I've listened a lot to this guy on youtube and I like his scholarship on the subject even though he is muslim and therefore has a bias on the subject
A quick search shows this - even the Bible acknowledges other Messiahs https://forums.catholic.com/t/jesus-wasnt-the-only-messiah-during-his-time/195519/2
I am tempted to post the Life of Brian quote about Messiahs. But as I said, the claim that many Jews were executed by the Romans for claiming to be the Messiah, is what I am interested in.
A meme which is used to say two things are exactly the same, and not to portray two sides bickering. Nobody should post a video that's almost fifteen minutes long with them rambling about how they don't understand a meme, especially not somebody who claims to be a journalist yet took the best part of fifteen minutes highlighting their lack of research, their failure to write an outline of what they wanted to say which would make the video clear and concise (and five minutes long at most), or using any editing whatsoever to trim the parts where he just meanders around trying to say something. Patently false, considering this is what's posted on his Twitter feed (Look, the left are meming!!!) That's a lot of people calling him out for using false equivalencies, almost as if he's using false equivalencies (while also failing to understand a meme) What validity? He spent the best part of fifteen minutes saying he doesn't understand a meme, but he got the views anyway because of a clickbait title that attracted people who had their comments readily prepared. Yes, see above: Who needs a valid argument when you can just trawl for clicks with a little right wing clickbait? That's complete and utter bollocks on your part because a.) I've mentioned GamerGate in the grand total of three posts in this thread, once in reference to how 4chan is nothing but a troll factory and the rest to highlight examples of fishing for right wing clicks - four if you count this post b.) I made no reference to it in any other posts relating to politics in the internet world, for example Net Neutrality or Article 13 - almost as if none of those primarily involved 4chan, so it didn't require me mentioning how 4chan is as credible a source as PornHub c.) Who was that patently false generalisation even aimed at? This isn;t Twitter or the comments section for another obviously misleading Tim Pool video, the only people reading it are the regulars in this thread, and they know that claim is utter bollocks You means posts like this? Or how about this? And then there's this. Leave the straw men alone, they haven't done anything to you.
The Dire Leader is saying that holding a General Election is not in the national interest Sort of like she did for six months until deciding to call one last year, then...
In a move that's definitely not designed to fire up his fanbase ahead of the Midterms, the Orange Overlord has stated that he intends to remove the 14th Amendment - which happens to be the Amendment that contains the following text in Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. There's a lot to unpick from that one, starting with how apparently nobody explained to him that Article Five of the US Constitution clearly states that only Congress can propose and apply amendments to the Constitution for reasons such as a lunatic in the White House deciding that it's Tuesday so he may as well issue an executive order to change whichever part of the Constitution plays best to their voter base, then there's the likelihood this will set off the NRA faithful due to the suggestion that the Constitution can be changed on a whim playing in to their long-standing paranoia that the government is coming to take their guns - which may not kick in immediately, but don't discount the probability that we'll see Dana Loesch hosting half a dozen NRA TV editorials saying that's exactly what'll happen if the Democrats come to power.
I see Trumps unveiled his latest smokescreen ‘policy’ in a last ditch attempt to further cement his base support before the mid-terms. As usual, he’s proclaiming to do something he has no power to achieve...... but why let that stand in the way of great racist immigration policy to appease his redneck entourage? Trump’s birthright plan: Some truths http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-46034989
"Nobody should post a video that's almost fifteen minutes long with them rambling about how they don't understand a meme. especially not somebody who claims to be a journalist yet took the best part of fifteen minutes highlighting their lack of research, their failure to write an outline of what they wanted to say which would make the video clear and concise (and five minutes long at most), or using any editing whatsoever to trim the parts where he just meanders around trying to say something." For the second time : fallacy. The inability to concisely convey an opinion/remark does not invalidate that opinion/remark. But if it did, then ... [ ... ] A post from you that is candidate TL;DR. "What validity? He spent the best part of fifteen minutes saying he doesn't understand a meme, but he got the views anyway because of a clickbait title that attracted people who had their comments readily prepared." So he did not understand the image he posted ?? Oh, he did. As did I and others (who did not see Nazis, Trump etc in the "ink blot" ) . "You means posts like this? Or how about this? And then there's this. ... Leave the straw men alone, they haven't done anything to you." All in response to YOU posting about NPC or memes. Which is why I did it (at least twice) . Trying to show you are an 'edgy Internet lord' on a forum populated by people who do not know (or probably care for) things such as NPCs or Gamergate, just makes you silly. As I said, let us see how long you can go in the days to come without an attempted flippant posting that includes memes, references stuff like NPCs, Gamergate etc ...
One ray of sunshine that has come out of the Pittsburgh shooting is that the shameful treatment of gab.ai means that USA Internet "platform" providers will : - no longer be able to hide behind the "we are a platform, not a publisher" lie - now have to be considered for "universal service obligation" regulations
The inability to understand a meme, yet basing your entire argument around the fact you misunderstood a meme, is not a valid argument. How many times are you going to skirt around this one? Which one would that be? The sentence that was 106 words long where you dodged the main point so you could keep obsessing over one that's relatively minor, or a series of tweets that refute your claims that the Twitter responses validate Pool's argument? As I've said several times, yes. Allow me to quote the Know Your Meme entry on the meme to make it abundantly clear to you and your confirmation bias just how far wide of the mark you are So when I say he spent the best part of fifteen minutes demonstrating he doesn't understand a meme, there's a reason I say that: because I am able to look things up - and the fact Tim Pool can't means his argument is invalid. A standalone comment about Angela Merkel stepping down as CDU leader A standalone post about Nigel Farage dogwhistling about the Jewish influence in the USA A post in response to the weekend being quite bad for people who you described as "USA nutters" You've officially reached the point where you're arguing for the sake of it, and to continue arguing you're having to resort to blatant lies. So not only does this bitter little remark make you look like a complete hypocrite considering you were so quick to point the finger and accuse me of using ad hominem attacks, you're saying that, just because other posters may not be aware of X or Y, that means I should not use them to illustrate a point which sails dangerously close to Michael Gove dismissing anyone who disagrees with him by saying people in this country have had enough of experts Shouldn't be a problem, I've done that for the two and a half years this thread's been active. That's the last response from me on this, by the way, because it's doubtless as tiring for everyone else to sit through as it is for either of us to type.
Which tells us everything about you. You could have just typed only that, and that would be that. But you were prepared regardless to endure the "tiring" typing of your latest diatribe (what a hero) .
