Jump to content

action

Members
  • Content count

    1,878
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

action last won the day on March 14 2018

action had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,690 Excellent

1 Follower

About action

  • Rank
    DEMI-GOD

Profile Fields

  • Sex
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,834 profile views
  1. the facts themselves are ancient. as a historian, you'll agree with me, that contemporate sources are better than more recent ones, years after the facts the latoya interview was given, in tempore non suspecto, before everyone and his granny were suing the jackson estate. that, coupled with the very convincing testimony, grants her a lot of credibility in my opinion.
  2. also, I think it is time to stop handing out labels such as "jackson defender" or "jackson attacker" labels such as those suggest some sort of determination, that prevails over new facts. I'm not sure what I am: jackson defender or jackson attacker. I don't think I have made my mind up, and I doubt I ever will. the most I can be, is an "appreciator of certain elements in the jackson case" there is the latoya interview. That can be appreciated. I think she speaks the truth. there is the safechuck confession. I think that was a lie. there is the version of jackson's kids, they tell he was a great dad. I can believe that too. But taking the next step... a "conclusion"... that is very damn hard to do. So personally, I refuse to be called a "jackson defender" or "jackson accuser" since I haven't even made my own mind up. But present me clear elements, and I might be able to appreciate it. That's what I'm trying to do here
  3. to be honest, I find they do a shitty job with it. To me, their lies and their faces look really transparent. I can't quite put my finger on it. Is it how they can barely keep a straight face? is it the staged setup of the interview and the docu as a whole? the calculated answers? their eyes that are litterally shouting: "look, I'm lying"? they say, first impressions are telling the truth. Well, my first impression within the first 10 seconds or so, was screaming insincerity. I could be wrong of course, but that's my take on it
  4. Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on fire

    "religious" is a label that is put on anything we can't understand, as if to mask our fundamental lack of intellectual capabilities to understand the universe. scientific progress is limited by the capabilities of our instruments to catch light. Science has actually put forth a theory that "what can not be seen, is scientifically irrelevant and is the realm of religion" We can't prove how the big bang started? No problem. Religious people try to explain it, and we as scientists are smarter by default. We can't explain how the cathedrals of france form a pattern that's the star sign of virgo, and this knowledge dates from long after the cathedrals were build? No problem. Cathedrals are religious. Religious people are irrational. we can't explain near dead experiences? No problem. it probably has something to do with chemical unbalance in the head just before you die. religion doesn't provide the right answer because.... religion the ignorant people of the middle ages already understood that you have to try to link religion to rationality. Both elevate each other and provide answers the other can't give. see thomas of aquino who wanted to prove the existence of god by using aristotle
  5. Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on fire

    Ghent is really fucking awesome. I love it to death
  6. Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on fire

    hey man, it's ok. for good understanding, I think you're genuinly funny (most of the times) it's ok OG. I know you mean well.
  7. Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on fire

    by all means, tell us when we're talking bollox. I love me an intelligent discussion about religion and the meaning of life. but I ask you, at what point in this thread, did you see anyone talking bollox, so you felt triggered to post grossly offensive statements, at a time where the ashes of a beloved cathedral weren't even cooled down? Was it the people crying when they stood watching? Was it the 400 firemen who risked their lives saving precious art? Was is the people noting the historic importance of the building? Or was it none of the above, but you just felt like crashing in on here, throwing your weight around like a fucking elephant in a porcelain store?
  8. 'Conspiracy of Silence' Documentary

    I find that belief ridiculous too, but I'm not going to tell anyone. Because I respect the rights of people to believe whatever they want. But you want to ridicule people, preferrably at the worst of moments and when people are at their weakest (say, when a beloved church is burning to ashes), then that's your call. That's hugely objectionable behaviour. "To ridicule" is an active word. It suggests certain behaviour towards people with different opinions. "Finding" a belief ridiculous however, is not. it harms no one. Like I said, I "find" the thought of a bearded man in heaven ridiculous too.
  9. 'Conspiracy of Silence' Documentary

    what's the difference between ridiculing a belief, and ridiculing a person? If I ridicule you, because you're a fan of chris pitman, am I not ridiculing you? If I ridicule you, for wearing pink shoes, am I not ridiculing you? Without people, there is no belief. Take it from me, if you want to respect people, don't laugh with their beliefs. You're just opening yourself up for backlash. It's not cool to laugh with religion. It was, maybe, in junior school, but any person claiming any sort of intelligence should respect people's opinions. Frankly, the mere act of "ridiculing" is so fucking childish, it instantly makes me lose interest. By all means, have an intelligent discussion about such delicate subjects, but if you ridicule, you show the limits of your intellectual capabilities right there and then.
  10. 'Conspiracy of Silence' Documentary

    You can't expect respect, if you don't respect others, how ridiculous you might think their beliefs are. Millions, and millions of people hold those "ridiculous beliefs". That's a damn big number of people you're laughing with. If people believe, and you ridicule belief, you're ridiculing that person as it were, thus infringing on their right to respect. I'm sure you mean well, but I'm not sure you entirely understand the fundamental inconsistency in your opinion here. You can think of religion whatever you want, but the moment you start ridiculing it, you're ridiculing people. Therefore, you have no claim to respect yourself.
  11. Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on fire

    there are bad people in any religion, Oldest Goat. That doesn't mean that every religious person approves of that behaviour, nor does it make their belief any less respectable. It's too easy to throw everyone on the same pile because of a couple of assholes. What, should christians throw away their belief cos of a couple of pedo's? my ancestors as far as I can tell, from the 17th century to this day have all been good and devoted people and they didnt harm a soul. So I'm not buying this fashionable, patronising rhetoric that so many people are spouting these days. Each to their own I say, as long as other people aren't bothered.
  12. 'Conspiracy of Silence' Documentary

    you say religion is ridiculed "with good reason" but in the other post you claim to be openhearted and open minded "to the point of naivity" and "you expect your own opinions not to be disregarded "at whim". There just isn't making sense of both posts combined together. If you are sincere, and you are open hearted as you claim, then you should reckognise the right of religious people to believe in a man with a beard in the heavens, without ridiculing it.
  13. 'Conspiracy of Silence' Documentary

    you don't half contradict yourself from time to time, Oldest Goat
  14. Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on fire

    They litterally go from attacking Trump's offensive language in one thread to ridiculing the mourning of an important christian symbol in another one. I love all this talk about respecting minorities, being political correct, but then throw about lines such as " the rag that Jesus (fictional character) wiped his arse on", as if to take a break from all the political correct hipocrisy. after all, the only group we can still make fun of is christians is it not? They have two sets of caps as it were: one when they act the political correct Trump criticiser and defenders of diversity, and another cap when they make fun of religious people.
  15. Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on fire

    Make all the dumb jokes you want Dazey. I'm sure you can come up with something better than "thoughts and prayers " and "wiped his arse on". You're a natural, aren't you? And people like Graeme; if you want to put your energy in measuring the relative importance of this event to other horrors, please do. You've got it all figured out. Inform us heartless people of the unknown cruelties that are happening in the world, so we can look at ourselves and see how bigotted we are for mourning stones and wood. As for myself, I'm going to apologize here, for overreacting a bit on monday evening while the church was still burning. I guess I was a bit inconsiderate there.
×