While only part of my argument is Tu Quoque, Elf, I was also saying that complaining that people don't go to church with religious intentions is trivial and nothing compared to the far larger issues out there. I was not capitalizing that I was also wrong, or didn't intend to.
Well done.
Its HISTORY TIME.
World War One had been long in the stockpiling; the spark was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914.
Austria-Hungary's reaction to the death of their heir (who was in any case not greatly beloved by the Emperor, Franz Josef, or his government) was three weeks in coming. Arguing that the Serbian government was implicated in the machinations of the Black Hand (the group who had perpetrated the killing), the Austro-Hungarians opted to take the opportunity to stamp its authority upon the Serbians, crushing the nationalist movement there and cementing Austria-Hungary's influence in the Balkans.
It did so by issuing an ultimatum to Serbia which, in the extent of its demand that the assassins be brought to justice effectively nullified Serbia's sovereignty. Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, was moved to comment that he had "never before seen one State address to another independent State a document of so formidable a character."
Austria-Hungary's expectation was that Serbia would reject the remarkably severe terms of the ultimatum, thereby giving her a pretext for launching a limited war against Serbia.
However, Serbia had long had Slavic ties with Russia, an altogether different proposition for Austria-Hungary. Whilst not really expecting that Russia would be drawn into the dispute to any great extent other than through words of diplomatic protest, the Austro-Hungarian government sought assurances from her ally, Germany, that she would come to her aid should the unthinkable happen and Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary.
Germany readily agreed, even encouraged Austria-Hungary's warlike stance.
And so, it followed, Austria-Hungary, unsatisfied with Serbia's response to her ultimatum (which in the event was almost entirely placatory: however her jibbing over a couple of minor clauses gave Austria-Hungary her sought-after cue) declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914.
Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilisation of its vast army in her defence, a slow process that would take around six weeks to complete. Germany viewed the Russian mobilisation as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and after scant warning declared war on Russia on 1 August, and great tracts of the world, bound by treaty to each other, stood up also.
No religion here. Last time I checked, the Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist secret society was not religiously motivated. Nationalism is a political view. You can select it in your Facebook page.
You can read more here:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm
After the establishment of the Treaty of Versailles, which contained:
War Guilt Clause - Germany should accept the blame for starting World War One,
Reparations - Germany had to pay £6,600 million for the damage caused by the war,
Disarmament - Germany was only allowed to have a small army and six naval ships. No tanks, no airforce and no submarines were allowed. The Rhineland area was to be de-militarised and,
Territorial Clauses - Land was taken away from Germany and given to other countries. Anschluss (union with Austria) was forbidden.
...the German people were very unhappy about the treaty and thought that it was too harsh. Germany could not afford to pay the money and during the 1920s the German people were reduced to a state of semi or full poverty. There were few jobs and the price of food and basic goods was high. People were dissatisfied with the government and voted to power a man who promised to rip up the Treaty of Versailles. His name was Adolf Hitler.
You can, of course, find the rest here.
http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/causes.htm
And, genius, Communism ain't a religion. No, it's a socio-political ideology and form of governance, not a theistic organization.
'm sure if you wish to employ the word 'religious' by it's lesser definition, then you could say that communism is followed 'religiously' by some.
I don't say your cat needs to die because it scratched me when it was a kitten.
I used such examples because its cultural stereotyping.
They are indeed the first things that spring to mind when IRL Drama is the issue, as equally as people who need to come up with an argument regarding religion always go to the crusades, every time.
And videogames? Surely they must have an effect on the human psyche. What worries me about these games is less the actual depiction of violence but more the context in which that violence is doled out. Of the hyper-violent, shooty type games, very rarely do we see one where you are a member of a close-knit community or can rely on your buddies, or whatever. Instead you tend to be a bitter and introverted loner who is "the best" at everything or has some kind of godlike weapons skill. Then, of course, there is the way that civilians are shown. Once, you had to save them; they were the whole focus of a game. Now, in the hyper-violent video games of today, they are just there. They're cattle. You can shoot them or not. And if you don't, they tend to get minced by hideous aliens anyway (See Prey and Prototype). Is it healthy for people to be sitting in a room (as the videogame haters among the politicians put it) "bathed in the light of your monitor", shooting pretend people with absolutely no consequences?
Society is as society does. Have you read the Bible?
Jesus may speak against shellfish, but he sure as hell doesn't tell you to snatch up your nearest 10-year-old and get busy.
Last time I checked, the Bible didn't tell people to go and retake Jerusalem.
Medical research is a misnomer, and there are large amounts of people out there with no religious ties who feel disinclined about the whole thing anyway.
After the fire cease between the government of Angola and UNITA in 2001, the number of people experiencing hunger reached 2 millions. 4.5 million people were refugees. The harassment and extortion amongst refugees is common, just like rapes.
As shown above, there are literally thousands more significant things then people starving on the streets.
Oh, and doesn't America have unemployment support?
Quote:
Don't you dare try to defend your beloved fantasies of "religion" without posting sauce; it's done us more harm than good over the years; how many wars do you think were caused by differences in religion and culture? FUCKING ALL OF THEM.
Well done.
Its HISTORY TIME.
World War One wrote:
World War One had been long in the stockpiling; the spark was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914.
Austria-Hungary's reaction to the death of their heir (who was in any case not greatly beloved by the Emperor, Franz Josef, or his government) was three weeks in coming. Arguing that the Serbian government was implicated in the machinations of the Black Hand (the group who had perpetrated the killing), the Austro-Hungarians opted to take the opportunity to stamp its authority upon the Serbians, crushing the nationalist movement there and cementing Austria-Hungary's influence in the Balkans.
It did so by issuing an ultimatum to Serbia which, in the extent of its demand that the assassins be brought to justice effectively nullified Serbia's sovereignty. Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, was moved to comment that he had "never before seen one State address to another independent State a document of so formidable a character."
Austria-Hungary's expectation was that Serbia would reject the remarkably severe terms of the ultimatum, thereby giving her a pretext for launching a limited war against Serbia.
However, Serbia had long had Slavic ties with Russia, an altogether different proposition for Austria-Hungary. Whilst not really expecting that Russia would be drawn into the dispute to any great extent other than through words of diplomatic protest, the Austro-Hungarian government sought assurances from her ally, Germany, that she would come to her aid should the unthinkable happen and Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary.
Germany readily agreed, even encouraged Austria-Hungary's warlike stance.
And so, it followed, Austria-Hungary, unsatisfied with Serbia's response to her ultimatum (which in the event was almost entirely placatory: however her jibbing over a couple of minor clauses gave Austria-Hungary her sought-after cue) declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914.
Russia, bound by treaty to Serbia, announced mobilisation of its vast army in her defence, a slow process that would take around six weeks to complete. Germany viewed the Russian mobilisation as an act of war against Austria-Hungary, and after scant warning declared war on Russia on 1 August, and great tracts of the world, bound by treaty to each other, stood up also.
No religion here. Last time I checked, the Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist secret society was not religiously motivated. Nationalism is a political view. You can select it in your Facebook page.
You can read more here:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/origins/causes.htm
World War Two wrote:
After the establishment of the Treaty of Versailles, which contained:
War Guilt Clause - Germany should accept the blame for starting World War One,
Reparations - Germany had to pay £6,600 million for the damage caused by the war,
Disarmament - Germany was only allowed to have a small army and six naval ships. No tanks, no airforce and no submarines were allowed. The Rhineland area was to be de-militarised and,
Territorial Clauses - Land was taken away from Germany and given to other countries. Anschluss (union with Austria) was forbidden.
...the German people were very unhappy about the treaty and thought that it was too harsh. Germany could not afford to pay the money and during the 1920s the German people were reduced to a state of semi or full poverty. There were few jobs and the price of food and basic goods was high. People were dissatisfied with the government and voted to power a man who promised to rip up the Treaty of Versailles. His name was Adolf Hitler.
You can, of course, find the rest here.
http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/causes.htm
And, genius, Communism ain't a religion. No, it's a socio-political ideology and form of governance, not a theistic organization.
'm sure if you wish to employ the word 'religious' by it's lesser definition, then you could say that communism is followed 'religiously' by some.
Quote:
Logic fail. The crusades WERE caused by religion. 100% undeniably the fault of religion. Nothing else you claim is anywhere near as cut and dry - far from it. For example, there is no evidence whatsoever that video games caused Virginia Tech. The exact opposite can easily be claimed, however, as murder rates are at an all time low, less than *HALF* what they were 20 years ago. If anything, violent video games has led to a REDUCTION in violent crimes - a massive one at that.
I don't say your cat needs to die because it scratched me when it was a kitten.
I used such examples because its cultural stereotyping.
They are indeed the first things that spring to mind when IRL Drama is the issue, as equally as people who need to come up with an argument regarding religion always go to the crusades, every time.
And videogames? Surely they must have an effect on the human psyche. What worries me about these games is less the actual depiction of violence but more the context in which that violence is doled out. Of the hyper-violent, shooty type games, very rarely do we see one where you are a member of a close-knit community or can rely on your buddies, or whatever. Instead you tend to be a bitter and introverted loner who is "the best" at everything or has some kind of godlike weapons skill. Then, of course, there is the way that civilians are shown. Once, you had to save them; they were the whole focus of a game. Now, in the hyper-violent video games of today, they are just there. They're cattle. You can shoot them or not. And if you don't, they tend to get minced by hideous aliens anyway (See Prey and Prototype). Is it healthy for people to be sitting in a room (as the videogame haters among the politicians put it) "bathed in the light of your monitor", shooting pretend people with absolutely no consequences?
Quote:
You want modern examples? How about bans on medical research (stem cells, cloning, etc...), gay marriage, priests raping boys, role of women, attitudes to sex, etc...
Society is as society does. Have you read the Bible?
Jesus may speak against shellfish, but he sure as hell doesn't tell you to snatch up your nearest 10-year-old and get busy.
Last time I checked, the Bible didn't tell people to go and retake Jerusalem.
Medical research is a misnomer, and there are large amounts of people out there with no religious ties who feel disinclined about the whole thing anyway.
Quote:
Letting people starve while claiming on a weekly basis that you would help them is a "minor thing"? What the hell is wrong with you?
Its a minor thing.
Human Rights wrote:
Article 13.(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
After the fire cease between the government of Angola and UNITA in 2001, the number of people experiencing hunger reached 2 millions. 4.5 million people were refugees. The harassment and extortion amongst refugees is common, just like rapes.
As shown above, there are literally thousands more significant things then people starving on the streets.
Oh, and doesn't America have unemployment support?
Other than that I'm staying out of this thread. 
