,” replies, “You (atheist) prove he exists.” The fallacy correctly stated is, “Defending a claim as being true if it cannot be disproven.” Not your stupid atheist nonsense of “Hey you prove me right”. No one argues “Prove me right”, they argue, “PROVE ME WRONG”. UGH, HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE!? If you don’t know what you are quoting you infant, DON’T QUOTE IT AS IF YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS!
“9. Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that” when it has no logical connection. (Non sequitur)”
Then why do you also make assumptions and why do you always make non sequiturs? Because: YOU, ARE ILLOGICAL and do not care about truth, logic or evidence, but rather your own feelings, narcissist moron.
“10. Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true. (Bandwagon fallacy)”
And who does that so much so that you decided it was oh so necessary to include in your replacement of God’s ten commandments? How many liberals say, “Oh Obama saying change is good is so popular is must be true!?” How many conservatives say, “Oh many people say Bush Jr. was such a nice guy, many say police are nice, so therefore Bush Jr. and police are nice”?
To learn more about logical fallacies click the permanent link on my blog above, to learn more about the insidious mental illness known as narcissistic personality disorder, which I believe many millions of Internet users like the ones I rebuked here have, click the link on my block above referring to it or go to http://narcissism.tk
You’re never going to see an economic recovery in America so long as the governors, mayors and the police in America keep harassing citizens, keep jailing them over biased or petty things or one person accusations or hunches and packing the jails and prisons with tens of millions of the potential work force and making home owners pay massive property taxes or harassing them for stupid things like weeds or some vague claim of “overgrowth”. And do you think you’re taxes are being spent wisely when a pan handler is jailed for “pan handling” or holding a sign or some arrested for trespassing on an empty street and all kinds of other petty arrests being made? Is there going to be an economic recovery when citizens keep having to buy expensivish water filters so they can drink water that doesn’t taste like toilet water? The poor will never get out of poverty so long as they are oppressed and having to spend money they need to prosper to instead enjoy the oppressive life they have. The claim that America is not “a third world country” is stupid, because in fact anyone can see that tons of people every day are selling their plasma JUST TO EAT, and are in effect, eating their plasma. What good is all the tech in the world if you can’t afford anything but the cheap stuff? This is a third world country. And about the claim “oh everyone has a flat screen tv”, who cares and who said those TVs were expensive? Do they generate income, if sold would that person suddenly be rich, no, so that’s dumb to use to say American’s aren’t poor. You cannot eat a flat screen tv, it creates a larger electricity bill instead.
There will also be no general economic recovery so long as the government denies people a right to make a profit from their gold mining or panning on BLM property, because there are people who actually obey the various state laws about what you can mine or take out and the BLM does enforce those laws. Think of the stupidity of not allowing some company or person to mine the middle of a massive desert, merely because it’s BLM land, or some environmentalist says there’s a possibly rare lizard there.
So long as there are corrupt people as our leaders and enforcers, there will be no economic recovery, if there is a large recovery, it’s only going to be for some group favored by the corrupt at the expense of the poor and the better part of the country, as in citizenry.
My guess is that there will only be a small recovery if someone comes up with a large ship or fleet of small ships, goes out to a no man’s land in the ocean and implements some sort of underwater mining technology to recover the precious metals or whatever in the ocean floor, or if secret sea-mining is done off the shores.
One more powerful reason I don’t see any significant economic recovery happening soon is because severely mentally ill people are allowed to roam free, and the two or three that matter most are those with the permanent disorders known as psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder. In other words psychopaths and narcissists. They are devastating to the lives of those they become close to. Their evil behavior may seem light, but if a person is exposed to it long enough it can have a very bad influence and cause a domino effect of misfortunes for the victim. Psychopaths and narcissists are chronically rude and chronic liars. They often become leaders, including business managers or police and cause devastation on an individual level and national depending on what they are doing and how many of them are doing it. A third but lesser problem are schizophrenics being allowed to roam. They are time-sappers. These days many people don’t bother reporting these people because they know that no one is likely to be arrested for simply being a mean person or babbling nonsense, or are so worn out from their bad life or trying to hang on to the good life they have that they don’t bother. There should be a campaign to permanently institutionalize psychopaths and narcissists and to get schizos the help they need and isolate then from the rest of society till they are normal again. Is that going to happen? Even if it did, because corrupt leaders are mostly ruling over us, it would no doubt be done in a poor way, and end up at some point being used to attack or take advantage of the innocent or those making the accusations. Quite simply, the evil governments of the world need to be wiped out for happiness to flourish among the decent people.
Technological progression is not an indication of moral progression necessarily, or as you called it “civility”. That is because of theivery, and what I call leeching, which is when a bad child enjoys the good environment provided for him by God, or parents better than him. Also, one need not be moral to to progress technologically. You merely need God’s willingness to allow something to happen, patience, the physical and mental ability, and the desire to accomplish a doable goal. This is demonstrated by psychopaths among us who have no morals,or rather, a bare minimum. A psychopaths morals may be: “I work to earn money, but I steal if I can get away with it.” In other words, morals of convenience. An example of a “world of psychopaths” or narcissists, is North Korea, it is a country that can only exist from the help of others who are more moral. The same with China, the atheists there were plundering and murdering and my guess is the Muslims, barely better, and the growing influence of Christians, and the goods and services provided by Christians from the outside world helped them to grow technologically. A very good example is the Soviet Union, when an atheist narcissist took charge, Stalin, he mass murderered millions, and how did his country technologically progress? They copied technology from “the west” and of course improvised. I’m not saying they only copy, because they have natural intelligence that allows them to innovate, but, a lack of morality introduces instablility which leads to de-progression. Civilizations come an go because they don’t obey God enough. An example is Israel, God stamped it out many times so that only a few were left and their country no longer existed. Another example were those Israel replaced, whom God became so disgusted with he had “better” people take their place, and that was Israel. Another example is Assyria, and a huge example was the world befor the Flood of Noah, which God completely wiped out except for Noah’s family and various land animals, and of course many sea creatures survived, though interestingly, it seems many of massive ones died out, with only a few of the majority remaining, like whales, giant fish and octopi and various sea serpants and plesiosaurs and seagaters or giant salt water crocodiles that are rarely seen. My guess is that the giant sea creatures of the Flood died out, with only their babies remaining, so that God’s symbolic teaching that it isn’t by your strength or size that you will survive, but by his mercy and will and you being humbled (signifying you being humble in heart in a loving submissive way) that you will “survive”/live in peace) would be expressed in a complete way. Surely various angels who witnessed the Flood, were able to see these massive sea creatures dying out, serving as an example to them right away, and to us humans later on when we discovered their bones.
So, is technological progression a necessary sign of a moral people? No, not at all, no more than some brutish animal feasting on the things in the environment, including more intelligent animals, then giving birth to tons of kids and taking over the nests of whatever they ate, and then giving birth to kids of their own.
My guess is, that in a purely psycopathic country, it would technologically devolve very quickly. Look again at North Korea, which still uses ancient computers, so much so, they were using it for their space agency, computers with large monitors only able to display the color green, if I saw right. I’m guessing that’s about 30 years behind the current state of technology. And I recently read that Russians went to them to help them build super emp weapons.
It seems to me one of the best examples that technological progression is not an indication of civility or more accurately: moral progression (improving or perfect obedience to God which would be the perfect fulfillment of “do to others as you would have them do to you” which Jesus commanded us to do and who introduced this concept) would be the native american world BOTH before and after the Europeans came, and not just them, but the Europeans themselves:
1. The Native Americans (including Native South Americans), despite having some morals and “civility”, were endlessly waring with other Native tribes. It seemed they never got farther than either: living in cliffs, living (and only for some) in very well made stone temples, tents, or probably leaf huts. Today we see that isolated tribes in the Amazon, despite having a rule set and civility enough to survive in a handful of groups over 100s of years, are still living in huts.
2. Then came the Europeans, who, because of their Christian beliefs (though far from perfect adherence to them), and because of the corruption of Catholocism, Lutheranism and Armenianism (corrupt forms of Christianity), were able to, because of their greater moral and motional stability and logic (which Christian belief imparts to the mind) were able to conquer the Native Americans, who the Europeans correctly saw as “savages” in comparison to them. The irony was was that those European Christians who were not truly Christian, but psychopaths or narcissists or like them, were worse in God’s eyes, because they knew the law of “do unto others”, yet disobeyed it by taking advantage of the Native Americans. Now, not all Europeans did this, I’m speaking in general. The Bible even says that if an evil man comes against you, to not resist him (that is, if he’s cornered and captured you). SO, even when Native Americans came with hostility to the Europeans, the Euros should have either remained friendly, put out food and goods for the hostiles to take, and if that didn’t appease, to barricade or run away, but not to murder and declare, “We are sovereign, God gave us the right to kill you”. I would even say that the European Christians were able to advance technologically greatly, because they aqcuired the Americas and plundered it from the Natives. It gave them a technological boost. Was that an example of “civility” in any way, to come on to land already in use, kick the dwellers there off it, or repeatedly cheat them out of the promises made to them, to murder them or harass or molest them when they protested?
3. There was also an indication that some of the giants that once lived in America had crude technology, but were they moral according to the Natives? No, just like in the pre-Flood world, the only indication of their behavior from the Natives or rather the strongest implication, was that they were bullies and war-like, and one was even said to have been a cannibal. These giants are now extinct, as far as anyone knows.
EVEN PERFECT OBEDIENCE TO GOD, even that would not necessarily be indicated by technological progression. Example: Moses and Samuel attained about as close as you can get to perfect obedience to God and were leaders of many, but did those many go on to become technological giants? Did God even say, “Here, this is how you build a UFO”? In fact, God explained how to build various things to certain people living before the Flood, so allowed them to “cheat” metaphorically speaking. He himself gave them a boost.
And finally, here is a thought experiment, or something like it, imagine a child is born with great intelligence, a Tesla type. He is taught by a psychopathic parent how to build various electronics and taught math, because that psychopath parent intents to exploit whatever the child invents. The parent even abuses his child now and then so that the child becomes arbitrarily introverted at times. That child then goes on to build great electronic devices, even a UFO, all the while the evil parent is murdering others and awaiting his little Tesla to come up with a great weapon or UFO. He comes home one day and shouts, “Hey genius, did you build anything I can use as a weapon or UFO yet? The child gives him both. The parent then uses them to slaughter and oppress the masses and has countries he conquired build more of them, and he tries to wipe out all the Christians “for sport”. He, because of his acts, has loaded the world with UFOs and extremely powerful and numerous weapons. He then goes to some other planet with human-like people who have a great civilization, and when they see him and his fleet, they say, “He must be civilized, because he has great technology,” and afterwards he destroys them. Then his child, who was made a prince splits his parent’s empire and advances them with new technology for war, and uses one half to destroy the other, but because they lack morals and because the child lacks morals, eventually they all destroy each other. Aliens from another world see what was left behind from the war, see the abandoned or broken UFOs, and say, “Surely they were civilized, maybe they were destroyed by an asteroid, a volcanic explosion or a flood or some savage race came and destroyed them.”
So, common sense thinking demonstrates that by great intelligence, some to great patience, but also by thieving and oppression, and with the help of many, who, using a base of a previously moral people’s efforts, can attain great technological progression and technology, and that mere “civility” for a time, is not an indicator of moral goodness, of kindness, of a loving civilization. It can indicate a previously good one, or one under subjegation, that is being taken advantage of most likely (like how China takes advantage of the morally better America by repeatedly swindling them and selling to them cheap toxic goods), but not moral superiority. Yes, it may have love, but a polluted type, and more likely to be lust, not “love”, and an unstable lust. Yes, the people may act orderly in various ways, and are patient in war, but it’s to enjoy oppressing. Even the atheist Gene Roddenberry seemed to realize this. IN his Star Trek world, the violent Klingon race had scientists working to progress their technology, which, because they were scientists and not warriors, were regarded as detestable and weak. And then came the “Borg”, of whom their queen said that they did not invent, but assimilated. I think that’s an unlikely absurdity, and is contradictory since the Borg would have to invent ways to assimilate and adapt, not simply take and glue things on to themselves, or let machines, which no doubt would be super stupid compared to a living being, do all the thinking. So far no one has made any greatly intelligent machines, and it would obviously take a massive amount of programming, an enormous amount, to get anything close to the intelligence of a parrot, and even then, it would have no soul, since only God can give that (with the exception that Satan will one day have the ability to create one living thing it seems, though it could be God will be the one who adds the soul to Satan’s attempt at making a living being).
On a side note, atheists proliferate mental disorders that work against civility and morality, like psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder or introverted cowardice. Mental disorders don’t help civilize or spread morality, they destroy it. And for that reason, atheists should be banished, along with psychopaths and narcissists whom they create and enable or are.