From Lucifer, the Theosophical magazine:

"And, when God said: 'Let there be light,' Intelligence was made and light appeared.

"Then, the Intelligence which God had breathed forth, like a planet detached from the Sun, took the form of a splendid Angel and the heavens saluted him with the name Lucifer.

"Intelligence awoke and it fathomed its own depths as it heard this apostrophe of the divine Word, 'Let there be Light.' It felt itself to be free, for God had commanded it so to be, and it answered, raising its head and spreading its wings, 'I will not be Slavery.'…"

"God then unloosed from his bosom the thread of splendour which held back the superb spirit, and as he watched him dive into the night, cutting in it a path of glory, he loved the child of his thought, and smiling with a smile ineffable, he murmured to himself: 'How fair a thing was this Light!'…"

"Perhaps Lucifer, in plunging into the night, drew with him a shower of Stars and Suns by the attraction of his glory?" (italics in original)

From Helena Petrovna Blavatsky the founder of modern Theosophy

"Lucifer represents.. Life.. Thought.. Progress.. Civilization.. Liberty.. Independence.. Lucifer is the Logos.. the Serpent, the Savior." pages 171, 225, 255 (Volume II)

"It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God." pages 215, 216, 220, 245, 255, 533, (VI)

"The Celestial Virgin which thus becomes the Mother of Gods and Devils at one and the same time; for she is the ever-loving beneficent Deity...but in antiquity and reality Lucifer or Luciferius is the name. Lucifer is divine and terrestrial Light, 'the Holy Ghost' and 'Satan' at one and the same time." page 539

Doesn't seem like Levay was too far off. Perhaps he was just taking this rebellion against authority to its natural conclusion, in which Satan is its grand architect?

In reply to this comment by enoch:
levay was a plagerizing,self aggrandizing twat.
the church may have taken his bullshit seriously but the esoteric community practically laughed him out of existence.
his theosophy was a joke.

In reply to this comment by Fade:
Peter Joseph was the creator of Zeitgeist.


your right.i was thinking kymatica.
see what happens when i post shit off the top of my head?
thanks man.

>> ^artician:

"Jay Programs so rapidly, that he often crashes the computer."
Has 60-minutes always been this pandering. That isn't rapid "programming", it's shitty software.
Either way, good for this kid. I hope he makes amazing work in his lifetime, and doesn't end up finding some esoteric, progressive compositions being the only thing he can do after a certain point.


I think his problem is that he's still using an iBook. Someone needs to donate a MacBook and new version of Finale or Sibelius.

As to the quality of his symphonies, he's still really young. Imagine what he can do in 5 years or so.

@A10anis

Agnosticism is an epistemological position of the uncertainty of knowledge of things. In other words, the nature of knowledge about God, or knowledge in general really, as many above have pointed out (I'm taking it you did read the nice chart above!). Theism or Atheism is a position, either knowingly or unknowing rejecting or accepting the idea of God; one can be explicitly or implicitly atheist (like all children not exposed to the idea are implicitly atheist). Agnostic Atheist is the most common position, but few people have complete understanding of all the concepts involved, or have their own private understandings of what they mean; making any unilateral criticism troublesome. As to the foundations of science and Mathematics, Kurt Gödel had had a great role to play in the destruction of what most peoples concept of certain systems are. And the o so smart Karl Popper ideas on falsifiability has thrown the antique notion of certain truth from science against the wall, in which modern Philosophers of Science, like Hilary Putnam have found intractable to solve, except to say that very little separates, currently, the foundations of science form the foundations of any other dabble of the imagination. Einstein talked about this as well, that wonderment is really the pursuit of all great scientists...not certainty.

As to my original claim, that science has truths it can not rectify, I leave it to better minds to explain the problems of induction. David Hume, Nelson Goodman, and Kurt Gödel drastically changed any view of certain knowledge from science and maths that I had. The untenable nature of the empirical evaluation of reality is just as uncertain as Abrahamic codifications being real.

I close with this, some of the greatest minds in the history of science and philosophy had no problem, nay, drew power from the deep richness they gathered from their faith. It drove them to the limits of the thoughts of their day, René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal, Alan Turing (who kept some vestibules of faith even after what happened to him), Georg Cantor, and countless others all had some "irrational" faith was more than just a ideal system of commands by some dead people, it drove them to greatness, and in many cases to rejection and madness of their "rational" peers. Georg Cantor, the father of the REAL infinite, died in a mental institution only to have his ideas lite a fire in the minds of the next generation of mathematicians.

It is my believe that we all want to have issue with x number of people, and make peace with y number. We elevate the slightest difference, or conversely, ignore a great flaw to peg this mark just right for us. Perhaps my y is just bigger than your x, or most peoples x as I find this debate I have is a common one; for tolerance, peace, and consideration. If you still think what I am saying is non-sense, then I guess we have nothing more to say to one another. I hope I cleared up my thoughts a bit more, I am not very good at communicating things that are more than just the average amount of esoteric.

"Jay Programs so rapidly, that he often crashes the computer."

Has 60-minutes always been this pandering. That isn't rapid "programming", it's shitty software.

Either way, good for this kid. I hope he makes amazing work in his lifetime, and doesn't end up finding some esoteric, progressive compositions being the only thing he can do after a certain point.

@NetRunner It would be over simplistic for me to say what "the real problem" is, I was pointing out "a" problem I see with certain mindsets. But surely, the people you mention do exist, and to that I mean people who want a certain degree of leeway in those they help. A person who spends a good deal of his time taking care of his body may find it slightly repulsive to pay for the care of someone whom has not taken care of himself, and perhaps rightly so. The shoe exists on the other foot as well, I am not blind to those who very little personal action was taken but very much social/economic/political benefit was reaped. Often have I toyed around with different ways of managing property rights and such to eliminate or make more difficult the position of the freeloading, powerful man.

I don't deny the need of government, nor would I suggest its eradication. My objection was more in line with "how" people are solving the problem of a non-functional government. Forgive me, but having been to several protests now, I find them moronic. It plays out like children jumping on a bed in a stew of anger. Some of Cobert's recent shows on OWS, and before it, the Tea Party stuff made me laugh to tears as I so greatly identified with is complaints. The overall event of a rally is a dogmatic, simplistic, and mostly naive portrayal of the problems, and to rant about even more dogmatic, arbitrary and simplistic solutions. To be forthright, I am an introvert. Large groups of people will, in time, always annoy me, and as such, I admit that perhaps there is something different about a rally that I don't understand. Some kind of comradery in spouting babbling cheers, sitting a public place for no real objective, and making a ruckus. It would seem that most of a rally is about being seen, and I would rather not be. Instead, I would rather be unseen, but actually affecting. It seems more beneficial as a rally only can indirectly change something, where as any other course of direct action has a real effect. For instance, if I were mad about jobs, the last thing I would do is OWS, I would instead seek to create a job fair.

And that was my main point, rallying seems to be the battle cry for those whom want solutions to be created by someone else. Why waste your time and money supporting a rally instead of the cause itself? I used to not have this world view. But, I hold now that spending your energies directly addressing the problem is more beneficial, in large, than trying to bring "awareness" to it. Perhaps I am wrong, though, and some level of awareness is needed just to enact the more hidden, direct changes, hard to say.

The reason I mentioned any of this was because of the position Mr. Moore took up on Obama. He talked about how it was young people that got him elected, that he didn't do the job he was elected to do exactly the way he laid it out, so they became disenfranchised. That was my main concern, and it would seem that those who fall victim to this are the same that think rallying will do anything other than have a rally. As a libertarian minded person, the last thing I am looking to do is give people less of a voice, my aim is almost always entirely the opposite. My objection was that outsourcing your voice to something that is only going to indirectly help you might not be the best course of action. Mad about wall street, fine, but do you still have a 401k? Often times, we are, esoterically, part of the problem and it is that kind of conversation you won't find at a rally. We are always in the right, and we were always wronged by some evil third party...a great children's story, but more often than not, not exactly true.

Sorry for the long rant. More poor command of the egrish usually means I babble on.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well firstly, the pope is a type of antichrist. The catholic religion is not Christian, which may suprise you. It suprised me too because before I became a Christian I didn't know the difference. It is a pagan religion which derives from Christianity but is in every way is antithetical to biblical teaching.
Second, I am saying the magic bracelet isn't completely fake. I am saying it will appear to grant the properties and characteristics expected by the wearer. This is due to spiritual deception by Satan. It isn't that it is wrong for people to have strength and balance, it is the source they are trying to get it from..ie, not God.
If you take a piece of wood and worship it, a demon will assigned to it to receive that worship. Whenever you're calling upon something other than God, Satan can and does use it to mislead and corrupt. These things always have spiritual connotations. Even the flying spaghetti monster has become a false idol, and receives worship. http://www.venganza.org/
I did in fact say this isn't a new deception, just an old one in new packaging. Pagans have been using this kind of spiritual systems for thousands of years, impuing objects with special powers and using them to manipulate reality. This is sorcery for the masses.

>> ^albrite30:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's a satanic deception. This is simply new age mysticism, and people enmasse are being trained to embrace and accept it. The principles of it stem from occult practices which have been practiced for a milennia. It is quite simply magic, or the attempt to gain power over reality by human willpower and directed intention. Since you are blind you don't see the spiritual consequences of these things, but they are plainly obvious . People are being taught to rely on mysticism and esoteric knowledge rather than God, to believe that they themselves can be gods, just as the serpent promised in the garden. There is nothing new under the sun; this is a very old deception. Satan doesn't have any new tricks, and he doesn't need any, because the old ones keep paying off.
>> ^KnivesOut:
Lol you're just as deluded as the idiots who buy this crap thinking it will change their life for the better.
Pro-tip: its an inert piece of plastic, not a fucking magic talisman.>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a spiritual issue. Anyone wearing this bracelet is engaging in sorcery, because this is basically magic. This leaves them open to deception from the enemy. The wearers of these bracelet may well be perceiving a tangible benefit because of this spiritual deception. It is just one of the tacts the enemy uses in spiritual warfare, getting people to rely on themselves or magic devices, or things like "the secret".



I don't see the difference between "new age mysticism" and old age mysticism. What the message seems to be in this video is that some object can bring about strength, endurance, and balance. Why is that so wrong to you shinny? What do you think the holy trinity is other than a mass propagated symbol of strength, endurance, and balance. The value of the message is a universal desire for that kind of thing in a person's life. People are NOT being trained these days to accept new deception, rather they have been trained for thousands of years to accept the same deception from various faiths in existence today. Seems to me that if you are losing members of your flock to gadgets such as these, it may be time to get a more charismatic preacher. Maybe if the pope signed off on the iRenew you would be singing a different tune.



Who should I speak to about getting my piece of wood assigned a demon? I pity your insanity.

Well firstly, the pope is a type of antichrist. The catholic religion is not Christian, which may suprise you. It suprised me too because before I became a Christian I didn't know the difference. It is a pagan religion which derives from Christianity but is in every way is antithetical to biblical teaching.

Second, I am saying the magic bracelet isn't completely fake. I am saying it will appear to grant the properties and characteristics expected by the wearer. This is due to spiritual deception by Satan. It isn't that it is wrong for people to have strength and balance, it is the source they are trying to get it from..ie, not God.

If you take a piece of wood and worship it, a demon will assigned to it to receive that worship. Whenever you're calling upon something other than God, Satan can and does use it to mislead and corrupt. These things always have spiritual connotations. Even the flying spaghetti monster has become a false idol, and receives worship. http://www.venganza.org/

I did in fact say this isn't a new deception, just an old one in new packaging. Pagans have been using this kind of spiritual systems for thousands of years, impuing objects with special powers and using them to manipulate reality. This is sorcery for the masses.



>> ^albrite30:
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's a satanic deception. This is simply new age mysticism, and people enmasse are being trained to embrace and accept it. The principles of it stem from occult practices which have been practiced for a milennia. It is quite simply magic, or the attempt to gain power over reality by human willpower and directed intention. Since you are blind you don't see the spiritual consequences of these things, but they are plainly obvious . People are being taught to rely on mysticism and esoteric knowledge rather than God, to believe that they themselves can be gods, just as the serpent promised in the garden. There is nothing new under the sun; this is a very old deception. Satan doesn't have any new tricks, and he doesn't need any, because the old ones keep paying off.
>> ^KnivesOut:
Lol you're just as deluded as the idiots who buy this crap thinking it will change their life for the better.
Pro-tip: its an inert piece of plastic, not a fucking magic talisman.>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a spiritual issue. Anyone wearing this bracelet is engaging in sorcery, because this is basically magic. This leaves them open to deception from the enemy. The wearers of these bracelet may well be perceiving a tangible benefit because of this spiritual deception. It is just one of the tacts the enemy uses in spiritual warfare, getting people to rely on themselves or magic devices, or things like "the secret".



I don't see the difference between "new age mysticism" and old age mysticism. What the message seems to be in this video is that some object can bring about strength, endurance, and balance. Why is that so wrong to you shinny? What do you think the holy trinity is other than a mass propagated symbol of strength, endurance, and balance. The value of the message is a universal desire for that kind of thing in a person's life. People are NOT being trained these days to accept new deception, rather they have been trained for thousands of years to accept the same deception from various faiths in existence today. Seems to me that if you are losing members of your flock to gadgets such as these, it may be time to get a more charismatic preacher. Maybe if the pope signed off on the iRenew you would be singing a different tune.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's a satanic deception. This is simply new age mysticism, and people enmasse are being trained to embrace and accept it. The principles of it stem from occult practices which have been practiced for a milennia. It is quite simply magic, or the attempt to gain power over reality by human willpower and directed intention. Since you are blind you don't see the spiritual consequences of these things, but they are plainly obvious . People are being taught to rely on mysticism and esoteric knowledge rather than God, to believe that they themselves can be gods, just as the serpent promised in the garden. There is nothing new under the sun; this is a very old deception. Satan doesn't have any new tricks, and he doesn't need any, because the old ones keep paying off.

>> ^KnivesOut:
Lol you're just as deluded as the idiots who buy this crap thinking it will change their life for the better.
Pro-tip: its an inert piece of plastic, not a fucking magic talisman.>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a spiritual issue. Anyone wearing this bracelet is engaging in sorcery, because this is basically magic. This leaves them open to deception from the enemy. The wearers of these bracelet may well be perceiving a tangible benefit because of this spiritual deception. It is just one of the tacts the enemy uses in spiritual warfare, getting people to rely on themselves or magic devices, or things like "the secret".




I don't see the difference between "new age mysticism" and old age mysticism. What the message seems to be in this video is that some object can bring about strength, endurance, and balance. Why is that so wrong to you shinny? What do you think the holy trinity is other than a mass propagated symbol of strength, endurance, and balance. The value of the message is a universal desire for that kind of thing in a person's life. People are NOT being trained these days to accept new deception, rather they have been trained for thousands of years to accept the same deception from various faiths in existence today. Seems to me that if you are losing members of your flock to gadgets such as these, it may be time to get a more charismatic preacher. Maybe if the pope signed off on the iRenew you would be singing a different tune.

...athletes and celebrities...



Doesn't everyone want to mimic the most useless people in society?

...taught to rely on mysticism and esoteric knowledge...



That sounds vaguely familiar. Almost biblical...

It's a satanic deception. This is simply new age mysticism, and people enmasse are being trained to embrace and accept it. The principles of it stem from occult practices which have been practiced for a milennia. It is quite simply magic, or the attempt to gain power over reality by human willpower and directed intention. Since you are blind you don't see the spiritual consequences of these things, but they are plainly obvious . People are being taught to rely on mysticism and esoteric knowledge rather than God, to believe that they themselves can be gods, just as the serpent promised in the garden. There is nothing new under the sun; this is a very old deception. Satan doesn't have any new tricks, and he doesn't need any, because the old ones keep paying off.


>> ^KnivesOut:

Lol you're just as deluded as the idiots who buy this crap thinking it will change their life for the better.
Pro-tip: its an inert piece of plastic, not a fucking magic talisman.>> ^shinyblurry:
This is a spiritual issue. Anyone wearing this bracelet is engaging in sorcery, because this is basically magic. This leaves them open to deception from the enemy. The wearers of these bracelet may well be perceiving a tangible benefit because of this spiritual deception. It is just one of the tacts the enemy uses in spiritual warfare, getting people to rely on themselves or magic devices, or things like "the secret".

You're addressing my ideas by cutting and pasting from an atheist wikipedia? I've seen so many appeals to outside authority in this thread, it makes me wonder if anyone here has come to any independent conclusions..every time i say anything someone just punches it into google and finds the rebuttal and then their world makes sense again..its just depressing

>> ^shuac:
Well, I'd like to address this idea of atheist/agnostic for sb's benefit. I doubt it'll change his mind but at least it'll be out there for the record.
Questions about atheism and agnosticism are questions about belief and knowledge, respectively.
BELIEF
theism / atheism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true, while an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.
Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.
To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:
1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.
There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:
1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.
There is room for a third option regarding the existence of god; one can simply not know, nor believe that god exists or believe that god does not exist. One can merely state that the proof in favor of a god is not there, but one may also assert that the proof against god may not be there, so one can hold an opinion in the limbo state.
For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).
For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).
Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)
While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).
An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Joe Montana was the greatest football quarterback of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition.
KNOWLEDGE
gnosticism / agnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know.
For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim. Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Let me just go ahead and say that again, giving it its own line for emphasis.
The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.
One can be...
1. an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist).
2. a gnostic atheist, someone who believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
3. an agnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true
4. a gnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.
Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.
While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

Well, I'd like to address this idea of atheist/agnostic for sb's benefit. I doubt it'll change his mind but at least it'll be out there for the record.

Questions about atheism and agnosticism are questions about belief and knowledge, respectively.

BELIEF

theism / atheism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true, while an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.

Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:

1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

There is room for a third option regarding the existence of god; one can simply not know, nor believe that god exists or believe that god does not exist. One can merely state that the proof in favor of a god is not there, but one may also assert that the proof against god may not be there, so one can hold an opinion in the limbo state.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

Notice, therefore, that atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism. (The weak atheism position is often confused with agnosticism, which is discussed below.)

While logic dictates that exactly one of the two claims above must be true (assuming the concept of "god" is sufficiently well-defined in the first place), there is no such restriction in the case of belief. Just because someone doesn't believe something, that doesn't mean they believe the opposite. This is one reason why the theist's accusation that atheism requires "just as much faith" as theism is unfounded (except possibly in the case of particularly strong forms of strong atheism, discussed below).

An example of disbelief not being the complete opposite of belief is that just because I do not believe Joe Montana was the greatest football quarterback of all time doesn't mean I think he was the worst either. Disbelief is not the opposite. It is not a logical proposition.

KNOWLEDGE

gnosticism / agnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know.

For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim. Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. Let me just go ahead and say that again, giving it its own line for emphasis.

The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

One can be...

1. an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist).

2. a gnostic atheist, someone who believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

3. an agnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true

4. a gnostic theist, someone who believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

Typically, the gnostic's assertion of knowledge is esoteric and may well be attributed to divine revelation. In some cases, the gnostic will assert that the knowledge of a god's existence is available to anyone, although rarely through empirical, scientific evidence.

Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn't strictly true. In fact, there is no term commonly used to describe such an atheist, since their position would be even more extreme than strong atheism. Such a person might be called an "untheist" or "antitheist", perhaps. According to our definitions, they would simply be called a gnostic atheist who happens to think that his or her belief can be proven.

While many atheists would probably agree that given any sufficiently detailed description of a god, that particular god could be convincingly argued against, that is very different from constructing an airtight proof of universal non-existence.

I'm confused. You say that your definition of "corruption" is literal "not working that way it's supposed to" but then link me to a definition that matches what I think corruption means -- actual, well, corruption.

We're not going to get far if we can't agree on the meaning of corruption. Heck, we can't even get started.

I just don't agree with any of your base assumptions, honey bunny.

I don't agree with this: "Both the institutions of US government & police don't function in the way that they claim to be designed. i.e. maximizing liberty while minimizing suffering"

And I REALLY don't agree with this: "the literal daily suffering of innocent people for no good reason i.e. dancing in protest." Those activists didn't suffer, they aren't innocent, there was a good reason. They are so thrilled they got thrown to the ground -- they set out to be thrown to the ground. They couldn't be more pleased. They won.

I'm sorry, I just don't even want to answer the two questions you posed. I can't get past the first one. "Who or what do you feel the police are protectors of? (proof?)" Google it. I don't think anything different than anyone who has had a problem and called the police for help.

I'm sorry, Genji, I just don't have the energy for this conversation if that is the question you have to ask me. I know you think that is a serious question, however for me it is proof of too big a divide between us.

I suspect we agree on many things. Citizens United, for example. I'll bet you hate that Supreme Court ruling as much as I do. The war of drugs. I'll bet you think that is a huge waste of money and human lives, just as I do. Legalization of Marijuana? I'm with you, babe.

I am more interested in concrete conversations, rather than your esoteric bent. The divide is too big for email exchanges -- perhaps if we lived in the same town, we could haggle for months over endless cups of coffee. These dueling monologues that email conversations digress into? I'd rather watch a cat fart video. And I don't much like cats.

Here's my philosophy of humans and life: "Everyone is doing the best they can in every given moment. Their best may stink, but it is the best they can do." Some people's best is so horrendous, you have to keep those people out of your life -- angry, abusive people, for example. That's their best -- I believe those folks are deeply damaged and are acting out of their pain. And I walk away from them.

But most people are just normally damaged. They have bad moments. I try not to define folks by their worst moments, but by their best. And that includes police officers.

I don't think that we can agree that police officers are human. If we can't start there, we got nowhere to go.

Sometimes I bore myself, as a good friend of mine says.... Blah blah blah

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
That's a really great video. It's proof of a hypothesis I had too. = D

Tho with that framing, I can understand how you may have interpreted my & that activist's cynical statements considering how.. philosophical? your definition of corruption seems to be.

For many, I think they think plain old literal "not working the way it's s'pposed to" a good definition for corruption.

More specifically - Political, Police, & Corporate were the types of corruption I was alluding to.

Now if we're discussing that video & incident from a literal view.
Literally, Both the institutions of US government & police don't function in the way that they claim to be designed.
i.e. maximizing liberty while minimizing suffering

So with that shallower, pragmatic framing of corruption; you should probably see how my intemperate idealism could make me so passionate about the literal daily suffering of innocent people for no good reason
i.e. dancing in protest

~~~
Okay, I'll stop the wall of text here in a second.

Tho I would like to inquire about a few more things.

Your & @Shepppard's admiration for the positive effects of police officers seem to be based off the concept of The Correlation of Allegiance and Protection

"Since the police do provide some protection they obviously deserve my allegience"

I'd like to ask:

Who or what do you feel the police are protectors of? (proof?)

Does the sheer willingness to protect that who or what, justify the means by which that protection is accomplished?

@TheSluiceGate

Alright, I'll address this completely out of context reply. Cherry picking statements I made weeks ago is not going to prove your point, if you have one that is. If you had actually read the context you would understand that one has nothing to do with the other, at all. I said that first statement because people were complaining that the title indicated that the video was absolute proof that God existed, which wasn't my intention. So, my statement was just a denial of that, not that in itself it wasn't evidence in itself.

So no, the conclusion you've reached isn't logical. I do consider personal testimony to be evidence, obviously, however Howards is a much better example, as it was given unto Him to proclaim to the world. My experience was, how shall we say, much more esoteric. In any case, you're setting the terms here. If you were actually interested in debating me, you wouldn't care if you had an audience or not.

Here is my testimony:

Jesus has changed my life, and improved me as a human being. Where there was anger, he sowed forgiveness. Where there was greed, he sowed generosity. Where there was ignorance, he sowed wisdom. Where there was restlessness, he sowed contentment. Where there was anxiety, he sowed peace. Where there was fear, he sowed love. It's because of Him that I am standing here today. Jesus saved my life, and because of that, I will spend eternity praising His name.

So, if that's not good enough for you I am sorry. It's the best I can do. You're free to message me at any time. God bless.