Aha, Ainur, thank you! I knew I was probably thinking of the wrong term.

Either way, didn't know there was "raging controversy". I did however get to work on Lord of the Rings Online for 3 years, where I had daily access to one of the best lore-historians in the US( Chris Pierson, who sat next to me).

Pretty sure he said something along the lines of "One of the last in Middle earth that we know of", so there was definitely an open-ended element to the topic

Andrew Napolitano agrees that Lincoln did not engage in war to end slavery but to bring back the seceding confederacy, as the clip Stewart clip shows. He also shows a clip, presented without context of Napolitano talking about the war being unnecessary to free the slaves. That is addressing those many who believe the war was fought to free the slaves. Napolitano in the original interview is addressing both camps: those who think the war was about slavery and those who think it was about tariffs or something else to indicate either way, it was unnecessary. Watch Napolitano's statements on Lincoln in full, not taken with zero context like Stewart does, and you will see that even if he thinks the war was about something other than slavery, he says that. Even if it had been about slavery as many people, namely Lincoln fans, and even historian have argued, even still, it was an unnecessary "murderous" war. There is no contradiction there. If you think it was about slavery, then still it was the wrong approach to it. And more likely it was not even about slavery. So his comments are meant for someone who thinks it was about slavery. Stewart just edited out the context, as he typically does. The context being that he is addressing the persistent idea that the war for Lincoln was or became about slavery.

Maybe it needs more simplification. Napolitano's point:

Some believe the civil war was necessary to liberate slaves. But if Lincoln had wanted to free the slaves, there were a number of options to pursue. Instead, he 'set out on the most murderous war in American history'. Because the intention was not to free the slaves to begin with.

What about that makes no sense? If anything, the "debate" on this point is what "makes no sense."

BTW, among those who believe the war was not about taxes is Jon Stewart.

It is true that MMA is not the be-all end-all of martial arts,and in fact "two persons of equivalent weight competing willingly on neutral ground" is quite far removed from "actual trouble" (key words: "two", "willingly").

That being said, two things:
1) There have been 'no-hold-barred' fights / underground duels recorded since at least the 1920s, some of them very violent and bone-splitting (famously: Kimura Vs Gracie), and 'soft' aikido-style systems never won anything.

2) More importantly, systema does claim a number of things, including being a martial art in the military sense, and being the product of an elite military force, to which it was reserved (i.e. it was secret). It also claims to have semi-mystical roots dating from the middle ages, and bonker stuff like 'paralyzing soft punch' and 'healing punch' (this is claimed by its actual founder - you can look it up). Of course none of those claims have been substantiated.

So systema is either:
- An elite martial art with Fist-Of-The-North-Star like powers, yet no one heard of it before or beside (not pre-USSR historians, not recognized Russian martial artists, and not actual Russian elite military officers), and was/is super-secret, yet can be somehow taught to anyone.

Or:
- Stuff made up by two guys out of the army.

You decide.

If your goal is "studying" and "bettering yourself", shouldn't that involve something that's honest with its claims?

I agree with Velocity5, it is, indeed, self-deception.

Once again the harbinger of gloom, doom, chaos and destruction, sets out his familiar stall.
He sites "facts," showing that commons held by the public succeed, as opposed to privatisation. But he doesn't appear convinced by his own rhetoric as he adds; this is "usually true." What facts, and where?
"Canada has become the scourge of the world with its (climate) activities." Really? How about China and India with their coal powered CO2 emitting plants? At the moment China is the largest emitter in the world but India will soon pass them as they are building 455 new plants whilst China is "only" building 363. Does he ignore these facts because he prefers, as usual, to constantly berate the west?
Once again he bemoans the top 1%. Well, the top 1% in the UK contribute 30% of the tax revenue. I've said it before, he is a prophet of doom with no palpable solutions to what he sees as military, financial, and social chaos.
I can assure him that there WILL be future historians and, if he is remembered at all, it will be as a foot note example of despondency.

You seem to be relying on quite a few assumptions yourself, and this doesn't really deserve a reply (and you probably don't want one anyway), but nonethless -- I've a few minutes to kill:

None of what you say explains how you justify the stupid assumption that we need a monopoly of law enforcement in order to enforce the law.

Another assumption is in thinking that people are "evil" but somehow the politicians and the bureaucrats are somehow "good" and are what maintain law and order. (Maybe you think of yourself as evil. But in any case that is irrelevant.)

The "60's hippies" comment sounds like a Faux Noise pundit!

"What EXACTLY prevents me from taking everything someone has, by force? Private security? If you can afford it? If you can't?"

Go ahead, try it. And I can afford it. If you can't, then you should maybe look into that and your own finances instead of ranting about libertarians. Seems like a better strategy.

Do you actually think police services now currently "free?" Even if you happen to be a nonproductive tax consumer, you are still paying for it in other ways.

Competing private security or insurance would be cheaper and more efficient than the police force, since it would not be the monopoly we have now. And there are also those willing and able to defend themselves on top of that.

"All of Europe was effectively ungoverned when Rome fell."

Learn your history; there was never a time where all of Europe was "effectively ungoverned" when Rome fell.

"3. The appropriate information will be available to make rational decisions."

Obviously you're making the erroneous assumption that individuals don't have the info needed to make their own decisions and yet government/central planners somehow do. This is, in fact, the opposite of what Hayek demonstrated (not to mention what common sense indicates). (Maybe you feel incompetent, but that's another issue.)

Bemoaning the end of the Roman empire is like bemoaning the end of the Nazi regime; with its constant wars, the destruction of the 2nd Jewish Temple (an earlier holocaust), its intolerances, etc. Any problems with the "dark ages" (a label that historians are increasingly abandoning as it is glaringly inaccurate) reveal what happens when a poorly run state collapses due to war and bad economics. A lesson on where we are heading, whatever you might think. Good luck to you.

Edit: "You really act as though government is the root of all evil."
Which of my actions do you mean? Posting my thoughts? Are you the thought police?

Despite naysayers to the contrary, the Bible is historical and Reliogious fact. People try to claim that events in the Bible didn't happen ... i.e. there wasn't a Jesus (proven that has was born, crucified and that thousands reported seeing him post Crucifixion that even atheist historians agree on), David, Solomon, etc etc

Perhaps you should widen you mind's understanding to consider that perhaps the flood legends/records in ancient civilizations point back all to the common event of a world wide flood.

It is one thing to say that you choose not to follow God and what he stands for (thus Free Will), but don't be intellectually dishonest to claim that what the Bible records didn't happen. The proof continues to be provided and yet people don't believe. Even when Jesus, the Son of God was present and healing people and raising them from the dead, people still chose to turn away and call for his Crucifixion.

Just because you cannot conceive of a way that a world wide flood could happen doesn't make it not so. 200 years ago, we did not have knowledge of flight, DNA etc and the more we learn continues to demonstrate that we intricately complex designed by a Creator, God, and not happenstance. How people can claim evolution and believe in entropy at the same time is mental deceit.

from the side profile, looks like the holes were pre-drilled all the way down.

Some historians believe pyramids' stones were cut similarly.
If you are in a climate that is below freezing (even if overnight), you could fill the holes with water then those water-columns would act as a wedge when it turns to ice and expands.

I don't think they'll let the U.S. default now, nor do I think they will not raise the debt ceiling (But, again, who knows?). If they do, however, raise the ceiling, it will be another indication that there is no more capping the debt, it will grow and grow until the country has no choice but to default.

Interesting to remember, back at the beginning of the Reagan years, fiscal conservatives were "crying" about the debt being $1 trillion. That's nothing compared to what it is today. And it was Reagan (by way of his "Reaganomics") who decided that there was no problem with increasing the debt.
Writes Murray Rothbard (in 1981), in an article about how the U.S. should just default on the debt:

"Perhaps the most absurd argument of Reaganomists was that we should not worry about growing public debt because it is being matched on the federal balance sheet by an expansion of public 'assets'."

(I wonder what he would make of today's $16 trillion+ in U.S. debt?)

Predictably, as soon as Reagan went on a spending spree, fiscal "conservatives" stopped being so (not unlike the 'leftists' who stopped being anti-war as soon as Obama was elected).

It should also serve us to remember that it was the Democratic party that first considered itself the party of fiscal responsibility, at least with regards to Jefferson, Jackson, and Van Buren who all had a conscious plan to defund government but eventually failed for various historical reasons.

"It is for all these reasons that the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians (who, contrary to the myths of historians, were extraordinarily knowledgeable in economic and monetary theory) hated and reviled the public debt. Indeed, the national debt was paid off twice in American history, the first time by Thomas Jefferson and the second, and undoubtedly the last time, by Andrew Jackson."

@ChaosEngine For sure the facts will be hidden for years.Trying to figure out who killed more is tricky.. the historians of the 22nd Century will have a better idea than we do. What number would you put on it?

"Ah, Soviet Justice! The accused falls to the ground, weeping at the horror of his crime against the state, flagellating himself for having the termerity to defy the will of the Great Leader and begging forgiveness before being sentenced to the Gulag for Anti-Soviet Agitation!

With any luck, historians fifty years later can determine if he was actually guilty of anything." -- Comment @ Guardian

Comedian, not historian! Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Wow, you really are the poster child for the low information voter, nothing in your drivel disproves my claims.

Take a look at http://www.270towin.com/

start going back through each of the elections, you'll notice that with very few exceptions, the south is always red.

That is until say...oh...1960. Hrm, I wonder what sort of racial event happened around that time...hrmmmmmm.

From: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/jun/10/stephen-martin/state-sen-stephen-martin-says-democratic-party-cre/

"Martin (Virginia State Sen. Stephen Martin) said the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. He acknowledged he was wrong.

Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But there’s no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.

It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today."

Hrm, that's two Republicans now that have admitted they were wrong in regards to claims you also are making.

Do yourself a favor bob, and do some of them book learn'ns You've got a lot of catching up to do if you want to join this century.

For folks saying that the 300 was historically inaccurate, our historical records for that 'event' come largely from Herodotus who, although is often called the first real historian, was pretty much about cool yarns in the first place. The whole Persian conflict reads like a very cool war novel and has to be taken with a grain of salt.

@alcom

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.

If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.

In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.

In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:

Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.

The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:

"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson

What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece