I don't think using the notoriously brutal and horrific Aztec society as an alternative base for naming, makes things any better. Looking into the atrocities committed by that society makes the trail of tears look like a Sunday stroll in the park.

It would be better to use the meaning of the Aztec name "flower that grows in residues or soil" or even just make up a new name like "holiday flower" if we really want to clean up the historical associations of things that we like but are uncomfortable with the historical associations.

I would say that Stalin, the Kin Jong's, Various African Tribal Genocides, and Pol Pot might disagree with your account of wholesale slaughter being reserved for the 'white' Europeans and their descendants. That is just to name a few. Also, what is a 'white' European? I mean the southern Europeans have quite a bit of Moorish blood in them, do they still count as 'white'?

All sarcasm aside, your argument is extremely flawed. Conquerors tend to lay waste to the societies they conquer, not always in terms of total lives lost, but in terms of cultural death. The reason why 'white' people are vilified for this lately is because for the past several hundred years they have been the ones expanding and taking over the regions you speak of. This is not exclusive to a skin color or originating locale, it is absolutely a core of our human nature.

I gave some examples earlier of non-European conquerors, but they are fairly recent. If we look in history at other groups, we find the same meme. The Steppe Horse Tribes were BRUTAL to cities and countries that did not capitulate. Look up "Measuring against the linchpin". That saying came from the fact that if you resisted Mongol rule, they would slaughter every male taller than the linchpin of a wagon wheel. The Aztecs and Mayans ruled southern American empires through great brutality, including human sacrifice for 'religious' purposes. Recent discoveries even indicate that it was considered a good omen if the sacrifices were crying in pain before they were to die. Remains recently found showed "All shared one feature: serious cavities, abscesses or bone infections painful enough to make them cry."

Slavery originated as early as human recorded history, if not sooner. Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution. Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations. Mass slavery requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable. Although slavery in some form or another existed in most European countries, it wasn't until after contact with the Arabic African slave traders that it soared in the 15th and 16th centuries.

tl;dr

You are referring to recent history to make an example while completely ignoring THOUSANDS of years of similar history. All humanity is flawed, narrowing it down to a singular group with cherry picked data is not going to persuade anyone with a brain.

Nice to see a lack of verbal abuse in a discussion like this. I appreciate it as I know I'm probably treading on thin ice in a lot of minds.

I disagree that texts are devoid of meaning until we give them some. The text itself if a collection of ideas and some of those ideas are horrendous. It generally is not an individual's qualities that determine the violence of the religion as much as the history of that religion's practice in the area they were raised. A peaceful and loving Aztec that was faithful would still have supported sacrificing slaves for all the same reasons, because they would have believed the underlying superstitions that made it a rational act given the premises.

I'm not sure Maher & co. view is as a strictly religious phenomenon. You really have to do a case by case analysis. Some make no sense but for religion, while other are very easy for my to sympathize with, even as an atheist. I have to admit I'm more familiar with Harris' views than Maher's, mind you, as I find Maher's presentation of his ideas can at times be half baked.

The reason why they specifically strap bombs to their chests is largely religious. Everyone else prefers living to kill another day. There's a religious reason why they are willing to sacrifice their children in this way. The reason that they behead people instead of other forms of killing them is because that form of murder is enshrined in their texts. All of these religious justifications lower the barrier for action. They make it that much easier for someone to accept that it's a reasonable course of action. And that's because of specific words in specific books.

I agree that is smells like apologist BS when Harris talks about western intervention having good intentions. I don't think the west has good intentions most of the time. However you have to acknowledge that there is something less reprehensible about trying to kill even a likely dangerous person (with the likelihood of innocent collateral damage) as compared with deliberately targeting exclusively innocent people. Yes the wedding party massacre was horrible. That was the worst case possible from our point of view, and some efforts will be made to avoid it happening again. If think that is morally significant. If you don't think intentions are relevant to morality, we will simply disagree.

What other Apple 2 games did you played? Here's what I played that I could re(member/call): Wings of Fury, Diamond Mine, Kareteka, Montezuma's Revenge, Aztec, Gemstone Warrior, Conan O'Brien (think I submitted it here), Ancient Art of War (a pastor gave me that game haha), Boulder Dash, Champion Ship Lode Runner (finished and got a paper certificate), etc.

Did you ever finish it? I didn't on my Apple //c.

This game reminds me of Aztec on my Apple //c.

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

The Aztecs worshiped the sun; well kinda; but in general, we are both in violent agreement: Sun = Very important!

Thanks for the reply!

>> ^BenyBen:

You know, I've always thought that if anything deserves being revered, it would be the sun. It literally shines its light to all of us, and its power can be felt from a 150 million kilometers away. It is responsible for life on this planet as we know it.
Your comment intrigued me, as I always wondered why there isn't any mainstream sun worshiping religion. Perhaps it is because of the very fact that it shines on everyone, no matter the color, sexual preferences.
In reply to this comment by MonkeySpank:
Notice Yogi's sarcasm (i.e. grayed out text).
In other news, my God is the sun, but it doesn't judge me and doesn't require constant asskissing or reminders of how great it is. Oh, and without it, none of you suckers would be here. My god shines the same amount of light on everyone, regardless of gender, history, or sexual preference.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lowen:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lowen:
By the same logic Rachel uses, human sacrifice as practiced by the Aztec also worked.

By the same logic you're using, we should be deeply skeptical that vaccination works.

No, not really.

The logic Rachel is using is scientific method, established by experts in their respective fields. TARP did better than anyone ever dreamed it would. The stimulus created the number of jobs it was expected to, and health care reform is a massive improvement to the system on every front.
You're basing your comment on what logic, exactly? We did all this stuff, and nothing obviously good happened, therefore it must have had no effect?
Again, that logic implies you should be skeptical of vaccination. Nothing's wrong, they stick you with a needle, and then there's no apparent effect. Vaccines must be snake oil!


We know vaccines work because we checked to see if they work via scientific method. The results were and are very clear, so the medical community can say with certainty that they work and are not snake oil.

I challenge you to find this clarity, or even a consensus, similar to what vaccination enjoys with the medical profession, within the community of economic experts.

They are not the same.

and, FYI my comment was a sarcastic remark, not a serious comparison. However I stand by the point I was making. Even if you're right and we know that these programs actually worked, neither you nor Rachael offer any evidence for believing why they worked beyond saying that some experts believe so. While it's fine to start with expert opinions, it isn't enough to justify your smug certainty.

>> ^Lowen:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lowen:
By the same logic Rachel uses, human sacrifice as practiced by the Aztec also worked.

By the same logic you're using, we should be deeply skeptical that vaccination works.

No, not really.


The logic Rachel is using is scientific method, established by experts in their respective fields. TARP did better than anyone ever dreamed it would. The stimulus created the number of jobs it was expected to, and health care reform is a massive improvement to the system on every front.

You're basing your comment on what logic, exactly? We did all this stuff, and nothing obviously good happened, therefore it must have had no effect?

Again, that logic implies you should be skeptical of vaccination. Nothing's wrong, they stick you with a needle, and then there's no apparent effect. Vaccines must be snake oil!

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lowen:
By the same logic Rachel uses, human sacrifice as practiced by the Aztec also worked.

By the same logic you're using, we should be deeply skeptical that vaccination works.


No, not really.

>> ^Lowen:

By the same logic Rachel uses, human sacrifice as practiced by the Aztec also worked.


By the same logic you're using, we should be deeply skeptical that vaccination works.

By the same logic Rachel uses, human sacrifice as practiced by the Aztec also worked.

The problem is that the mythical and religious elements of the first few Indiana movies fit within a fantasy setting whereas aliens are clearly associated with sci-fi. I know they tried to tie it together with Aztec mythology, but it remains far too jarring. Honestly I liked the fridge bit, completely implausible but a great way to bring the Cold War setting to the fore without devoting unnecessary exposition time.

Eight years of Duhbya.>> ^kronosposeidon:

Q: What do you get when morality is based on ancient traditions superstition tea leaves card tricks faith?
A: Hmm, let's see..
- Roman persecution of Christians
- The Inquisition
- Thuggee murders
- Aztec human sacrifice
- Mountain Meadows Massacre
- Jonestown
- Witch trials
- Islamic Jihad
- The Holocaust
- The Crusades
- Thirty Years' War
- Armenian Genocide
- The Troubles in Northern Ireland
- The Taliban
and lest we forget
- The Middle Fucking East

Q: What do you get when morality is based on ancient traditions superstition tea leaves card tricks faith?

A: Hmm, let's see..

- Roman persecution of Christians
- The Inquisition
- Thuggee murders
- Aztec human sacrifice
- Mountain Meadows Massacre
- Jonestown
- Witch trials
- Islamic Jihad
- The Holocaust
- The Crusades
- Thirty Years' War
- Armenian Genocide
- The Troubles in Northern Ireland
- The Taliban

and lest we forget

- The Middle Fucking East