What's This "Now kill all the boys" Thing About?
mg
including this one, that just won't go away entitled "Now kill all the
boys", but haven't really read any of them before. There's one thread
that has 1001 posts on it. Then it looks like when a thread get
unbelievably long somebody starts a new one. I'm not even certain what
the original post was for sure.
I think this was the original post, though:
----------
Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
From the fourth book of the Torah:
Numbers 31
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army�the commanders of
thousands and commanders of hundreds�who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a
man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
---------------
Some of the questions that have been asked regarding this post are as
follows (and I have added #3 myself):
1) Do you universally and unconditionally condemn genocide as a crime
against humanity?
2) If god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
3) Was Moses the original Jihadist?
Tapestry
> I've noticed over the months this huge thread, on various groups
> including this one, that just won't go away entitled "Now kill all the
> boys", but haven't really read any of them before.
It is golaszewski begging for people to die so he can try to charge
someone who can't be charged for what happens, thus making golaszewski
culpable ...
Duwaynea Anderson
> I've noticed over the months this huge thread, on various groups
> including this one, that just won't go away entitled "Now kill all the
> boys", but haven't really read any of them before. There's one thread
> that has 1001 posts on it.
It's been wrapped around the axel several times, so it actually has a
helluvalot more than 1001 posts in it. The actual count is near (or
over) 4,000.
> Then it looks like when a thread get
> unbelievably long somebody starts a new one.
I think that happens with google groups when the thread hits 1000
posts. It seems that google groups starts over at 1.
> I'm not even certain what
> the original post was for sure.
The original post was about Numbers 31 and the description of genocide
where Moses has the Israelites kill women and children prisoners of
war.
It's wandered about some, touching on human rights, but it's still
about genocide. There are those (comparatively few) of us that
condemn genocide unconditionally. And there are those (quite a mob,
actually) that think genocide is justifiable in some circumstances.
R. L. Measures thinks there are times that genocide is justifiable.
Michael Ejercito said "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is
wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
Various other posters (Deborah, Susan, David, etc.) clearly agree with
Measures and Ejercito, but don't want to commit themselves by asking
simple questions like "Do you unconditionally condemn genocide."
Y'know, for someone that was (mostly) raised in polite society it
never occurred to me that there is a world of fanatics out there that
think the idea of universal human rights is a *bad* thing, and that
genocide is sometimes justifiable. I really thought we'd learned our
lesson from the horrible events of WWII and the Jewish holocaust.
It's been a big surprise that there are so many hate-filled people
that seem comfortable with the idea of murdering thousands of people.
Interestingly, no Mormons have waded into the discussion on the side
of universal human rights, and opposed to genocide. The only people
that have sided with me seem to be atheists and agnostics. The
opposition seems composed mostly of religious fanatics.
David
wrote:
> On Jun 10, 8:32 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I've noticed over the months this huge thread, on various groups
> > including this one, that just won't go away entitled "Now kill all the
> > boys", but haven't really read any of them before. There's one thread
> > that has 1001 posts on it.
>
> It's been wrapped around the axel several times, so it actually has a
> helluvalot more than 1001 posts in it. The actual count is near (or
> over) 4,000.
>
> > Then it looks like when a thread get
> > unbelievably long somebody starts a new one.
>
> I think that happens with google groups when the thread hits 1000
> posts. It seems that google groups starts over at 1.
>
> > I'm not even certain what
> > the original post was for sure.
>
> The original post was about Numbers 31 and the description of genocide
> where Moses has the Israelites kill women and children prisoners of
> war.
>
> It's wandered about some, touching on human rights, but it's still
> about genocide. There are those (comparatively few) of us that
> condemn genocide unconditionally. And there are those (quite a mob,
> actually) that think genocide is justifiable in some circumstances.
>
Actually, the Now kill all the boys thread was about Moses, but then
Anderson began picking fights. Now that the thread has spawned into
multiple threads, there is some variation. But with respect to the
three sub-threads where Anderson still refuses to back down after
picking a fight with me, it really isn't about genocide anymore, it is
just about Anderson refusing to admit his own errors and launching ad
hominem attacks to cover up how badly he has been refuted.
> R. L. Measures thinks there are times that genocide is justifiable.
>
> Michael Ejercito said "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is
> wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> Various other posters (Deborah, Susan, David, etc.) clearly agree with
> Measures and Ejercito,
I don't speak for anyone else, but with respect to myself, Anderson is
just talking shit. I never agreed with Measures, Ejercto or anyone
else on this.
>but don't want to commit themselves by asking
> simple questions like "Do you unconditionally condemn genocide."
>
Actually it is Anderson, not I, who refuses to commit himself to
answer my question, which is whether Anderson does or does not wish
for Obama to be brought up on charges of genocide, so that the law is
more effectively enforced.
> Y'know, for someone that was (mostly) raised in polite society it
> never occurred to me that there is a world of fanatics out there that
> think the idea of universal human rights is a *bad* thing, and that
> genocide is sometimes justifiable.
Was this polite society Anderson was raised in a society that
considered his ad hominem attacks and character assasination diatribes
without evidence to be polite?
Because I have refuted his ad hominem attacks repeatedly, and all he
does is ignore my refutations and copy and paste his ad hominem
attacks again.
> I really thought we'd learned our
> lesson from the horrible events of WWII and the Jewish holocaust.
> It's been a big surprise that there are so many hate-filled people
> that seem comfortable with the idea of murdering thousands of people.
>
I don't speak for anyone else, but if Anderson wants to back up his
accusations with respect to me, he better provide some evidence.
Otherwise his claims of "hate-filled people that seem comfortable with
the idea of murdering thousands of people" is just Anderson talking
shit. He claimed it was a pretty sure bet he was right, but now he
won't even put his money where his mouth is.
> Interestingly, no Mormons have waded into the discussion on the side
> of universal human rights, and opposed to genocide. The only people
> that have sided with me seem to be atheists and agnostics. The
> opposition seems composed mostly of religious fanatics.
>
Actually it is Anderson that has displayed a certain amount of
religious fanaticism in his replies to me, even though he is an
atheist. He once made an accusation based on the premise that I am
capable of miracles, and displayed some beliefs about Moses which have
no backing in the Biblical text. When I pointed out he had no evidence
to back his claim up, he started acting like a religious fanatic,
refusing to admit his error and trying to cover up by snipping and
trying to hide my refutations while spamming ad hominem attacks.
The Master
> Some of the questions that have been asked regarding this post are as
> follows (and I have added #3 myself):
OOooo, questions open to all. I like these...
> 1) Do you universally and unconditionally condemn genocide as a crime
> against humanity?
I guess that depends on your definition of genocide. Most definitions go
along this line:
Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part,
of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
If that's the one you want to use, then I would say no. The USA
deliberately and systematically destroyed, in part, the Japanese people
when we droped two nuclear bombs on them in WWII. in atempt to break their
will to fight. Yet I know of no one who calls that a genocide.
If you, like I do, believe the above definition is lacking, perhaps a
better definition is in order.
Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part,
of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group, BECAUSE OF THAT
REASON.
We did not bomb Japan because Japanese people lived there, but Hitler
gased Jews because they were Jewish. That seems to be the magical missing
qualifier of most definitions, the reason why. But isn't that a
condition?
I know what you are trying to get at, so in theory I'd say yes.
> 2) If god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
If God ever commanded me to commit genocide, I'd check myself into a
mental hospital for hearing voices.
> 3) Was Moses the original Jihadist?
No. In the bible's account, where Moses is ordered by God to take out
earthly revenge, then the answer would be yes. But that would mean there
is a God to order Moses around...
You see, Moses saw the acceptance of his followers into another society as
an erosion of his power over his people. He ordered the murder of the
opposition not because God ordered him, but rather to maintain his control
over the population.
The control he held over both the political and religious views of his
people made him the ultimate despot.
Just_James
I notice that those who have their butts beat tend to think D is picking
on them.
So, to the original thread, care to answer #1? Do you universally and
unconditionally condemn genocide as a crime against humanity? I'll even
start. I do.
>>> I think this was the original post, though:
>>> ----------
>>> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>>> From the fourth book of the Torah:
>>> Numbers 31
>>> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army�the commanders of
>>> thousands and commanders of hundreds�who returned from the battle.
>>> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>>> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
>>> of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
>>> so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>>> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a
>>> man,
>>> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>>> ---------------
>>> Some of the questions that have been asked regarding this post are as
>>> follows (and I have added #3 myself):
>>> 1) Do you universally and unconditionally condemn genocide as a crime
>>> against humanity?
>>> 2) If god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
>>> 3) Was Moses the original Jihadist?
>
--
Just James
"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause." ~ Data
Travis Dayne
> >>> thousands and commanders of hundreds who returned from the battle.
> >>> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
> >>> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
> >>> of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
> >>> so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
> >>> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a
> >>> man,
> >>> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
> >>> ---------------
> >>> Some of the questions that have been asked regarding this post are as
> >>> follows (and I have added #3 myself):
> >>> 1) Do you universally and unconditionally condemn genocide as a crime
> >>> against humanity?
> >>> 2) If god commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
> >>> 3) Was Moses the original Jihadist?
>
> --
> Just James
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well let's looksie.
If GOD who gave life and poured out judgements and can take life, we
can say
ought but blessed be the name of the LORD, your judgements are just.
If someone came along and decided to fight against GOD, that
individual would
be guilty of crimes against humanity, for continuing to bring
down GODs wrath upon us ...
Just_James
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, mg wrote:
>
>> Some of the questions that have been asked regarding this post are as
>> follows (and I have added #3 myself):
>
> OOooo, questions open to all. I like these...
>
>> 1) Do you universally and unconditionally condemn genocide as a crime
>> against humanity?
>
> I guess that depends on your definition of genocide. Most definitions
> go along this line:
>
> Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in
> part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
>
> If that's the one you want to use, then I would say no. The USA
> deliberately and systematically destroyed, in part, the Japanese people
> when we droped two nuclear bombs on them in WWII. in atempt to break
> their will to fight. Yet I know of no one who calls that a genocide.
Are you saying you agree with the US decision to drop the A-BObm on
Hiroshima? You think that's justifiable to kill innocent men, women and
children?
>
> If you, like I do, believe the above definition is lacking, perhaps a
> better definition is in order.
>
> Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in
> part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group, BECAUSE OF
> THAT REASON.
>
> We did not bomb Japan because Japanese people lived there, but Hitler
> gased Jews because they were Jewish. That seems to be the magical
> missing qualifier of most definitions, the reason why. But isn't that a
> condition?
I'll go with definition one and say that it is wrong.
>
> I know what you are trying to get at, so in theory I'd say yes.
But your previous answers suggest you can find justification for
genocide, so I'd say your real answer is no.
Travis Dayne
> Are you saying you agree with the US decision to drop the A-BObm on
> Hiroshima? You think that's justifiable to kill innocent men, women and
> children?
That was touched upon in rev:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/rev013.htm
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to
overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues,
and nations.
Now that referred to rome.
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had
two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and
causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first
beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from
heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
That refers to the US, the revived roman empire.
Mike Sullivan
"Just_James" <post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9gSXl.18787$%54.1...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
I think genocide is grossly immoral. I can't think of any situation where
genocide could possibly be a necessary evil, ie some evil that must be
employed in order to prevent even a greater evil from happening.
So yes, this one's an easy one. Genocide is universally and
unconditionally
a crime against humanity.
I snipped out the other groups but ARM.
Travis Dayne
wrote:
> "Just_James" <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
And golaszewski will be held accountable.
Take him into custody now ...
David
Correction, Anderson is not "picking on me", he picked a fight with
me. There is a difference. Anderson can't really "pick on me" because
I easily shred his arguments, correct his historical ignorance, his
poor reading comprehension skills, and his numerous attempts to
misrepresent and rewrite my statements using straw man fallacies. I
also demonstrated how his definition of genocide, the one he chose,
applies to Obama for his missile launch into Pakistan and American
soldiers defending themselves from Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. I
refuted his spurious and ignorant claims about the Biblical text, and
I exposed his hypocrisy in preaching about genocide. Along the way I
have also refuted his numerous hysterical false accusations and ad
hominem attacks against myself, which include but are not limited to
being like Hitler, holocaust denial, defending and supporting
genocide, and lying.
Anderson wanted to fight, I obliged him. And here we are. I can
document that from the posts in the original thread if you want to see
them, so you don't have to read 1001 posts.
> So, to the original thread, care to answer #1?
In fact I was just about to do so, I am just waiting for Anderson to
put his money where his mouth is, and make what he claimed was a
pretty sure bet. Anderson claimed he had a pretty sure bet I would say
no, and I took him up on that bet. He hasn't told me how much he is
willing to bet yet though.
> Do you universally and
> unconditionally condemn genocide as a crime against humanity? I'll even
> start. I do.
>
Good for you.
And if you want to put some money down on what my answer will be, let
me know.
>
>
> >>> I think this was the original post, though:
> >>> ----------
> >>> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
> >>> From the fourth book of the Torah:
> >>> Numbers 31
> >>> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
> >>> thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
Travis Dayne
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hint: anderson and just james are one and the same person ....
Mike Sullivan
"Travis Dayne" <ihaveth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a88d881b-e377-40b9...@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 10, 1:15 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 10:42 am, Just_James <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip
> Hint: anderson and just james are one and the same person ....
Cool, can I be a Just James too?
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Correction, Anderson is not "picking on me", he picked a fight with
> me.
Ooooh. I'm picking fights by asking someone if they unconditionally
condemn genocide.
What's next?
Picking a fight by asking if folks support the notion of certain
inalienable rights, including the right to live, and the right to
personal freedom/self determination?
Ooooh.
Those are fighting words, all right.
For bigots and racists, that is.
<snip to end>
Bret Ripley
> The Master wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, mg wrote:
>>
>>> Some of the questions that have been asked regarding this post are as
>>> follows (and I have added #3 myself):
>>
>> OOooo, questions open to all. I like these...
>>
>>> 1) Do you universally and unconditionally condemn genocide as a crime
>>> against humanity?
>>
>> I guess that depends on your definition of genocide. Most definitions
>> go along this line:
>>
>> Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in
>> part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
>>
>> If that's the one you want to use, then I would say no. The USA
>> deliberately and systematically destroyed, in part, the Japanese people
>> when we droped two nuclear bombs on them in WWII. in atempt to break
>> their will to fight. Yet I know of no one who calls that a genocide.
Some do, FWIW.
Many more called the use of atomic bombs unnecessary, including Eisenhower,
MacArthur, Leahy, and Nimitz. Japan's navy was already defeated, and her
army was suffering devastating defeats in Manchuria. Those who say that
Japanese leaders refused to acknowledge defeat conveniently ignore the fact
that Japan had *already* sued for peace before atomic bombs were employed.
Furthermore, there is evidence (e.g. the USAF's 1946 "Strategic Bombing
Survey") that Japan would have surrendered in 1945 without the use of
atomic bombs and without even the threat of invasion.
Pretending that there is any kind of certainty that the use of atomic bombs
resulted in fewer lives being lost is ignorant at best.
> Are you saying you agree with the US decision to drop the A-BObm on
> Hiroshima? You think that's justifiable to kill innocent men, women and
> children?
Isn't it odd that folks who don't trust the government to handle tax reform
or health care in an equitable manner are perfectly willing to trust the
government to drop atomic bombs on children in a morally efficacious
manner?
<snip>
Bret
The Master
>> If that's the one you want to use, then I would say no. The USA
>> deliberately and systematically destroyed, in part, the Japanese people
>> when we droped two nuclear bombs on them in WWII. in atempt to break their
>> will to fight. Yet I know of no one who calls that a genocide.
>
> Are you saying you agree with the US decision to drop the A-BObm on
> Hiroshima? You think that's justifiable to kill innocent men, women and
> children?
That is not at all what I said. I simply said that I know of no one that
calls it GENOCIDE. Do you think it was GENOCIDE? Probably not... But by
the first definition, it was! Where was the War Crimes trial?
> I'll go with definition one and say that it is wrong.
Then EVERY time ANYONE dies is Genocide, because EVERYONE is a member of
at least one racial, ethinic, or religious group. The death of one could
qualify as "in part". Or are you wanting to assign a percentage to it?
Isn't that a condition?
>> I know what you are trying to get at, so in theory I'd say yes.
>
> But your previous answers suggest you can find justification for genocide, so
> I'd say your real answer is no.
I am saying that the defintions FAIL with the use of UNIVERSALLY AND
UNCONDITIONALLY. Defining a racist as someone who hates a minority also
fails, since you can hate a minority for reasons other thein their
minority status. Genocide is genocide if the race, ethnic, religion, or
national status of the victim IS WHY they were killed.
As for your observation that my answer is no, you are correct. That's why
I said it. First sentence of the quoted material...
The US invasion of Afghanistan is resulting in the death of Muslims. Do
you consider that GENOCIDE also?
Mike Sullivan
"Bret Ripley" <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote in message
news:17rtmlt0rt219.5...@40tude.net...
5... 4... 3... 2.... 1.... queueing 'hiroshimafacts':
There is a poster out there using the above handle
that always manages to find this topic in various newsgroups
and step in to defend the use of nukes in 1945.
I think he's got a bot that cruises through the text
of various ngs looking for keywords and alerts him
when they pop in.
Mike Sullivan
"The Master" <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.09...@sdf.lonestar.org...
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Just_James wrote:
>
>>> If that's the one you want to use, then I would say no. The USA
>>> deliberately and systematically destroyed, in part, the Japanese people
>>> when we droped two nuclear bombs on them in WWII. in atempt to break
>>> their will to fight. Yet I know of no one who calls that a genocide.
>>
>> Are you saying you agree with the US decision to drop the A-BObm on
>> Hiroshima? You think that's justifiable to kill innocent men, women and
>> children?
>
> That is not at all what I said. I simply said that I know of no one that
> calls it GENOCIDE. Do you think it was GENOCIDE? Probably not... But by
I (Gack) agree with Master here. While I believe the bombing
to be unnecessary and immoral, I don't think it genocidal.
David
wrote:
> On Jun 10, 11:15 am, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Correction, Anderson is not "picking on me", he picked a fight with
> > me.
>
> Ooooh. I'm picking fights by asking someone if they unconditionally
> condemn genocide.
>
More laughable nonsense from Anderson. Everyone, this is Anderson's
latest example of a strawman argument.
I never claimed Anderson picked a fight with me by asking me a
question, let alone a question about genocide.
Anderson picked a fight with me when he called me a liar. A hysterical
accusation I quickly refuted.
Anderson made a claim about Moses, I pointed out that Anderson's claim
is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
In fact, Anderson long gave up even trying to argue his original
point, since he couldn't support it. But he never retracted his
hysterically false accusation.
Everyone, read the posts for yourself.
Anderson responds to my post to Jack.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/23210b325f12d85b
I reply to Anderson pointing out Anderson has not backed up his
accusation, which he hadn't, and in fact, never did.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/ab476d4a60a6dd81
Anderson accuses me of lying,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/2a03dfdb9080086a
Specifically when Anderson said, "I'm amazed at the extent to which
some people will try to lie."
You called me a liar Anderson, not even one hour after first
responding to me. I showed you courtesy, and you vomited verbal chum
all over the place. That is when you picked a fight. Your laughable
attempt to make up a strawman argument that the fight was over a
question instead of your false accusation is now exposed.
> What's next?
>
Yes Anderson, what strawman argument will you make up next?
Go ahead, I have all the posts to expose your strawman arguments for
what they are.
> Picking a fight by asking if folks support the notion of certain
> inalienable rights, including the right to live, and the right to
> personal freedom/self determination?
>
> Ooooh.
>
More laughable nonsense from Anderson, he never tried to support
inalienable rights, the right to life, or the right to personal
freedom and self determination with me.
All Anderson did was demonstrate his historical ignorance, his poor
reading comprehension skills, and his numerous attempts to
misrepresent and rewrite my statements using straw man fallacies. He
also made spurious and ignorant claims about the Biblical text, and I
exposed his hypocrisy in preaching about genocide. Along the way he
also made numerous hysterical false accusations and ad hominem attacks
against myself, which include but are not limited to being like
Hitler, holocaust denial, defending and supporting genocide, and
lying. All of which I have refuted.
> Those are fighting words, all right.
>
> For bigots and racists, that is.
>
Everyone, notice Anderson has provided no evidence that I am a bigot
or a racist. That is because he cannot.
Thanks for backing up what I told everyone in this thread Anderson.
> <snip to end>
The Master
>>> If that's the one you want to use, then I would say no. The USA
>>> deliberately and systematically destroyed, in part, the Japanese people
>>> when we droped two nuclear bombs on them in WWII. in atempt to break
>>> their will to fight. Yet I know of no one who calls that a genocide.
>
> Some do, FWIW.
>
> Many more called the use of atomic bombs unnecessary, including Eisenhower,
> MacArthur, Leahy, and Nimitz.
I know of many people who think the bombs were bad, that they were not
necessary. But as I told James, that's not what my comment said. I said
"I know of no one who calls that a genocide."
Are you telling me that Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy, and Nimitz called
the bombing GENOCIDE? I'm more then willing to accept that I am wrong on
that, plase show me the reference. Again, I know of no one who calls it
GENOCIDE.
Bret Ripley
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Bret Ripley wrote:
>
>>>> If that's the one you want to use, then I would say no. The USA
>>>> deliberately and systematically destroyed, in part, the Japanese people
>>>> when we droped two nuclear bombs on them in WWII. in atempt to break
>>>> their will to fight. Yet I know of no one who calls that a genocide.
>>
>> Some do, FWIW.
>>
>> Many more called the use of atomic bombs unnecessary, including Eisenhower,
>> MacArthur, Leahy, and Nimitz.
>
> I know of many people who think the bombs were bad, that they were not
> necessary. But as I told James, that's not what my comment said. I said
> "I know of no one who calls that a genocide."
Yes, I know. I thought I adequately acknowledged the distinction,
contrasting "some who call it genocide" with "more who call it
unnecessary".
> Are you telling me that Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy, and Nimitz called
> the bombing GENOCIDE?
No, I didn't say they called it genocide. They called it unnecessary. It
was their opinion that Japan was about to surrender anyway and, indeed, had
already begun to discuss terms of surrender.
I don't care whether you label it genocide or not. I take issue with your
assertion that /if/ it can be labeled "genocide", it's an example of a
justified one. I'm pointing out that it isn't at all clear that these
bombings were justified /regardless/ of whether they constitute genocide.
> I'm more then willing to accept that I am wrong on
> that, plase show me the reference. Again, I know of no one who calls it
> GENOCIDE.
Well, there's Rich Measures, for one. And then there is this:
"University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus
among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was
gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."
http://snipurl.com/jusw7 [en_wikipedia_org]
Just FWIW.
Bret
The Master
> I take issue with your
> assertion that /if/ it can be labeled "genocide", it's an example of a
> justified one.
Ah, ok... My bad. I intended it as an example of "NOT genocide" meeting
the definition of "genocide".
Take instead the US "War on Terror" (or whatever Obama is calling it now).
The declared targets in Afghanistan happen to be Islamic militants. The
common definition gives no reason why they were killed, the only
requirement is that the targets share a common ethnicity, race, religion,
or national identity.
Please note, I said specifically Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Anyhow, is that genocide? Ofcourse not. But why not? Clearly the
definition fails, that was the point I was trying to make. And any
attempt to modify that definition to become more accurate would not be
"unconditionally".
I know what he was trying to ask, and the answer would be yes. However,
due to the fact that definitions of words matter, I am forced to say no.
Just_James
LOL. I am not near as good at shredding people as D, but thanks.
>
> Cool, can I be a Just James too?
>
>
Why not?
Just_James
dered about some, touching on human rights, but it's still
>>>> about genocide. There are those (comparatively few) of us that
>>>> condemn genocide unconditionally. And there are those (quite a mob,
>>>> actually) that think genocide is justifiable in some circumstances.
>>> Actually, the Now kill all the boys thread was about Moses, but then
>>> Anderson began picking fights.
>> I notice that those who have their butts beat tend to think D is picking
>> on them.
>>
>
> Correction, Anderson is not "picking on me", he picked a fight with
> me. There is a difference.
Ok. He beat you up and your a little tender. It happens to all of us.
>> So, to the original thread, care to answer #1?
>
> In fact I was just about to do so, I am just waiting for Anderson to
> put his money where his mouth is, and make what he claimed was a
> pretty sure bet. Anderson claimed he had a pretty sure bet I would say
> no, and I took him up on that bet. He hasn't told me how much he is
> willing to bet yet though.
Aaaand we're still waiting...
Oh, but be sure to explain why Moses was not a genocidal maniac at the
same time.
Just_James
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Just_James wrote:
>
>>> If that's the one you want to use, then I would say no. The USA
>>> deliberately and systematically destroyed, in part, the Japanese
>>> people when we droped two nuclear bombs on them in WWII. in atempt to
>>> break their will to fight. Yet I know of no one who calls that a
>>> genocide.
>>
>> Are you saying you agree with the US decision to drop the A-BObm on
>> Hiroshima? You think that's justifiable to kill innocent men, women
>> and children?
>
> That is not at all what I said. I simply said that I know of no one
> that calls it GENOCIDE. Do you think it was GENOCIDE? Probably not...
> But by the first definition, it was! Where was the War Crimes trial?
AH. I think I see it now.
Duwaynea Anderson
On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Anderson made a claim about Moses,
I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
genocide.
> I pointed out that Anderson's claim
> is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
> back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
And you just did it again. Let's review.
1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
2) Moses commanded the deaths of prisoners of war (Numbers 31:17)
3) Moses commanded that the girls be given to the Israelites and
removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
the 1948 convention) you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
the definition. Here's the link:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
Of course I posted all this before, so David really did lie when he
said I didn't "even try and backup" the accusation that Moses
committed genocide. Instead, David asserted that he doesn't accept
the international law on genocide because he thinks it "too easily
targets innocent people."
But David can't name a single "innocent person" that's been arrested,
or tried, or convicted under the 1948 convention on genocide.
The real problem here is that religious fanatics carve out an
exception for genocide when they think their god is the one commanding
it. For example, Michael Ejercito said "... when God orders genocide;
in fact, it is wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do
so."
<snip to end>
mg
wrote:
>
> <snip to end>
I agree with you that it was probably genocide. If you believe in the
Bible, I suppose you could say that the Flood was also genocide, or
worse. If you believe in God and He tells you to rape and pillage and
commit genocide, then it is the right thing to do. There is only one
standard for right and wrong for true believers and that is to follow
the commandments of God. Ultimately, Bible thumpers actually have no
separate code of ethics except for doing what God tells them to do.
mg
Wikipedia does provide a legal definition as "found in the 1944 United
Nations Convention on the Prevention and Article 2 of this convention
defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent
to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing
serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately
inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group."[1]Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG)."
So, just off hand, I would probably agree with your definition. Or,
looking at it another way. If the objective is to win a war or force
the enemy to capitulate, that's not genocide, but if you want to
exterminate people because of who they are that is genocide.
If you say that Moses wasn't a Jihadist because there is no God, then
I think you also have to say that there are no Muslim Jihadist either.
In fact, by your definition, I think you would have to say there is no
such as a Jihadist.
David
> David wrote:
>
> dered about some, touching on human rights, but it's still
>
Still what?
> >>>> about genocide. There are those (comparatively few) of us that
> >>>> condemn genocide unconditionally. And there are those (quite a mob,
> >>>> actually) that think genocide is justifiable in some circumstances.
> >>> Actually, the Now kill all the boys thread was about Moses, but then
> >>> Anderson began picking fights.
> >> I notice that those who have their butts beat tend to think D is picking
> >> on them.
>
> > Correction, Anderson is not "picking on me", he picked a fight with
> > me. There is a difference.
>
> Ok. He beat you up
No, not even metaphorically, I cleaned his clock, Anderson didn't
stand a chance.
> and your a little tender.
Not at all, Anderson's head butt to my fist(metaphorically speaking)
didn't even chafe. Now that you mention it though, there was a slight
burning sensation between my toes after I kicked Anderson's ass, but
again, we are only speaking metaphorically so a little metaphorical
athlete's foot medicine will clear that right up.
> It happens to all of us.
Who is "us" James? I wouldn't know.
>
> >> So, to the original thread, care to answer #1?
>
> > In fact I was just about to do so, I am just waiting for Anderson to
> > put his money where his mouth is, and make what he claimed was a
> > pretty sure bet. Anderson claimed he had a pretty sure bet I would say
> > no, and I took him up on that bet. He hasn't told me how much he is
> > willing to bet yet though.
>
> Aaaand we're still waiting...
>
For someone to beat me up? You will be waiting awhile. It hasn't
happened yet. But if it ever does I will tip my hat to the person who
can do it, it will be far more than anyone else has accomplished.
> Oh, but be sure to explain why Moses was not a genocidal maniac at the
> same time.
>
Oh, be sure to let me know when someone can actually support their
claim Moses was a genocidal maniac.
Unless you are referring to Anderson's definition of genocide, in
which case Obama and American soldiers defending themselves at Pearl
Harbor can be defined as genocidal maniacs.
David
wrote:
Everyone, notice how three links and Anderson immediately drops his
bullshit charade that he ever started off picking a fight by asking me
a question.
> > Anderson made a claim about Moses,
>
> I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
> genocide.
>
And you succeeded in showing both Obama and Moses were guilty of acts
of genocide. At least according to your definition of genocide.
Congratulations.
Too bad your charade that you want the law more effectively enforced
didn't last more than five minutes after I asked my question about
Obama.
But it is nice to see you back on topic discussing Moses Anderson,
after I dragged you kicking and screaming back to the subject.
> > I pointed out that Anderson's claim
> > is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
> > back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
>
> And you just did it again.
Everyone, notice Anderson has provided no evidence that I am lying.
That is because he cannot since I tell the truth.
> Let's review.
>
Yes, let's review Anderson's errors and my refutations of his
arguments and correction of his errors and his false accusations.
> 1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
> people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
I call bullshit on this, Obama did not destroy an(not and) entire
group of people when he launched missiles into Pakistan.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/terror/main4749317.shtml
Likewise, Moses did not wipe out an entire group of people either. He
did almost completely destroy one tribe of Midianites that were at war
with him, but the little girls were spared.
> 2) Moses commanded the deaths of prisoners of war (Numbers 31:17)
According to the Bible, the women executed were war criminals, or
perhaps better defined as pre-war criminals. Anderson once accused me
of being soft on war criminals so I won't comment further lest he
renew those accusations.
The boys executed, however, were indeed innocent.
> 3) Moses commanded that the girls be given to the Israelites and
> removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
>
Yes, Moses spared the little girls.
> If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
> the 1948 convention)
A poorly worded definition, as I proved back in April.
> you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
> the definition.
As does Obama's missile launch into Pakistan.
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
Everyone, note at the bottom of the link.
The legal definition of genocide can be compared to five alternative
definitions of genocide proposed by researchers and scholars Frank
Chalk & Kurt Jonassohn, Israel Charny, Helen Fein, Barbara Harff & Ted
Gurr and Steven Katz.
Why all the alternative definitions? Because the one Anderson uses is
poorly worded.
>
> Of course I posted all this before, so David really did lie
Everyone, see below and you will find Anderson's accusation is false,
I did tell the truth, as always.
> when he
> said I didn't "even try and backup" the accusation that Moses
> committed genocide.
Everyone, go back and check, you will see that I didn't actually say
Anderson didn't try and back up his accusation that Moses committed
genocide.
Go ahead and read what I said, here it is.
"Anderson made a claim about Moses, I pointed out that Anderson's
claim is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try
and back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying."
Do you see the word genocide in the statement Anderson quoted out of
context?
I didn't either. That is why Anderson snipped the quote out of
context. To distort what I said.
Anderson's initial claim that I was referring to here is this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/2a03dfdb9080086a
-------------------------
Anderson-
> Unless those little girls
> were willingly marrying the men that just killed their mothers,
> brothers and fathers, I think it qualifies as rape. I’d be ashamed to
> try and justify what’s in Numbers 31.
Myself-
The only thing for you to be ashamed about is your own ignorance. The
text does not support your claim that the girls were taken as wives.
Neither does the historical commentary on this Biblical text.
Anderson-
> > They kept the little
> > girls that had not "known man" as "wives."
Andeson-
There's no point is lying about it.
----------------
The claim Anderson didn't bother to try and backup, instead accusing
me of lying, is a claim about rape. Not a claim about genocide.
So once again, Anderson makes a false accusation, and once again I
refute him.
> Instead, David asserted that he doesn't accept
> the international law on genocide because he thinks
Not what I think, what I proved.
> it "too easily
> targets innocent people."
>
As in can too easily target innocent people, because the law is poorly
worded. I proved this in April.
> But David can't name a single "innocent person" that's been arrested,
> or tried, or convicted under the 1948 convention on genocide.
>
Wrong again Anderson, I can, thanks to Anderson's own links, which he
stupidly failed to read before posting them.
> The real problem here is that religious fanatics
Who behave like Anderson?
>carve out an
> exception for genocide when they think their god is the one commanding
> it. For example, Michael Ejercito said "... when God orders genocide;
> in fact, it is wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do
> so."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>
Did anyone read Anderson quoting me above?
Neither did I.
> <snip to end>
Just_James
>>>> So, to the original thread, care to answer #1?
>>> In fact I was just about to do so, I am just waiting for Anderson to
>>> put his money where his mouth is, and make what he claimed was a
>>> pretty sure bet. Anderson claimed he had a pretty sure bet I would say
>>> no, and I took him up on that bet. He hasn't told me how much he is
>>> willing to bet yet though.
>> Aaaand we're still waiting...
>>
>
> For someone to beat me up? You will be waiting awhile. It hasn't
> happened yet. But if it ever does I will tip my hat to the person who
> can do it, it will be far more than anyone else has accomplished.
>
No goose, for you to answer the one direct question:
1) Do you universally and unconditionally condemn genocide as a crime
against humanity?
--
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jun 10, 3:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> Everyone, notice how three links and Anderson immediately drops his
> bullshit charade that he ever started off picking a fight by asking me
> a question.
You think asking you questions is "picking a fight?"
Why would you feel like a "fight" when someone asks you if you
unconditionally condemn genocide?
> > > Anderson made a claim about Moses,
>
> > I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
> > genocide.
>
> And you succeeded in showing both Obama and Moses were guilty of acts
> of genocide.
Genocide is as genocide does. The legal definitition of genocide, in
international law, is based on the 1948 convention. According to that
convention, the acts described in Numbers 31 are clearly genocide.
You make the claim that Obama is also guilty of genocide. But you've
never proven it.
But even if you did, it wouldn't change the law, nor would it change
my position. I oppose genocide because of what it is, not because of
who it catches. That's the difference between us.
> At least according to your definition of genocide.
> Congratulations.
It's not "my" definition, David. It's the international definition.
> Too bad your charade that you want the law more effectively enforced
> didn't last more than five minutes after I asked my question about
> Obama.
I'd be happy for the law to be enforced and catch/punish anyone guilty
of the acts describe at this link:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
> But it is nice to see you back on topic discussing Moses Anderson,
> after I dragged you kicking and screaming back to the subject.
And David opines about "picking fights."
>
> > > I pointed out that Anderson's claim
> > > is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
> > > back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
>
> > And you just did it again.
>
> Everyone, notice Anderson has provided no evidence that I am lying.
You provided the evidence, David. You said I didn't "even try and
back up" my POV. And here you are arguing against it. That's the
problem with angry liars -- they can't keep their stories straight.
> That is because he cannot since I tell the truth.
Then answer this question: Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
>
> > Let's review.
>
> Yes, let's review Anderson's errors and my refutations of his
> arguments and correction of his errors and his false accusations.
>
> > 1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
> > people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
>
> I call bullshit on this, Obama .....
Is never mentioned in Numbers 31.
But nice try at switching the subject.
> did not destroy an(not and) entire
> group of people when he launched missiles into Pakistan.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/terror/main4749317.shtml
>
> Likewise, Moses did not wipe out an entire group of people either.
The definition of genocide doesn't require that the despot be
successful. There are still Jews, and Hitler is still guilty of
genocide. The fact that Moses failed is no more relevant than the
fact that Hitler failed.
> He
> did almost completely destroy one tribe of Midianites that were at war
> with him, but the little girls were spared.
Clearly David, by making these sorts of excuses, justifies genocide.
>
> > 2) Moses commanded the deaths of prisoners of war (Numbers 31:17)
>
> According to the Bible, the women executed were war criminals,
Even if that were true (which it is not) what was the justification
for killing the little boys?
See the title of the thread? Yeah. You do. Remember the subject?
Yeah, you do.
Moses killed the little boys.
So let's ignore for the moment the argument that you just made. The
the women that were murdered -- prisoners of war -- were somehow, in
your twisted, evil mind, deserving of death. What justification was
there for the deaths of the boys?
> or
> perhaps better defined as pre-war criminals. Anderson once accused me
> of being soft on war criminals so I won't comment further lest he
> renew those accusations.
>
> The boys executed, however, were indeed innocent.
And their execution was an act of genocide. Read the definition here:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
>
> > 3) Moses commanded that the girls be given to the Israelites and
> > removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
>
> Yes, Moses spared the little girls.
Killing a kids parents, and brothers, and giving her to the people
that murdered them hardly qualifies for the humanitarian label of
"spared."
>
> > If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
> > the 1948 convention)
>
> A poorly worded definition, as I proved back in April.
You didn't prove a thing. And your opinion is irrelevant, since the
1948 convention is international law.
> > you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
> > the definition.
>
> As does Obama's missile launch into Pakistan.
That's your assertion. But you haven't proven it. But if he was
guilty, it wouldn't mean we should change the law.
But I showed, point by point, that the acts described in Numbers 31
qualify as genocide under international law.
> > Here's the link:
>
> >http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
>
> Everyone, note at the bottom of the link.
>
> The legal definition of genocide can be compared to five alternative
> definitions of genocide
And everyone note that the alternative definitions are not the legal
definition. In fact, there are more than five alternatives. The
number of alternatives is almost endless.
> proposed by researchers and scholars Frank
> Chalk & Kurt Jonassohn, Israel Charny, Helen Fein, Barbara Harff & Ted
> Gurr and Steven Katz.
>
> Why all the alternative definitions?
Because there are a lot of people like David that favor horrible
crimes. They think that it should be legal for countries to commit
the most horrid acts, and not be guilty of genocide.
> Because the one Anderson uses is
> poorly worded.
The one Anderson uses is the legal definition. Nobody knows which one
David uses, because he won't say. But apparently it allows for the
murder of women prisoners of war without a trial.
>
>
>
> > Of course I posted all this before, so David really did lie
>
> Everyone, see below and you will find Anderson's accusation is false,
You said I didn't even try to prove my POV. And here you are arguing
against my argument.
That's the problem with liars -- they can't keep their stories
straight.
> I did tell the truth, as always.
>
> > when he
> > said I didn't "even try and backup" the accusation that Moses
> > committed genocide.
>
> Everyone, go back and check, you will see that I didn't actually say
> Anderson didn't try and back up his accusation
"... Rather than even try and back up his accusation ..." [David]
> that Moses committed
> genocide.
>
> Go ahead and read what I said, here it is.
>
> "Anderson made a claim about Moses,
Specifically that Moses committed genocide. That was the *claim.*
> I pointed out that Anderson's
> claim
That Moses committed genocide. Remember the *claim*
> is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try
> and back up his accusation,
But what did I do? Why I laid out the verses from the Bible, in
Numbers 31, and compared them with the legal international definition
of genocide.
I did exactly what you said I didn't "even try" to do. And here you
are arguing against it.
> Anderson accused me of lying."
You are one of the worst, David. You just proved it.
<snip to end>
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 10, 3:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
> > > genocide.
>
> > And you succeeded in showing both Obama and Moses were guilty of acts
> > of genocide.
>
> Genocide is as genocide does. The legal definitition of genocide, in
> international law, is based on the 1948 convention. According to that
> convention, the acts described in Numbers 31 are clearly genocide.
defense).
Michael
Duwaynea Anderson
There's really no question -- the events described in Numbers 31
(along with others you have posted) were genocide. If they were done
today, and they could be brought before the world court, the perps
would be convicted.
> If you believe in the
> Bible, I suppose you could say that the Flood was also genocide,
The universal flood is a myth. There's so much evidence against it,
that you might as well think the world is flat.
Do you realize there are tree-ring records that span the supposed
timeframe of the flood? There are seafloor sediments with similar
annual cycles that span the same timefram. And ice core samples.
None of them show a single hint of a world-wide flood.
> or
> worse. If you believe in God and He tells you to rape and pillage and
> commit genocide, then it is the right thing to do.
That's what Michael Ejercito thinks. He said this: "... when God
orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT to commit genocide when God
tells you to do so."
> There is only one
> standard for right and wrong for true believers and that is to follow
> the commandments of God.
There are many standards of right and wrong. Following the evil god
YHVH is just one standard. And we can see the "fruits" of those that
follow the evil god YHVH -- the fruits are nuts like Michael Ejercito,
who thinks that when YHVH command genocide then it's a sin not to kill
people.
> Ultimately, Bible thumpers actually have no
> separate code of ethics except for doing what God tells them to do.
And since YHVH isn't really god, the Bible thumpers code is actually
based on a thousands-year-old god invented by ancient people. Using
YHVH as one's standard for morality is as misguided as using plato as
one's authority on physics.
dsharavi
>>>><snip>
>>>>>Anderson made a claim about Moses,
<Duwayne Anderson's snip restored:
>>>>>I pointed out that Anderson's claim is not backed
>>>>>up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try
>>>>>and back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
>>>On Jun 10, 3:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
>>>>genocide.
Wrong. It was a declarative statement, which allowed for no debate,
originally made in the context of two threads on alt.atheism.
>>On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
>>>And you succeeded in showing both Obama and Moses were guilty of acts
>>>of genocide.
>On Jun 11, 8:07 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>Genocide is as genocide does. The legal definitition of genocide, in
>>international law, is based on the 1948 convention.
Duwayne's typical sidedodge noted. Rather than debate the matter from
facts, a feat of which Duwayne is incapable, Duwayne sidedodges and
changes the subject to the ludicrous claim that warfare in the ancient
world should have been bound by conventions made between future nation-
states which wouldn't exist for thousands of years.
>>According to that
>>convention, the acts described in Numbers 31 are clearly genocide.
Maybe someone should have sent Moses a copy, with copies to Sargon II,
Tiglath-Pileser III, Nebuchadrezzar II, Alexander the Great, Julius
Caesar, and others, including the Aztecs and the Incas.
On Jun 11, 9:10 am, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>True, but it was not illegal because God ordered it (divine command
>defense).
> Michael
No such "defence " is possible. Assuming that the biblical account is
representative of an actual incident -- and it's amusing seeing self-
declared atheists arguing from this point -- the so-called "genocide"
was non-existent because no genocide was ordered.
The bible -- the sole source for the claim -- also relates that here
were 32,000 survivors, along with 675,000 head of sheep, 62,000
cattle, and 61,000 donkeys -- from five desert tribes in the Arabah
and northern Sinai.
Additionally, the entire destruction of an enemy tribe wasn't untoward
in warfare in the ancient Middle East.
I note that none of those who have been nattering about this have
bothered to take into account actual occurrences, such as Alexander's
destruction of Thebes, the slaughter of the entire populations of Gaza
and Mallia, or the military conquests of, say, Tiglath Pileser III,
Sargon II, Necuchadrezzar II of Babylon, Julius Caesar, or other
"genocidists".
The claim that such events violate the Genocide Convention, or the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is so ludicrous that it's
amazing anyone takes it seriously. One may as well charge every
physician of the ancient world of criminal medical malpractice for
failure to employ proper sterilization procedures during operations.
Such an accusation would be as relevant, and as grostesquely
ludicrous, as the claim that the slaughter of the Midianites in
Numbers 31 represents a case of "genocide" under the 1948 Genocide
Convention.
How about the complete eradication of Jews from the Hijaz effected by
Muhammad and his successor Umar? That was so complete that no Jews
survived in the Hijaz. Does that count as genocide> Or are these
threads concerned ONLY with misinterpretations of bible tales, and
Duwayne Anderson talking to himself and arguing imaginary points?
Deborah
Tapestry
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> >>>>I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
> >>>>genocide.
>
> Wrong. It was a declarative statement, which allowed for no debate,
If there was no room for debate, then you wouldn't be debating it, and
over 1,000 of David's posts would disappear.
> originally made in the context of two threads on alt.atheism.
Where they were originally made has nothing to do with what they are.
I claim that the events in Numbers 31 describe acts of genocide.
Based on the 1948 convention on genocide, that is correct.
> >>On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
> >>>And you succeeded in showing both Obama and Moses were guilty of acts
> >>>of genocide.
> >On Jun 11, 8:07 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >>Genocide is as genocide does. The legal definitition of genocide, in
> >>international law, is based on the 1948 convention.
>
> Duwayne's typical sidedodge noted.
Explain how citing the legal definition of genocide is a "dodge"
within the context of a discussion that is about whether or not the
events described in Numbers 31 constitute genocide.
> Rather than debate the matter from
> facts,
How is the legal definition of genocide, which I posted, not a "fact?"
> a feat of which Duwayne is incapable, Duwayne sidedodges
This is a nice example of how Deborah conducts a conversation.
> and
> changes the subject to the ludicrous claim that warfare in the ancient
> world should have been bound by conventions made between future nation-
> states which wouldn't exist for thousands of years.
My claim is that the events described in Numbers 31 constitute
genocide.
I make no claim that the events happened. I simply make the claim
that those events constitute genocide.
Now, you might try to explain why those events happened. You might
try to explain that people had different standards back then. And you
might be right. But none of that changes the fact that those events,
as described in Numbers 31, constitute genocide.
Conclusions will follow. I personally conclude that, since YHVH was
involved in those events, and commanded them in some cases, then YHVH
is an evil god. Good gods don't command genocide. And since YHVH's
existence today is a subject for discussion, it makes sense to ask if
an all-knowing god that was around thousands of years ago and
commanding people to commit genocide is really worth following.
I say no. What do you say, Deborah?
My conclusions with regard to Numbers 31 aren't about Jews or
Israelites. If you go back several thousand years you can find
genocide among virtually every civilization -- including America (as
in the case of the Native Americans). The fact that ancient
Israelites committed genocide isn't remarkable in the least.
My conclusion with regard to Numbers 31 is about the nature of YHVH --
a god that some people assert is still in control today. Religious
fanatics, like Michael Ejercito, think that the evil god YHVH might
still command people to commit genocide, and he thinks it would be a
sin to *not* follow YHVH's evil command.
> >>According to that
> >>convention, the acts described in Numbers 31 are clearly genocide.
>
> Maybe someone should have sent Moses a copy, with copies to Sargon II,
> Tiglath-Pileser III, Nebuchadrezzar II, Alexander the Great, Julius
> Caesar, and others, including the Aztecs and the Incas.
I would reject the gods of all those civilizations on similar grounds.
> On Jun 11, 9:10 am, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >True, but it was not illegal because God ordered it (divine command
> >defense).
> > Michael
>
> No such "defence " is possible. Assuming that the biblical account is
> representative of an actual incident -- and it's amusing seeing self-
> declared atheists arguing from this point -- the so-called "genocide"
> was non-existent because no genocide was ordered.
>
> The bible -- the sole source for the claim -- also relates that here
> were 32,000 survivors, along with 675,000 head of sheep, 62,000
> cattle, and 61,000 donkeys -- from five desert tribes in the Arabah
> and northern Sinai.
>
> Additionally, the entire destruction of an enemy tribe wasn't untoward
> in warfare in the ancient Middle East.
Hitler didn't succeed in killing all the Jews, either. But what he
did was still genocide.
If you would read the 1948 convention you will see that "intent"
figures into the equation.
>
> I note that none of those who have been nattering about this have
> bothered to take into account actual occurrences, such as Alexander's
> destruction of Thebes, the slaughter of the entire populations of Gaza
> and Mallia, or the military conquests of, say, Tiglath Pileser III,
> Sargon II, Necuchadrezzar II of Babylon, Julius Caesar, or other
> "genocidists".
I have no trouble granting that (probably all) other ancient
civilizations practiced some sort of genocide. You seem willing to
grant that they all did, except the Israelites.
>
> The claim that such events violate the Genocide Convention, or the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is so ludicrous that it's
> amazing anyone takes it seriously.
It's amazing that anyone would take your opinion on that matter
seriously, given the fact you refused to answer my question when I
asked you:
1) Are all people (including Palestinians, Jews, etc.) born with
certain inalienable rights, including the right to live, and the right
to personal freedom/self determination?
2) Do you agree with the inalienable rights described at this link?
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
> One may as well charge every
> physician of the ancient world of criminal medical malpractice for
> failure to employ proper sterilization procedures during operations.
> Such an accusation would be as relevant, and as grostesquely
> ludicrous, as the claim that the slaughter of the Midianites in
> Numbers 31 represents a case of "genocide" under the 1948 Genocide
> Convention.
Deborah still doesn't get it. The point of the discussion is the
evaluation of the validity of the gods that supposedly ordered the
genocide.
While we wouldn't put ancient doctors on trial for medical
malpractice, we would put their *methods* on trial, and reject them
where they fail.
Similarly, when ancient civilizations behave under the direction of
their gods, it makes sense (when evaluating their gods today) to see
if their gods are good or evil. In the case of YHVH we have an
extraordinarily evil god that we correctly understand to be a product
of the imagination of ancient peoples, and a god who's values we
should abstain from today.
>
> How about the complete eradication of Jews from the Hijaz effected by
> Muhammad and his successor Umar? That was so complete that no Jews
> survived in the Hijaz. Does that count as genocide
Sure.
> Or are these
> threads concerned ONLY with misinterpretations of bible tales, and
> Duwayne Anderson talking to himself and arguing imaginary points?
The thread is about genocide, Deborah. Not the scarry monsters in
your closet, or your dark sexual fantasies.
How about it? Ready to answer the question?
Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
>
> Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
There is no "divine command defense" for genocide. And the fact that
YHVH ordered genocide shows that god is hardly "divne."
>
> Michael- Hide quoted text -
Just_James
>>> On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
>>>> And you succeeded in showing both Obama and Moses were guilty of acts
>>>> of genocide.
>
>> On Jun 11, 8:07 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Genocide is as genocide does. The legal definitition of genocide, in
>>> international law, is based on the 1948 convention.
>
> Duwayne's typical sidedodge noted. Rather than debate the matter from
> facts, a feat of which Duwayne is incapable,...
Yawn. The questions is simple, do you universally and unconditionally
condemn genocide as a crime against humanity? Why is it so hard for
theists to just answer a question?
>
>>> According to that
>>> convention, the acts described in Numbers 31 are clearly genocide.
>
> Maybe someone should have sent Moses a copy, with copies to Sargon II,
> Tiglath-Pileser III, Nebuchadrezzar II, Alexander the Great, Julius
> Caesar, and others, including the Aztecs and the Incas.
>
> On Jun 11, 9:10 am, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>> True, but it was not illegal because God ordered it (divine command
>> defense).
>> Michael
>
> No such "defence " is possible. Assuming that the biblical account is
> representative of an actual incident -- and it's amusing seeing self-
> declared atheists arguing from this point -- the so-called "genocide"
> was non-existent because no genocide was ordered.
This is arguing from your opponents position. There is probably a
specific name for it in debate, but I'm to lazy to look it up. The
point it to show your opponents position is week by taking it apart from
the inside.
>
> The bible -- the sole source for the claim -- also relates that here
> were 32,000 survivors, along with 675,000 head of sheep, 62,000
> cattle, and 61,000 donkeys -- from five desert tribes in the Arabah
> and northern Sinai.
There were many survivors of the Holocaust, do you think the Holocaust
should be considered genocide or not?
>
> Additionally, the entire destruction of an enemy tribe wasn't untoward
> in warfare in the ancient Middle East.
Oh, well, that makes it all better.
> The claim that such events violate the Genocide Convention, or the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is so ludicrous that it's
> amazing anyone takes it seriously. One may as well charge every
> physician of the ancient world of criminal medical malpractice for
> failure to employ proper sterilization procedures during operations.
People don't live their lives by centuries old medical texts. The do
seem to think the bible is a good place to pick up moral values though.
I take it you like the bible and agree with what is written in the evil
book?
Duwaynea Anderson
The historian's fallacy doesn't apply to supposedly all-powerful, all-
knowing gods, because they *should* have known better, are still
around, and (presumably) are still fishing for people to worship them.
Deborah, in her paranoia, thinks that the condemnation of events in
Numbers 31 is aimed at Jews. But the condemnation aimed at Numbers 31
is aimed at YHVH.
And YHVH, according to millions (or even billions), is still around,
and still dishing out commandments.
The danger is that these fruitcakes might think that YHVH is telling
them to commit genocide, as he did in the Bible. And that these
fruitcakes might try to influence national policy toward other groups
of people, perhaps leading to suffering and loss of human rights.
Michael Ejercito is a good example of this sort of religious fanatic.
Here's what Michael said:
"..when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT to commit
genocide when God tells you to do so."
>
>
>
>
>
> > Deborah- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Picasso Renoir Hilton
So you are now arguing that I was wrong about which fallacy you used
in constructing your argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)
dsharavi
>Actually, the Now kill all the boys thread was about Moses,
>but then Anderson began picking fights.
The thread started in alt.atheism, I believe, as one of two threads
containing the same post. The other thread was, IIRC, Ancient
Israelites Commit Genocide. Anderson entered the discussion and
proceeded to antagonize several posters with his usual mixture of
dishonesty, ignorance of the subject, irrelevant sidedodges, and
repetitious rubbish.
>Now that the thread has spawned into
>multiple threads, there is some variation. But with respect to the
>three sub-threads where Anderson still refuses to back down after
>picking a fight with me, it really isn't about genocide anymore, it is
>just about Anderson refusing to admit his own errors and launching ad
>hominem attacks to cover up how badly he has been refuted.
Been there, done that. It seems to be SOP with Anderson
On Jun 10, 8:53 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>R. L. Measures thinks there are times that genocide is justifiable.
>>Michael Ejercito said "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is
>>wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>>Various other posters (Deborah, Susan, David, etc.) clearly agree with
>>Measures and Ejercito,
This last is another example of Anderson's typical dishonesty.
>I don't speak for anyone else, but with respect to myself, Anderson is
>just talking shit.
To put it succinctly.
>I never agreed with Measures, Ejercto or anyone else on this.
Join the club. I stated that I disagreed with Michael, several times.
Anderson, who's usually too busy talking to himself and arguing
imaginary points, failed to take note, of course, and merely went on
lying.
On Jun 10, 8:53 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>Y'know, for someone that was (mostly) raised in polite society it
>>never occurred to me that there is a world of fanatics out there that
>>think the idea of universal human rights is a *bad* thing, and that
>>genocide is sometimes justifiable.
>
>Was this polite society Anderson was raised in a society that
>considered his ad hominem attacks and character assasination diatribes
>without evidence to be polite?
Evidently. For someone like Anderson to claim he was raised in "polite
society" is a joke.
>Because I have refuted his ad hominem attacks repeatedly, and all he
>does is ignore my refutations and copy and paste his ad hominem
>attacks again.
That seems to be SOP with Anderson--who, incidentally, seems incapable
of comprehending the definition of "ad hominem" and "straw man", and
goes on using the terms incorrectly.
>I don't speak for anyone else, but if Anderson wants to back up his
>accusations with respect to me, he better provide some evidence.
>Otherwise his claims of "hate-filled people that seem comfortable with
>the idea of murdering thousands of people" is just Anderson talking
>shit. He claimed it was a pretty sure bet he was right, but now he
>won't even put his money where his mouth is.
Anderson's "evidence" is all but worthless. When asked to prove his
multiple assertions of a statement he attributed to a (Jewish) poster,
he finally produced a link. The link led to the beginning of a thread
with 1,002 posts in it. Ultimately, all Anderson could produce is his
statement claiming that the poster had said something the poster never
said.
>Actually it is Anderson that has displayed a certain amount of
>religious fanaticism in his replies to me, even though he is an
>atheist
Anderson is a true believer in his atheism. This is often a problem
with atheists; they're bone-headed in their "non-belief", and as
fanatic in it as religious fanatics.
>He once made an accusation based on the premise that I am
>capable of miracles, and displayed some beliefs about Moses which have
>no backing in the Biblical text. When I pointed out he had no evidence
>to back his claim up, he started acting like a religious fanatic,
>refusing to admit his error and trying to cover up by snipping and
>trying to hide my refutations while spamming ad hominem attacks.
Again, that's SOP with Anderson. He also thinks that certain texts
have magical properties and can "speak for themselves", along with
addressing unrelated topics which they don't even remotely touch upon.
Despite his self-proclaimed "atheism", Anderson remains a True
Believer. And despite his claim that he "advocates" for "human
rights", he doesn't believe in those, either.
Deborah
drahcir
So's your biblical genocide, proven so by archaeology.
There's so much evidence against it,
> that you might as well think the world is flat.
>
> Do you realize there are tree-ring records that span the supposed
> timeframe of the flood? There are seafloor sediments with similar
> annual cycles that span the same timefram. And ice core samples.
> None of them show a single hint of a world-wide flood.
>
> > or
> > worse. If you believe in God and He tells you to rape and pillage and
> > commit genocide, then it is the right thing to do.
>
> That's what Michael Ejercito thinks. He said this: "... when God
> orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT to commit genocide when God
> tells you to do so."
Who cares?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> > There is only one
> > standard for right and wrong for true believers and that is to follow
> > the commandments of God.
>
> There are many standards of right and wrong. Following the evil god
> YHVH is just one standard. And we can see the "fruits" of those that
> follow the evil god YHVH
Hmm, seems to me Jews are the most gifted and productive people on
earth. One should be circumspect before rejecting those fruits.
dsharavi
On Jun 11, 9:55 am, Tapestry <estry....@gmail.com>wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy
Thanks for the link. I still have a tattered copy of D.H. Fischer's
excellent Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought.
Anderson has managed to exemplify most of them, I think.
Deborah
Picasso Renoir Hilton
The worst part is, he claims logic, but has been using logical
fallacies for
years.
> >>Deborah- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> >I never agreed with Measures, Ejercto or anyone else on this.
>
> Join the club. I stated that I disagreed with Michael, several times.
> Anderson, who's usually too busy talking to himself and arguing
> imaginary points, failed to take note, of course, and merely went on
> lying.
Deborah, it's time for you to stop spreading that lie. Quoting from
the following link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/f7d654af4fd49b44?scoring=d&
--------------------------------------------------------
Deborah, in the hundreds of posts I simply hadn't seen it. But now I
have, and I readily admit that you answered the question.
In fact, I even took off my hat to you. I only have a few hats, but
I'll take off another too you.
You did good. I didn't think you would have the courage blaspheme
YHVH by defying a direct order to commit genocide. But you said your
answer to the Michael Ejercito question is "no." and I congratulate
you on that.
And while you did answer the Michael Ejercito question, I've yet to
see your answer to this one:
1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
See how reasonable I can be? Answer the question, do it honestly,
and
I'll gladly take off my third hat to you.
--------------------------------
Picasso Renoir Hilton
Duwaynea Anderson
Depends. How many people share his opinon? How many are in
government positions and can influence national policy?
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> > > There is only one
> > > standard for right and wrong for true believers and that is to follow
> > > the commandments of God.
>
> > There are many standards of right and wrong. Following the evil god
> > YHVH is just one standard. And we can see the "fruits" of those that
> > follow the evil god YHVH
>
> Hmm, seems to me Jews are the most gifted and productive people on
> earth.
What a perfectly racist thing to say.
> One should be circumspect before rejecting those fruits.
Do you worship the evil god YHVH?
If so, if YHVH commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
If not, do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
>
> -- the fruits are nuts like Michael Ejercito,
>
>
>
> > who thinks that when YHVH command genocide then it's a sin not to kill
> > people.
>
> > > Ultimately, Bible thumpers actually have no
> > > separate code of ethics except for doing what God tells them to do.
>
> > And since YHVH isn't really god, the Bible thumpers code is actually
> > based on a thousands-year-old god invented by ancient people. Using
> > YHVH as one's standard for morality is as misguided as using plato as
> > one's authority on physics.
>
> > > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Duwaynea Anderson
wrote:
Wrong in claiming there was a fallacy at all. But I notice you just
committed one. I posted and argument, and you tried to change the
subject using a hidden assumption, all while ignoring every point I
raised.
> in constructing your argument:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_anal...)- Hide quoted text -
Picasso Renoir Hilton
wrote:
> Do you worship the evil god YHVH?
Why do you call GOD evil?
You, who have stamped out freedom and liberty?
Are you against freedom and liberty?
Duwaynea Anderson
Deborah, would you find the fallacy in the following argument?
---------------------------------
The historian's fallacy doesn't apply to supposedly all-powerful,
all-
knowing gods, because they *should* have known better, are still
around, and (presumably) are still fishing for people to worship
them.
Deborah, in her paranoia, thinks that the condemnation of events in
Numbers 31 is aimed at Jews. But the condemnation aimed at Numbers
31
is aimed at YHVH.
And YHVH, according to millions (or even billions), is still around,
and still dishing out commandments.
The danger is that these fruitcakes might think that YHVH is telling
them to commit genocide, as he did in the Bible. And that these
fruitcakes might try to influence national policy toward other groups
of people, perhaps leading to suffering and loss of human rights.
Michael Ejercito is a good example of this sort of religious fanatic.
Here's what Michael said:
"..when God orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT to commit
genocide when God tells you to do so."
-----------------------------
<snip to end>
dsharavi
wrote:
><snip>
"Snip" = Duwayne Anderson's usual response when he can't argue to
facts.
>On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
>>Anderson made a claim about Moses,
On Jun 10, 3:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
>genocide.
And that claim, like your associated claims, were wrong, as usual--a
thought you utterly refused to even entertain.
>>I pointed out that Anderson's claim
>>is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
>>back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
That's SOP with Anderson. Whenever he finds himself cornered by facts
and his own ignorance, he retreats to his standard "liar liar pants on
fire" defence.
>And you just did it again. Let's review.
>1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
>people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
Yes, so? How is this contrary to the established procedures of warfare
at that general time and in that place?
>2) Moses commanded the deaths of prisoners of war (Numbers 31:17)
Yes, so? How is this contrary to the established procedures of warfare
at that general time and in that place?
>3) Moses commanded that the girls be given to the Israelites and
>removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
32,000 of them, along with 675,000 head of sheep, 62,000 of cattle,
and 61,000 donkeys -- and all of these from five tribes dwelling in
the Aravah and northern Sinai. That should give you a clue as to the
validity of the tale. But, numbers aside, again, how is this contrary
to the established procedures of warfare at that general time and in
that place?
>If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
>the 1948 convention) you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
>the definition.
Maybe nobody mailed Moses a copy, or asked him to be a signatory.
>Here's the link:
......to Duwayne Anderson's debating techniques:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5McSEU48Y8
Deborah
drahcir
I'd be more worried about assholes like you I might encounter in
everyday life.
>
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> > > > There is only one
> > > > standard for right and wrong for true believers and that is to follow
> > > > the commandments of God.
>
> > > There are many standards of right and wrong. Following the evil god
> > > YHVH is just one standard. And we can see the "fruits" of those that
> > > follow the evil god YHVH
>
> > Hmm, seems to me Jews are the most gifted and productive people on
> > earth.
>
> What a perfectly racist thing to say.
How do you figure? Perhaps you consider objectivity a racist practice?
It wouldn't surprise me.
>
> > One should be circumspect before rejecting those fruits.
>
> Do you worship the evil god YHVH?
Are you a total moron? Have you read any of the posts I have written
to you recently?
>
> If so, if YHVH commanded you to commit genocide, would you do it?
>
> If not, do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
Ibid. Stick your inane questions up your ass.
drahcir
john.p
Good luck. He won't answer that.
--
John P.
Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis.--Sigmund Freud
dsharavi
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
>>>>Anderson made a claim about Moses,
>>On Jun 10, 4:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
>>>genocide.
No, Anderson doesn't "claim" this. He states it as irrefutable fact,
which it is not.
>>>>I pointed out that Anderson's claim
>>>>is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
>>>>back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
>>>> In fact, Anderson long gave up even trying to argue his original
>>>>point, since he couldn't support it. But he never retracted his
>>>>hysterically false accusation.
>>>And you just did it again. Let's review.
>>>1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
>>>people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
>>>2) Moses commanded the deaths of prisoners of war (Numbers 31:17)
>>>3) Moses commanded that the girls be given to the Israelites and
>>>removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
This is not backing up Anderson's claim.
>>>If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
>>>the 1948 convention) you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
>>>the definition.
Anderson fails to entertain the notion that Moses's copy might have
been lost in the mail, or that no one mailed him a copy, or invited
him to be a signatory to the convention.
>>>Of course I posted all this before, so David really did lie when he
>>>said I didn't "even try and backup" the accusation that Moses
>>>committed genocide.
David was truthful. Anderson failed to back up his claim.
>>>Instead, David asserted that he doesn't accept
>>>the international law on genocide because he thinks it "too easily
>>>targets innocent people."
This is another of Anderson's typical sidedodges when he can't argue
to the facts: change the subject, and produce another of his lies.
>There's really no question -- the events described in Numbers 31
>(along with others you have posted) were genocide. If they were done
>today, and they could be brought before the world court, the perps
>would be convicted.
That is one large IF, with a mutliplicity of minor IFs.
IF the events described in Numbers 31 actually happened--
IF the events were done today--
IF the perps could be brought before the world court--
IF Star Fleet would detach a galaxy-cruiser to warp back through time
and bring the perps forward 3,000 years--
IF the world court could prove jurisdiction in this matter--
IF the world court wasn't preoccupied with the greater cases of
Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Nebuchadrezzar II, Xerxes of Persia,
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar (all of whom made Duwayne's alleged
Mosaic "genocide" look like small potatoes)---
There is still no assurance that defence attorneys wouldn't prevail.
>>If you believe in the
>>Bible, I suppose you could say that the Flood was also genocide,
>The universal flood is a myth. There's so much evidence against it,
>that you might as well think the world is flat.
rotf
Dismissing the ludicrous improbability of a self-proclaimed atheist
spending so much time on the actions of a god in whom he claims not to
believe, Duwayne may well have said, "There's so much evidence against
the world being flat that you might as well think that the universal
flood really happened."
[snip Duwayne's "proof" that the flood never happened, Dwayne's
presumptive belief that he can read Michael's mind, and cut to the
meat of Duwayne's "argument">
> Following the evil god
>YHVH is just one standard. And we can see the "fruits" of those that
>follow the evil god YHVH -- the fruits are nuts like Michael Ejercito,
>who thinks that when YHVH command genocide then it's a sin not to kill
>people.
As above, for a self-proclaimed "atheist", Duwane spends an inordinate
amount of time dwelling on god -- particularly, the Jewish one.
>And since YHVH isn't really god, the Bible thumpers code is actually
>based on a thousands-year-old god invented by ancient people. Using
>YHVH as one's standard for morality is as misguided as using plato as
>one's authority on physics.
The evil god's evil commandments for non-Jews:
1 - Don't murder
2 - Don't steal
3 - Don't worship idols
4 - Don't be sexually immoral (i.e., that doesn't just mean fucking
around)
5 -Don't torture animals
6 - Don't curse
7 - Establish courts of law and bring offenders to justice.
Maimonides observed that any human being who observes these laws has a
place in the next world. Duwayne, by his own admission, rejects these
standards of morality as evil. Thus, Duwayne believes it's okay to
murder, steal, worship idols, be sexual immoral, torture animals,
curse, and ignore courts of law and justice.
Deborah
dsharavi
talking to himself again when he re-wrote:
>There's really no question -- the events described in Numbers 31
>(along with others you have posted) were genocide.
Though Anderson states this as irrefutable fact, it's not, and the
events described in Numbers 31 certainly can, and have, been
questioned.
>If they were done
>today, and they could be brought before the world court, the perps
>would be convicted.
That is a very large IF, with a with a mutliplicity of minor IFs.
IF the events described in Numbers 31 actually happened--
IF the events were done today--
IF the perps could be brought before the world court--
IF Star Fleet would detach a galaxy-cruiser to warp back through time
and bring the perps forward 3,000 years--
IF the world court could prove jurisdiction in this matter--
IF the world court wasn't preoccupied with the greater cases of
Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Nebuchadrezzar II, Xerxes of Persia,
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar (all of whom made Duwayne's alleged
Mosaic "genocide" look like small potatoes)---
There is still no assurance that defence attorneys wouldn't prevail.
>The universal flood is a myth. There's so much evidence against it,
>that you might as well think the world is flat.
rotf
Dismissing the ludicrous improbability of a self-proclaimed atheist
spending so much time on the actions of a god in whom he claims not to
believe, Duwayne may well have said, "There's so much evidence against
the world being flat that you might as well think that the universal
flood really happened."
[snip Duwayne's "proof" that the flood never happened, Dwayne's
presumptive belief that he can read Michael's mind, and cut to the
meat of Duwayne's "argument">
> Following the evil god
>YHVH is just one standard. And we can see the "fruits" of those that
>follow the evil god YHVH -- the fruits are nuts like Michael Ejercito,
>who thinks that when YHVH command genocide then it's a sin not to kill
>people.
As above, for a self-proclaimed "atheist", Duwane spends an inordinate
amount of time dwelling on god -- particularly, the Jewish one.
>And since YHVH isn't really god, the Bible thumpers code is actually
>based on a thousands-year-old god invented by ancient people. Using
>YHVH as one's standard for morality is as misguided as using plato
> as one's authority on physics.
Or as misguided as using Duwayne Anderson as an authority on ethics.
dsharavi
> wrote:
> > Do you worship the evil god YHVH?
On Jun 11, 11:08 am, Picasso Renoir Hilton <ihavethecode...@gmx.com>
wrote:
> Why do you call GOD evil?
Duwayne read the bible when he was 30 or so, and found it wasn't the
same as the Book of Mormon, which had been the text for his many years
of missionizing. Hence, Duwayne believes his god his evil.
> You, who have stamped out freedom and liberty?
> Are you against freedom and liberty?
Duwayne asserts he "advocates" human rights, which, presumably,
includes freedom and liberty. His actions show he's against freedom
and liberty for all those who disagree with his opinions.
Deborah
dsharavi
>On Jun 11, 12:54 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote
>>Thanks for the link. I still have a tattered copy of D.H. Fischer's
>>excellent Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought.
>>Anderson has managed to exemplify most of them, I think.
>>Deborah
>
On Jun 11, 10:59 am, Picasso Renoir Hilton
<ihavethecode...@gmx.com>wrote:
>The worst part is, he claims logic, but has been using logical
>fallacies for years.
I don't think he uses them so much as he falls into them, as the
result of his dishonesty, and his patent refusal to believe that he
could err. I don't know where Duwayne gets the idea he can read minds,
but he really does believe that his every word was handed down from
Sinai. <g>
Deborah
dsharavi
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
><snip>
Snip is Duwayne's method of dealing with facts, and usually signals
that he's probably going to lie about them.
Begin restoration of Duwayne's snippy snippy:
----------------------------------------
To put it succinctly.
----------------------------------------
End restoration of Duwayne's snippy snippy
>>>I never agreed with Measures, Ejercto or anyone else on this.
>>Join the club. I stated that I disagreed with Michael, several times.
>>Anderson, who's usually too busy talking to himself and arguing
>>imaginary points, failed to take note, of course, and merely went on
>>lying.
>Deborah, it's time for you to stop spreading that lie.
You're lying again, Duwayne. The facts are as I stated above: I
disagreed with Michael, and you went on stating that I shared his
beliefs. As usual, you lied.
>Quoting from the following link:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
Your link leads to a May 7th post of mine, which, typically, has
nothing to do with your lies about my agreeing with Michael
>Deborah, in the hundreds of posts I simply hadn't seen it.
So, you admit you lied about my response. Now you're backpedaling and
claiming you didn't see it, even though you responded to the posts
where I explicitly stated I disagreed with Michael.
> But now I
>have, and I readily admit that you answered the question.
I really don't give a flying fisk what you admit, since you lie in
almost every post you make.
>In fact, I even took off my hat to you. I only have a few hats, but
>I'll take off another too you.
[snip more of Duwayne's lies]
I already told you what you could do with the first two. Do you need
it repeated?
Deborah
dsha...@yahoo.com
>>>YHVH is just one standard. And we can see the "fruits" of those that
>>>follow the evil god YHVH
The so-called "evil" one's evil commandments for non-Jews:
1 - Don't murder
2 - Don't steal
3 - Don't worship idols
4 - Don't be sexually immoral (i.e., adultery, incest, bestiality)
5 -Don't torture animals
6 - Don't curse
7 - Establish courts of law and bring offenders to justice.
Maimonides observed that any human being who observes these laws has a
place in the next world. Duwayne, by his own admission, rejects these
standards of morality as evil. Thus, Duwayne believes it's okay to
murder, steal, worship idols, commit adultery, incest, and bestiality,
torture animals,
curse, and ignore courts of law and justice.
>On Jun 11, 10:49 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>Hmm, seems to me Jews are the most gifted and productive people on
>>earth.
On Jun 11, 11:06 am, Duwaynea Anderson
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>What a perfectly racist thing to say.
Since Jews are not, and have never been, a race, Anderson's comment is
racist as well as antisemitic.
>>One should be circumspect before rejecting those fruits.
>Do you worship the evil god YHVH?
Duwayne does.
>>>And since YHVH isn't really god, the Bible thumpers code is actually
>>>based on a thousands-year-old god invented by ancient people. Using
>>>YHVH as one's standard for morality is as misguided as using plato as
>>>one's authority on physics.
Or as misguided as using Duwayne Anderson as one's authority on
morality and ethics.
How odd that Duwayne has never condemned as "evil" that god whose
followers target infants and children, commit ethnic cleansing,
proclaim a universal struggle against non-believers, and fly planes
into tall buildings.
Deborah
dsha...@yahoo.com
On Jun 11, 11:09 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Deborah, would you find the fallacy in the following argument?
Since you made it, the probability is high that it's fallacious.
>Deborah, in her paranoia, thinks that the condemnation of events in
>Numbers 31 is aimed at Jews.
You don't know what I think, you don't know if I suffer from paranoia;
in fact, you don't know much of anything. Therefore, the probability
is very high that what you dignify as an "argument" is fallacious. The
probability that you are an antisemite is absolute.
I refer you to my previous posts suggesting what you may do with your
hats.
Deborah
dsha...@yahoo.com
On Jun 11, 11:23 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wrong:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o
Hah! Take that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdjEPqWjTeU&feature=related
Duwaynea Anderson
wrote:
> On Jun 11, 1:06 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Do you worship the evil god YHVH?
>
> Why do you call GOD evil?
I've already explained it. In posts that you've actually replied to.
But that's okay. I'll explain it again:
YHVH is an evil god because YHVH told his followers to commit
genocide.
Genocide. Evil.
> You, who have stamped out freedom and liberty?
You think trying to stamp out genocide is stamping out your freedom
and liberty?
What sort of nut....
Oh, that's right. You hang out with Deborah.
Never mind.
David
>
> > Everyone, notice how three links and Anderson immediately drops his
> > bullshit charade that he ever started off picking a fight by asking me
> > a question.
>
> You think
This was never about what I think Anderson.
>asking you questions is "picking a fight?"
>
More laughable nonsense from Anderson. Everyone, this is Anderson's
latest example of a strawman argument.
I never claimed Anderson picked a fight with me by asking me a
question, let alone a question about genocide.
Anderson picked a fight with me when he called me a liar. A hysterical
accusation I quickly refuted.
Anderson made a claim about Moses, I pointed out that Anderson's claim
is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
In fact, Anderson long gave up even trying to argue his original
point, since he couldn't support it. But he never retracted his
hysterically false accusation.
Everyone, read the posts for yourself.
Anderson responds to my post to Jack.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/23210b325f12d85b
I reply to Anderson pointing out Anderson has not backed up his
accusation, which he hadn't, and in fact, never did.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/ab476d4a60a6dd81
Anderson accuses me of lying,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/2a03dfdb9080086a
Specifically when Anderson said, "I'm amazed at the extent to which
some people will try to lie."
You called me a liar Anderson, not even one hour after first
responding to me. I showed you courtesy, and you vomited verbal chum
all over the place. That is when you picked a fight. Your laughable
attempt to make up a strawman argument that the fight was over a
question instead of your false accusation is now exposed.
> Why would you feel
Anderson's empathy skills are lacking. This has nothing to do with
feelings.
> like a "fight" when someone asks you if you
> unconditionally condemn genocide?
>
Everyone, take a look at Anderson's first two posts to me, where he
picked a fight.
Anderson responds to my post to Jack.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/23210b325f12d85b
Anderson accuses me of lying,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/2a03dfdb9080086a
Did anyone read Anderson asking me if I unconditionally condemn
genocide in those two posts?
Neither did I.
How did Anderson first mention genocide? Oh yes, here it is.
"David is actually trying to justify the genocide in the Bible."
There was no question, just Anderson's hysterical false accusations.
Go ahead and continue your charade Anderson, I will just keep pointing
to the links which expose your laughable strawman argument for what it
is.
> > > > Anderson made a claim about Moses,
>
> > > I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
> > > genocide.
>
> > And you succeeded in showing both Obama and Moses were guilty of acts
> > of genocide.
>
> Genocide is as genocide does.
Nice Forrest Gump reference.
> The legal definitition of genocide, in
> international law, is based on the 1948 convention.
A poorly worded law, as I proved.
> According to that
> convention, the acts described in Numbers 31
And the act by Obama here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/terror/main4749317.shtml
>are clearly genocide.
Congratulations on showing Obama and Moses fit your definition of
genocide Anderson.
> You make the claim that Obama is also guilty of genocide.
Wrong again Anderson, your definition of genocide, your claim. Not
mine.
> But you've
> never proven it.
>
I am not obligated to prove your claim, but I did show how Obama's
actions fit your definition of genocide, the one you chose.
> But even if you did, it wouldn't change the law,
This is true.
>nor would it change
> my position.
This is not. You gave us a big song and dance about how you wish the
law were more effectively enforced, after I proved the law is largely
unenforced and ignored. You also told us the law was made so the world
would no longer stand by and do nothing while genocide happens, and
yet you stand by and do nothing when I show Obama does what you define
as genocide.
> I oppose genocide because of what it is, not because of
> who it catches.
Neither Moses nor Obama have been "caught" by the law of genocide.
Both are beyond its reach. The only people who have been "caught" by
it are a few Serbs and Africans.
> That's the difference between us.
>
The difference between us is that you cherry pick to whom you apply
your definition of genocide.
I don't.
> > At least according to your definition of genocide.
> > Congratulations.
>
> It's not "my" definition, David.
Yes it is Anderson, it is the one you chose. That makes it yours.
> It's the international definition.
>
Yes the poorly worded law. There are better definitions out there, but
you haven't even acknowledged they exist.
> > Too bad your charade that you want the law more effectively enforced
> > didn't last more than five minutes after I asked my question about
> > Obama.
>
> I'd be happy for the law to be enforced and catch/punish anyone guilty
> of the acts describe at this link:
>
When you say "guilty" does that mean someone has to be found guilty
before they can be put on trial in the first place? If so you just
left Obama a nice loophole.
> http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
>
Everyone, note at the bottom of the link.
The legal definition of genocide can be compared to five alternative
definitions of genocide proposed by researchers and scholars Frank
Chalk & Kurt Jonassohn, Israel Charny, Helen Fein, Barbara Harff & Ted
Gurr and Steven Katz.
Why all the alternative definitions? Because the one Anderson uses is
poorly worded.
> > But it is nice to see you back on topic discussing Moses Anderson,
> > after I dragged you kicking and screaming back to the subject.
>
> And David opines about "picking fights."
>
It is a fact you picked a fight with me Anderson, I proved it with the
links. And it took me months to get you to talk about Moses again.
>
>
> > > > I pointed out that Anderson's claim
> > > > is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
> > > > back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
>
> > > And you just did it again.
>
> > Everyone, notice Anderson has provided no evidence that I am lying.
>
> You provided the evidence, David.
Wrong again Anderson, there is no evidence I lied, because I tell the
truth.
> You said I didn't "even try and
> back up" my POV.
You didn't, when I poiinted out you had no evidence for your claim of
rape, you dismissed my words by claiming I was lying, and provided
nothing new to back up your claim. You didn't even try.
> And here you are arguing against it.
You mean I successfully refuted your false claims that I lied.
> That's the
> problem with angry
Your false accusations amuse me Anderson. Amusement is not anger.
> liars
Everyone, notice Anderson has provided no evidence that I am a liar.
That is because he cannot, since I tell the truth.
>-- they can't keep their stories straight.
>
Anderson describes his own problem here. When I asked him a question
he kept changing his dodge, and wouldn't even answer the question.
> > That is because he cannot since I tell the truth.
>
> Then answer this question: Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
>
You know the terms required Anderson, for me to answer any more of
your questions, you will have to answer mine. Quid pro quo. No more
dodges and avoiding my answer. Just an answer.
Unless you care to wager on my answer, I did offer you the chance to
win money because you claimed you had a pretty sure bet my answer
would be no.
I am willing to take that bet. Just plunk down the money and show us
just how sure you are my answer will be no.
Of course, that does leave the question of which definition of
genocide we will be using. I will be happy to use a better worded one
here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
>
>
> > > Let's review.
>
> > Yes, let's review Anderson's errors and my refutations of his
> > arguments and correction of his errors and his false accusations.
>
> > > 1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
> > > people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
>
> > I call bullshit on this, Obama .....
>
> Is never mentioned in Numbers 31.
>
But he is mentioned here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/terror/main4749317.shtml
> But nice try at switching the subject.
>
Anderson wanted to talk about genocide, we are talking about genocide.
Except Anderson only wants to talk about genocide with someone he
doesn't like. When we discuss how Anderson's definition of genocide
applies to Obama, suddenly Anderson doesn't want to talk about
genocide anymore! Suddenly talking about genocide is switching the
subject according to Anderson.
> > did not destroy an(not and) entire
> > group of people when he launched missiles into Pakistan.
>
> >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/terror/main4749317.shtml
>
> > Likewise, Moses did not wipe out an entire group of people either.
>
> The definition of genocide doesn't require that the despot be
> successful.
Nobody said anything about successful. The entire group of Midianites
was not wiped out because the little girls were spared. Moses made the
choice to spare them. What does that have to do with success or
failure?
> There are still Jews, and Hitler is still guilty of
> genocide.
This is true.
> The fact that Moses failed
This is not, or at least this supposed failure is undefined. Are you
claiming Moses failed because he spared the little girls?
> is no more relevant than the
> fact that Hitler failed.
>
What is this failure you speak of and how is it relevant to your
argument?
> > He
> > did almost completely destroy one tribe of Midianites that were at war
> > with him, but the little girls were spared.
>
> Clearly David, by making these sorts of excuses,
More laughable nonsense from Anderson. I corrected Anderson's error by
pointing out what the Biblical text says. I make no excuses.
> justifies genocide.
>
Notice Anderson has provided no evidence I justified genocide. That is
because he cannot, since I did no such thing.
>
>
> > > 2) Moses commanded the deaths of prisoners of war (Numbers 31:17)
>
> > According to the Bible, the women executed were war criminals,
>
> Even if that were true
According to the text it is true.
> (which it is not)
Wrong again Anderson, I have refuted you on this before, the text does
tell us the women were war criminals, or at least pre-war criminals.
>what was the justification
> for killing the little boys?
>
I am not justifying anything. That was just your false accusation.
> See the title of the thread?
Do you? Because I had to drag you kicking and screaming back to this
subject.
> Yeah. You do. Remember the subject?
> Yeah, you do.
>
Yes, and I am glad to see you finally remembered as well.
> Moses killed the little boys.
>
This is true, and they were innocent.
> So let's ignore for the moment the argument that you just made.
For the moment? That is all you have ever done Anderson. You have done
nothing but ignore my arguments and make hysterical false accusations
ever since you picked a fight with me. You snip and ignore my
refutations, you snip and ignore parts of my question.
How is this moment different from any other moment?
> The
> the women that were murdered -- prisoners of war --
The women who were executed for their crimes, according to the text.
>were somehow, in
> your twisted,
Unsupported assertion.
>evil
Unsupported assertion.
>mind, deserving of death.
Anderson reads minds poorly. He truly sucks at it.
It is Anderson who claimed I was too soft on war criminals. And now
Anderson tells me Moses was too hard on these women who the text say
are war criminals, or least pre-war criminals.
Maybe one day Anderson will find a punishment for war criminals which
is not too hard, not too soft, but just right.
> What justification was
> there for the deaths of the boys?
>
I never justified anything Anderson. All of your hysterical false
accusations about my justifying genocide or anything else were just
that...hysterical false accusations which I refuted.
I always told you the boys, the little boys, were innocent. I told you
that six months ago.
> > or
> > perhaps better defined as pre-war criminals. Anderson once accused me
> > of being soft on war criminals so I won't comment further lest he
> > renew those accusations.
>
> > The boys executed, however, were indeed innocent.
>
> And their execution was an act of genocide.
According to your definition, as was the killing of these children
here.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece
And for the record, I am not justifying what Obama did either.
> Read the definition here:
>
> http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
>
Everyone, note at the bottom of the link.
The legal definition of genocide can be compared to five alternative
definitions of genocide proposed by researchers and scholars Frank
Chalk & Kurt Jonassohn, Israel Charny, Helen Fein, Barbara Harff & Ted
Gurr and Steven Katz.
Why all the alternative definitions? Because the one Anderson uses is
poorly worded.
>
>
> > > 3) Moses commanded that the girls be given to the Israelites and
> > > removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
>
> > Yes, Moses spared the little girls.
>
> Killing a kids parents, and brothers, and giving her to the people
> that murdered them hardly qualifies for the humanitarian label of
> "spared."
>
"Spared" as in allowed to live. As in not executed.
But if you insist...
Yes, Moses allowed the little girls to live.
>
>
> > > If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
> > > the 1948 convention)
>
> > A poorly worded definition, as I proved back in April.
>
> You didn't prove a thing.
I didn't prove "a" thing. I proved two things. First, that the law is
largely unenforced and ignored, and second, that the law is poorly
worded.
> And your opinion is irrelevant,
Which is why I never provide my opinion, just the facts.
> since the
> 1948 convention is international law.
>
That doesn't change the fact that the law is poorly worded.
> > > you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
> > > the definition.
>
> > As does Obama's missile launch into Pakistan.
>
> That's your assertion.
Wrong, it is a fact that Obama's action fits your definition, the one
you chose. I used your methods, showing it point by point.
> But you haven't proven it.
I have no need to prove your claims, but I did show Obama's actions
fit your definition of genocide.
> But if he was
> guilty, it wouldn't mean we should change the law.
>
I didn't say anything about changing the law, because neither you nor
I have any means to change the law.
> But I showed, point by point, that the acts described in Numbers 31
And Obama's actions.
> qualify as genocide under international law.
>
The poorly worded law. Congratulations.
> > > Here's the link:
>
> > >http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
>
> > Everyone, note at the bottom of the link.
>
> > The legal definition of genocide can be compared to five alternative
> > definitions of genocide
>
> And everyone note that the alternative definitions are not the legal
> definition.
But they are written by genocide scholars.
> In fact, there are more than five alternatives. The
> number of alternatives is almost endless.
>
Which just shows Anderson picked one definition of many, there are
better worded ones than the one he chose.
> > proposed by researchers and scholars Frank
> > Chalk & Kurt Jonassohn, Israel Charny, Helen Fein, Barbara Harff & Ted
> > Gurr and Steven Katz.
>
> > Why all the alternative definitions?
>
> Because there are a lot of people like David that favor horrible
> crimes.
More laughable nonsense from Anderson. Notice that Anderson has
provided no evidence that genocide scholars or myself favor horrible
crimes. That is because Anderson cannot.
> They think that it should be legal for countries to commit
> the most horrid acts, and not be guilty of genocide.
>
Anderson abandons any pretense of using logic or reason, preferring to
announce his mind reading powers have allowed him to discover the
dark, sinister motives of those who dare to disagree with him.
Your impersonation of the thought police in the book 1984 reminds me
of the Keystone Cops.
You are an incompetent mind reader Anderson.
Anderson was really stupid to smear genocide scholars that way.
> > Because the one Anderson uses is
> > poorly worded.
>
> The one Anderson uses is the legal definition.
Yes, the poorly worded law, a fact I proved in April.
> Nobody knows which one
> David uses, because he won't say.
I prefer definitions coined by genocide scholars. As most of you know
genocide scholars are people who have taken the time to study genocide
and research it.
For Anderson, however, genocide scholars are, according to him, a
dark, sinister cabal who "favor horrible crimes" and "think that it
should be legal for countries to commit the most horrid acts, and not
be guilty of genocide."
Yeah, that was a pretty stupid thing for Anderson to say.
> But apparently it allows for the
> murder of women prisoners of war
If Anderson is referring to Numbers 31, he is referring to women who
were executed for crimes.
> without a trial.
>
Trial? So if ancient nomadic tribes had sat down and invented modern
day criminal law thousands of years earlier, something that took
centuries of civilization to develop, Anderson would be ok with all
this?
>
>
> > > Of course I posted all this before, so David really did lie
>
> > Everyone, see below and you will find Anderson's accusation is false,
>
> You said I didn't "even try and
> back up" my POV.
You didn't, when I poiinted out you had no evidence for your claim of
rape, you dismissed my words by claiming I was lying, and provided
nothing new to back up your claim. You didn't even try.
> And here you are arguing against it.
You mean I successfully refuted your false claims that I lied.
> That's the
> problem with angry
Your false accusations amuse me Anderson. Amusement is not anger.
> liars
Everyone, notice Anderson has provided no evidence that I am a liar.
That is because he cannot, since I tell the truth.
>-- they can't keep their stories straight.
>
Anderson describes his own problem here. When I asked him a question
he kept changing his dodge, and wouldn't even answer the question.
>
> > I did tell the truth, as always.
>
> > > when he
> > > said I didn't "even try and backup" the accusation that Moses
> > > committed genocide.
>
> > Everyone, go back and check, you will see that I didn't actually say
> > Anderson didn't try and back up his accusation
>
Everyone, notice Anderson snipped out the last part of my sentence
above. Of course he did, since he was trying to distort what I am
saying.
I shall now add them back in.
"Everyone, go back and check, you will see that I didn't actually say
Anderson didn't try and back up his accusation that Moses committed
genocide."
Why did Anderson snip out my words referring to his claim about
genocide?
Because when I talk about this particular accusation I refer to below:
> "... Rather than even try and back up his accusation ..." [David]
>
I am talking about Anderson's accusation of rape, not his accusation
of genocide, which came later.
>
> > Go ahead and read what I said, here it is.
>
> > "Anderson made a claim about Moses,
>
> Specifically that Moses committed genocide.
Wrong, I wasn't talking about that claim. You never mentioned genocide
in your first post. I was referring to your claim about rape.
> That was the *claim.*
>
Wrong again, your claim was about rape. That was the claim I was
referring to. Your attempt to bait and switch which claim I was
talking about has failed.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/23210b325f12d85b
No mention of genocide in your first post, but a mention of rape.
Your false accusation has been refuted again.
> > I pointed out that Anderson's
> > claim
>
> That Moses committed genocide.
Wrong claim Anderson, I wasn't talking about that claim. You never
mentioned genocide in your first post. I was referring to your claim
about rape.
> Remember the *claim*
>
Your claim was about rape. That was the claim I was referring to. Your
attempt to bait and switch which claim I was talking about has failed.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/23210b325f12d85b
No mention of genocide in your first post, but a mention of rape.
Your false accusation has been refuted again.
> > is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try
> > and back up his accusation,
>
> But what did I do?
You accused me of lying, ignored the fact Numbers 31 did not support
your claim of rape, and then copied and pasted the same text again.
Like I said, you didn't even try and back up your accusation of rape.
> Why I laid out the verses from the Bible, in
> Numbers 31, and compared them with the legal international definition
> of genocide.
>
Wrong claim, and wrong time. You did this later, after you accused me
of lying. I was referring to your claim of rape, not genocide.
> I did exactly what you said I didn't "even try" to do.
Wrong, you didn't even try and justify your accusation of rape. Your
bait and switch has failed, you didn't mention genocide in your first
post.
> And here you
> are arguing against it.
>
You mean I refuted your false claim, and your bait and switch is now
exposed.
> > Anderson accused me of lying."
>
> You are one of the worst, David.
Always telling the truth is, indeed, the worst way to lie.
> You just proved it.
I did prove that I told the truth as always, and I have proved you
attempted a clumsy bait and switch. I was referring to your accusation
of rape, and you tried to pretend it was your later accusation of
genocide.
>
> <snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > > > That's what Michael Ejercito thinks. He said this: "... when God
> > > > orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT to commit genocide when God
> > > > tells you to do so."
>
> > > Who cares?
>
> > Depends. How many people share his opinon? How many are in
> > government positions and can influence national policy?
>
> I'd be more worried about assholes like you I might encounter in
> everyday life.
Name calling isn't an effective way to conduct a debate, Deborah.
<snip>
> > > Hmm, seems to me Jews are the most gifted and productive people on
> > > earth.
>
> > What a perfectly racist thing to say.
>
> How do you figure?
Racism is the classification of one race as better, or worse, than
other groups of people.
> Perhaps you consider objectivity a racist practice?
> It wouldn't surprise me.
Ad hominem arguments are not an effective way to conduct a debate,
Deborah.
<snip>
> > Do you worship the evil god YHVH?
>
> Are you a total moron?
I don't think so.
> Have you read any of the posts I have written
> to you recently?
Yes. Were you as evasive there as you are here?
Why.... I think so!
<snip>
> > If not, do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
>
> Ibid. Stick your inane questions up your ass.
Okay, so Deborah doesn't unconditionally condemn genocide.
No surprises there.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> >Deborah, it's time for you to stop spreading that lie.
>
> You're lying again, Duwayne. The facts are as I stated above: I
> disagreed with Michael, and you went on stating that I shared his
> beliefs. As usual, you lied.
Deborah, it's time for you to stop spreading that lie. Quoting from
the following link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/f7d654af4fd49b44?scoring=d&
--------------------------------------------------------
Deborah, in the hundreds of posts I simply hadn't seen it. But now I
have, and I readily admit that you answered the question.
In fact, I even took off my hat to you. I only have a few hats, but
I'll take off another too you.
You did good. I didn't think you would have the courage blaspheme
YHVH by defying a direct order to commit genocide. But you said your
answer to the Michael Ejercito question is "no." and I congratulate
you on that.
And while you did answer the Michael Ejercito question, I've yet to
see your answer to this one:
1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
See how reasonable I can be? Answer the question, do it honestly,
and
I'll gladly take off my third hat to you.
--------------------------------
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > You think
>
> This was never about what I think Anderson.
Then you should stop posting what you think.
<snip>
> Anderson made a claim about Moses, I pointed out that Anderson's claim
> is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
> back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
>
> In fact, Anderson long gave up even trying to argue his original
> point,
And, yet, here we are with me defending it and you arguing against
it.
Amazing.
<snip>
> > The legal definitition of genocide, in
> > international law, is based on the 1948 convention.
>
> A poorly worded law,
In your opinion. But it is the legal definition, and using the legal
definition, the events described in Numbers 31 qualify as genocide.
And by any moral/ethical definition, the events described in Numbers
are horrific, and call into question the moral authority and efficacy
of YHWH, and those that assert we should live by the moral code (which
includes genocide) supposedly dictated by this evil god.
> as I proved.
You proved nothing. In fact you were unable to provide the name of a
single "innocent person" that has been arrested, or tried, or
convicted under the 1948 convention.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jun 10, 3:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> "Snip" = Duwayne Anderson's usual response when he can't argue to
> facts.
>
> >On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
> >>Anderson made a claim about Moses,
>
> On Jun 10, 3:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson
> <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
> >genocide.
>
> And that claim, like your associated claims, were wrong,
The legal definition of genocide is found here:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
The events in Numbers 31 include the attempt to destroy an entire
people, the murder of prisoners of war (including women and children),
and the disbersment of children to the murderers.
Those events objectively qualify as genocide.
<snip>
> >And you just did it again. Let's review.
> >1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
> >people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
>
> Yes, so?
That's part of the definition of genocide, Deborah.
> How is this contrary to the established procedures of warfare
> at that general time and in that place?
How is that relevant to the question of whether or not Numbers 31
describes genocidal events?
> >2) Moses commanded the deaths of prisoners of war (Numbers 31:17)
>
> Yes, so?
That's part of the definition of genocide, Deborah.
>How is this contrary to the established procedures of warfare
> at that general time and in that place?
How is that relevant to the question of whether or not Numbers 31
describes genocidal events?
>
> >3) Moses commanded that the girls be given to the Israelites and
> >removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
>
> 32,000 of them, along with 675,000 head of sheep, 62,000 of cattle,
> and 61,000 donkeys -- and all of these from five tribes dwelling in
> the Aravah and northern Sinai.
And that was genocide, Deborah.
> That should give you a clue as to the
> validity of the tale.
I made no claims regarding validity. I said that the events describe
genocide.
>But, numbers aside, again, how is this contrary
> to the established procedures of warfare at that general time and in
> that place?
How is that relevant to the question of whether or not Numbers 31
describes genocidal events?
>
> >If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
> >the 1948 convention) you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
> >the definition.
>
> Maybe nobody mailed Moses a copy, or asked him to be a signatory.
My point is that god YHWH is evil. Moses was just his puppet.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> >>>I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
> >>>genocide.
>
> No, Anderson doesn't "claim" this.
I've made that claim too many times for you to lie about it, Deborah.
> He states it as irrefutable fact,
I compared the verses in Numbers 31 with the international definition
of genocide found here:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
> which it is not.
Stamping your feet and repeating your assertions is a poor way to
debate.
<snip>
> >There's really no question -- the events described in Numbers 31
> >(along with others you have posted) were genocide. If they were done
> >today, and they could be brought before the world court, the perps
> >would be convicted.
>
> That is one large IF, with a mutliplicity of minor IFs.
>
> IF the events described in Numbers 31 actually happened--
The events need not have actually happened to still describe genocide.
> IF the events were done today--
Similar events have. WIth the Jews, for example. And they were
considered genocide.
> IF the perps could be brought before the world court--
People have actually been convicted of genocide for doing similar
things as described in Numbers 31.
> IF Star Fleet would detach a galaxy-cruiser to warp back through time
Okay, Deborah's gone off her meds.
But, seriously Deborah, the condemnation here is for the god, the evil
god YHWH. Nobody should follow a god that commands genocide.
Don't you agree?
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
Your use of the ad hominem is a poor way to conduct a discussion.
And I notice you ignored the argument. Let's restore what you
snipped. The argument you think is "fallacious." Find the fallacy in
the argument, Deborah:
---------------------------------
The historian's fallacy doesn't apply to supposedly all-powerful,
all-
knowing gods, because they *should* have known better, are still
around, and (presumably) are still fishing for people to worship
them.
Deborah, in her paranoia, thinks that the condemnation of events in
Numbers 31 is aimed at Jews. But the condemnation aimed at Numbers
31
Duwaynea Anderson
My claim is that the events described in Numbers 31 constitute
genocide.
I make no claim that the events happened. I simply make the claim
that those events constitute genocide.
Now, you might try to explain why those events happened. You might
try to explain that people had different standards back then. And
you
might be right. But none of that changes the fact that those events,
as described in Numbers 31, constitute genocide.
Conclusions will follow. I personally conclude that, since YHVH was
involved in those events, and commanded them in some cases, then YHVH
is an evil god. Good gods don't command genocide. And since YHVH's
existence today is a subject for discussion, it makes sense to ask if
an all-knowing god that was around thousands of years ago and
commanding people to commit genocide is really worth following.
I say no. What do you say, Deborah?
My conclusions with regard to Numbers 31 aren't about Jews or
Israelites. If you go back several thousand years you can find
genocide among virtually every civilization -- including America (as
in the case of the Native Americans). The fact that ancient
Israelites committed genocide isn't remarkable in the least.
My conclusion with regard to Numbers 31 is about the nature of YHVH
--
a god that some people assert is still in control today. Religious
fanatics, like Michael Ejercito, think that the evil god YHVH might
still command people to commit genocide, and he thinks it would be a
sin to *not* follow YHVH's evil command.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> The evil god's evil commandments for non-Jews:
>
> 1 - Don't murder
And yet we have the events of Numbers 31. Apparently the "don't
murder" wasn't universal -- or didn't apply to non-Hebrews.
That might make sense. It might explain why you refuse to
unconditionally condemn genocide.
<snip to end>
everythingzen
wrote:
> On Jun 10, 8:32 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I've noticed over the months this huge thread, on various groups
> > including this one, that just won't go away entitled "Now kill all the
> > boys", but haven't really read any of them before. There's one thread
> > that has 1001 posts on it.
>
> It's been wrapped around the axel several times, so it actually has a
> helluvalot more than 1001 posts in it. The actual count is near (or
> over) 4,000.
>
> > Then it looks like when a thread get
> > unbelievably long somebody starts a new one.
>
> I think that happens with google groups when the thread hits 1000
> posts. It seems that google groups starts over at 1.
>
> > I'm not even certain what
> > the original post was for sure.
>
> The original post was about Numbers 31 and the description of genocide
> where Moses has the Israelites kill women and children prisoners of
> war.
>
> It's wandered about some, touching on human rights, but it's still
> about genocide. There are those (comparatively few) of us that
> condemn genocide unconditionally. And there are those (quite a mob,
> actually) that think genocide is justifiable in some circumstances.
>
> R. L. Measures thinks there are times that genocide is justifiable.
>
> wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so."
>
>
> Various other posters (Deborah, Susan, David, etc.) clearly agree with
> simple questions like "Do you unconditionally condemn genocide."
>
> Y'know, for someone that was (mostly) raised in polite society it
> never occurred to me that there is a world of fanatics out there that
> think the idea of universal human rights is a *bad* thing, and that
> genocide is sometimes justifiable. I really thought we'd learned our
> lesson from the horrible events of WWII and the Jewish holocaust.
> It's been a big surprise that there are so many hate-filled people
> that seem comfortable with the idea of murdering thousands of people.
>
> Interestingly, no Mormons have waded into the discussion on the side
> of universal human rights, and opposed to genocide. The only people
> that have sided with me seem to be atheists and agnostics. The
> opposition seems composed mostly of religious fanatics.
Well it seems to me that whether or not you believe in God (I do)
Genocide is wrong, no exceptions, no rationalizations. To me Genocide
had to much targeted intent behind it. I mean if your soul purpose
for attacking someone is to kill the entire race, you are truly evil.
I have yet to find in my near four decades of life any race on earth
that every individual is evil or threat to me to wipe them out without
discretion.
Major Debacle
> On Jun 10, 4:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>>> <snip>
>>
>>> Anderson made a claim about Moses,
>> genocide.
>>
>>> is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
>>> back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
>>
>> 1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
>> people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
>> removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
>>
>> the 1948 convention) you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
>>
>> http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
>>
>> Of course I posted all this before, so David really did lie when he
>> said I didn't "even try and backup" the accusation that Moses
>> the international law on genocide because he thinks it "too easily
>> targets innocent people."
>>
>> or tried, or convicted under the 1948 convention on genocide.
>>
>> The real problem here is that religious fanatics carve out an
>> exception for genocide when they think their god is the one commanding
>> in fact, it is wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do
>> so."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
>>
>
> I agree with you that it was probably genocide. If you believe in the
> Bible, I suppose you could say that the Flood was also genocide, or
> worse. If you believe in God and He tells you to rape and pillage and
> standard for right and wrong for true believers and that is to follow
> separate code of ethics except for doing what God tells them to do.
More correctly:
"Ultimately, Bible thumpers actually have no separate code of ethics
except for doing what *they think* God tells them to do.
mg
> On Jun 10, 9:53 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>
> Well it seems to me that whether or not you believe in God (I do)
> Genocide is wrong, no exceptions, no rationalizations. To me Genocide
> had to much targeted intent behind it. I mean if your soul purpose
> for attacking someone is to kill the entire race, you are truly evil.
> I have yet to find in my near four decades of life any race on earth
> that every individual is evil or threat to me to wipe them out without
> discretion.
What would you do if God told you to commit genocide?
dsharavi
wrote:
> <snip>
Snip is Duwayne's method of dealing with facts, and usually signals
that he's going to lie about the facts he snipped.
To put it succinctly.
>>>I never agreed with Measures, Ejercto or anyone else on this.
>>Join the club. I stated that I disagreed with Michael, several times.
>>Anderson, who's usually too busy talking to himself and arguing
>>imaginary points, failed to take note, of course, and merely went on
>>lying.
>Deborah, it's time for you to stop spreading that lie.
You're lying again, Duwayne. The facts are as I stated above: I
disagreed with Michael, and you went on stating that I shared his
beliefs. As usual, you lied.
>Quoting from the following link:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
Your link leads to a May 7th post of mine, which, typically, has
nothing to do with your lies about my agreeing with Michael
>Deborah, in the hundreds of posts I simply hadn't seen it.
So, you admit you lied about my response. Now you're backpedaling and
claiming you didn't see it, even though you responded to the posts
where I explicitly stated I disagreed with Michael.
> But now I
>have, and I readily admit that you answered the question.
I really don't give a flying fisk what you admit, since you lie in
almost every post you make.
>In fact, I even took off my hat to you. I only have a few hats, but
>I'll take off another too you.
[snip more of Duwayne's lies]
mg
wrote:
Duwaynea, what would you do if God told you to commit Genocide?
David
wrote:
Everyone, notice once again Anderson snipped and ignored at least 75%
of my words and arguments.
Of course he did, why bother reading and replying when Anderson can
just copy and paste old ad hominem attacks and make up strawman
arguments.
> > > You think
>
> > This was never about what I think Anderson.
>
> Then you should stop posting what you think.
>
I post the facts Anderson.
> <snip>
>
> > Anderson made a claim about Moses, I pointed out that Anderson's claim
> > is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
> > back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
>
> > In fact, Anderson long gave up even trying to argue his original
> > point,
>
> And, yet, here we are with me defending it
Wrong claim Anderson, not the claim I was referring to. You aren't
defending your original point. It wasn't the claim you started with
when you picked a fight with me.
Everyone, read Anderson's first post to me.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/23210b325f12d85b
Notice his claim about rape, and notice he makes no mention of
genocide.
Did anyone see Anderson defending his accusation of rape anywhere in
this thread with me?
Neither did I.
> and you arguing against
> it.
>
Wrong again Anderson, I am not arguing with you about rape. That is
because you haven't bothered to try and defend your original
accusation of rape for months, and even when you did first try to
defend it, it wasn't until after you first didn't bother to try and
defend it and only dismissed me as a liar. When you realized I wasn't
going away, then you tried to defend it before giving up.
What I am doing here is refuting your clumsy bait and switch tactic
where you pretend I was referring to your claim about genocide when I
was actually talking about your different claim of rape.
> Amazing.
>
No Anderson, your clumsy bait and switch tactics and your strawman
argument pretending I was referring to something else is not amazing.
It is just stupid.
> <snip>
>
> > > The legal definitition of genocide, in
> > > international law, is based on the 1948 convention.
>
> > A poorly worded law,
>
> In your opinion.
Wrong again Anderson, I proved it.
> But it is the legal definition,
This is true, it is also one definition among many.
> and using the legal
> definition, the events described in Numbers 31
And Obama's actions here.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece
>qualify as genocide.
>
Congratulations on showing Obama and Moses fit your definition of
genocide Anderson.
> And by any moral/ethical definition, the events described in Numbers
> are horrific,
Interesting, so you are saying the execution of war criminals, or pre-
war criminals is horrific by any moral/ethical definition?
I totally understand moral opposition to the death penalty Anderson,
but I would hesitate to assert, as you do, that there is no moral/
ethical definition which allows for the death penalty.
I do acknowledge capital punishment is a controversial subject.
>and call into question the moral authority and efficacy
> of YHWH,
Is Anderson talking about the YHWH described in the Bible or the YHWH
from Anderson's caricature of the Bible?
> and those that assert we should live by the moral code
Notice Anderson provides no evidence I ever told him anything about
any moral code he should live by, that is because I never did.
> (which
> includes genocide)
What moral code is Anderson reading?
>supposedly dictated by
Supposedly.
>this evil god.
>
Unsupported assertion.
> > as I proved.
>
> You proved nothing.
Wrong again Anderson. I proved that the law is poorly worded, and that
it is largely unenforced and ignored.
I also proved the claim I referred to was your original claim of rape,
not genocide like you pretended it was. I also exposed your bullshit
charade that this was a fight over you asking a question, proving
instead it was because of your hysterically false accusations.
> In fact you were unable to provide the name of a
> single "innocent person" that has been arrested, or tried, or
> convicted under the 1948 convention.
>
I didn't have to. You provided a list of such people in the links you
provided in April. You know, the links you stupidly didn't bother to
read before posting.
> <snip to end>
dsharavi
wrote:
> <snip>
Snip is Duwayne's childish method of dealing with facts he's incapable
of facing, and usually signals that he's going to lie about what he's
snipped.
Duwayne's snippy snippy restored:
On Jun 11, 9:39 am, Duwaynea Anderson
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
>>>>Anderson made a claim about Moses,
>>On Jun 10, 4:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
>>>genocide.
No, Anderson doesn't "claim" this. He states it as irrefutable fact,
which it is not.
>There's really no question -- the events described in Numbers 31
>(along with others you have posted) were genocide. If they were done
>today, and they could be brought before the world court, the perps
>would be convicted.
That is one large IF, with a mutliplicity of minor IFs.
IF the events described in Numbers 31 actually happened--
IF the events were done today--
IF the perps could be brought before the world court--
IF Star Fleet would detach a galaxy-cruiser to warp back through time
dsharavi
wrote:
> > ><snip>
"Snip" is Duwayne Anderson's childish method of dealing with facts he
can't face, and usually signals that he's going to lie, as usual,
about what he snipped.
Duwayne's snippy snippy restored:
>On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
>>Anderson made a claim about Moses,
On Jun 10, 3:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
>genocide.
And that claim, like your associated claims, were wrong, as usual--a
thought you utterly refused to even entertain.
>>I pointed out that Anderson's claim
>>is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
>>back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
That's SOP with Anderson. Whenever he finds himself cornered by facts
and his own ignorance, he retreats to his standard "liar liar pants on
fire" defence.
>And you just did it again. Let's review.
>1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
>people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
Yes, so? How is this contrary to the established procedures of warfare
at that general time and in that place?
>2) Moses commanded the deaths of prisoners of war (Numbers 31:17)
Yes, so? How is this contrary to the established procedures of warfare
at that general time and in that place?
>3) Moses commanded that the girls be given to the Israelites and
>removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
32,000 of them, along with 675,000 head of sheep, 62,000 of cattle,
and 61,000 donkeys -- and all of these from five tribes dwelling in
the Aravah and northern Sinai. That should give you a clue as to the
validity of the tale. But, numbers aside, again, how is this contrary
to the established procedures of warfare at that general time and in
that place?
>If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
>the 1948 convention) you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
>the definition.
Maybe nobody mailed Moses a copy, or asked him to be a signatory.
>Here's the link:
dsharavi
wrote:
Snipping is one of Duwayne Anderson's childish methods of dealing with
facts he can't face, and usually signals that he's going to lie about
what he snipped.
Duwayne's snippy snippy restored:
>On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
dsharavi
wrote:
> <snip>
"Snip" is Duwayne Anderson's childish method of dealing with facts he
can't fact, or is too ignorant to comprehend, and usually signals that
he's about the lie about the facts he has snipped.
Duwyane's snippy snippy restored:
On Jun 11, 9:39 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> was
talking to himself again when he re-wrote:
>There's really no question -- the events described in Numbers 31
>(along with others you have posted) were genocide.
Though Anderson states this as irrefutable fact, it's not, and the
events described in Numbers 31 certainly can, and have, been
questioned.
>If they were done
>today, and they could be brought before the world court, the perps
>would be convicted.
That is a very large IF, with a with a mutliplicity of minor IFs.
IF the events described in Numbers 31 actually happened--
IF the events were done today--
IF the perps could be brought before the world court--
IF Star Fleet would detach a galaxy-cruiser to warp back through time
and bring the perps forward 3,000 years--
IF the world court could prove jurisdiction in this matter--
IF the world court wasn't preoccupied with the greater cases of
Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Nebuchadrezzar II, Xerxes of Persia,
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar (all of whom made Duwayne's alleged
Mosaic "genocide" look like small potatoes)---
There is still no assurance that defence attorneys wouldn't prevail.
>The universal flood is a myth. There's so much evidence against it,
>that you might as well think the world is flat.
rotf
Dismissing the ludicrous improbability of a self-proclaimed atheist
spending so much time on the actions of a god in whom he claims not to
believe, Duwayne may well have said, "There's so much evidence against
the world being flat that you might as well think that the universal
flood really happened."
[snip Duwayne's "proof" that the flood never happened, Dwayne's
presumptive belief that he can read Michael's mind, and cut to the
meat of Duwayne's "argument">
> Following the evil god
>YHVH is just one standard. And we can see the "fruits" of those that
>follow the evil god YHVH -- the fruits are nuts like Michael Ejercito,
>who thinks that when YHVH command genocide then it's a sin not to kill
>people.
As above, for a self-proclaimed "atheist", Duwane spends an inordinate
amount of time dwelling on god -- particularly, the Jewish one.
>And since YHVH isn't really god, the Bible thumpers code is actually
>based on a thousands-year-old god invented by ancient people. Using
>YHVH as one's standard for morality is as misguided as using plato
> as one's authority on physics.
Or as misguided as using Duwayne Anderson as an authority on ethics.
The evil god's evil commandments for non-Jews:
1 - Don't murder
everythingzen
Go find a good psychiatrist.
Duwaynea Anderson
Tell him no. I'm an atheist, you know.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> You're lying again, Duwayne. The facts are as I stated above: I
> disagreed with Michael,
Deborah, a suggestion. Read my post before you reply to it this time:
Deborah, it's time for you to stop spreading that lie. Quoting from
the following link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/...
--------------------------------------------------------
Deborah, in the hundreds of posts I simply hadn't seen it. But now I
have, and I readily admit that you answered the question.
In fact, I even took off my hat to you. I only have a few hats, but
I'll take off another too you.
You did good. I didn't think you would have the courage blaspheme
YHVH by defying a direct order to commit genocide. But you said your
answer to the Michael Ejercito question is "no." and I congratulate
you on that.
And while you did answer the Michael Ejercito question, I've yet to
see your answer to this one:
1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
See how reasonable I can be? Answer the question, do it honestly,
and
I'll gladly take off my third hat to you.
--------------------------------
Time for Deborah to stop lying about me not acknowledging her answer.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> >If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
> >the 1948 convention) you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
> >the definition.
>
> Maybe nobody mailed Moses a copy, or asked him to be a signatory.
Still pretending the issue isn't about YHWH, the evil god that
commanded people to commit genocide?
Do you unconditionally condemn genocide, Deborah?
RabbiJoekerr
> On Jun 11, 11:49 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>>>>Anderson made a claim about Moses,
>
>
> > >>>>>up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try
> > >>>>>and back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
> > >>>wrote:
> > >>>>I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
> > >>>>genocide.
>
> > Wrong. It was a declarative statement, which allowed for no debate,
> > originally made in the context of two threads on alt.atheism.
>
> > >>On Jun 10, 9:39 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
> > >>>And you succeeded in showing both Obama and Moses were guilty of acts
> > >>>of genocide.
> > >wrote:
> > >>Genocide is as genocide does. The legal definitition of genocide, in
> > >>international law, is based on the 1948 convention.
>
> > facts, a feat of which Duwayne is incapable, Duwayne sidedodges and
> > changes the subject to the ludicrous claim that warfare in the ancient
> > world should have been bound by conventions made between future nation-
> > states which wouldn't exist for thousands of years.
>
>
>
>
> > >>According to that
> > >>convention, the acts described in Numbers 31 are clearly genocide.
>
> > Maybe someone should have sent Moses a copy, with copies to Sargon II,
> > Tiglath-Pileser III, Nebuchadrezzar II, Alexander the Great, Julius
> > Caesar, and others, including the Aztecs and the Incas.
>
> > On Jun 11, 9:10 am, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> > >True, but it was not illegal because God ordered it (divine command
> > >defense).
> > > Michael
>
> > No such "defence " is possible. Assuming that the biblical account is
> > representative of an actual incident -- and it's amusing seeing self-
> > declared atheists arguing from this point -- the so-called "genocide"
> > was non-existent because no genocide was ordered.
>
> > The bible -- the sole source for the claim -- also relates that here
> > were 32,000 survivors, along with 675,000 head of sheep, 62,000
> > cattle, and 61,000 donkeys -- from five desert tribes in the Arabah
> > and northern Sinai.
>
> > Additionally, the entire destruction of an enemy tribe wasn't untoward
> > in warfare in the ancient Middle East.
>
> > I note that none of those who have been nattering about this have
> > bothered to take into account actual occurrences, such as Alexander's
> > destruction of Thebes, the slaughter of the entire populations of Gaza
> > and Mallia, or the military conquests of, say, Tiglath Pileser III,
> > Sargon II, Necuchadrezzar II of Babylon, Julius Caesar, or other
> > "genocidists".
>
> > The claim that such events violate the Genocide Convention, or the
> > Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is so ludicrous that it's
> > amazing anyone takes it seriously. One may as well charge every
> > physician of the ancient world of criminal medical malpractice for
> > failure to employ proper sterilization procedures during operations.
> > Such an accusation would be as relevant, and as grostesquely
> > ludicrous, as the claim that the slaughter of the Midianites in
> > Numbers 31 represents a case of "genocide" under the 1948 Genocide
> > Convention.
>
> > How about the complete eradication of Jews from the Hijaz effected by
> > Muhammad and his successor Umar? That was so complete that no Jews
> > survived in the Hijaz. Does that count as genocide> Or are these
> > threads concerned ONLY with misinterpretations of bible tales, and
> > Duwayne Anderson talking to himself and arguing imaginary points?
>
> > Deborah
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
Blasphemy is the use of the name of one or more gods, in a manner
which is considered objectionable by a religious authority. It may
include using sacred names as stress expletives without intention to
pray or speak of sacred matters; it is also sometimes defined as
language expressing disapproved beliefs, or disbelief. In some
countries, these restrictions have the force of law, and may use the
terms blasphemous libel, defamation of religion, vilification of
religion, and religious vilification. Some religions believe that to
purposefully insult their holy book or prophet is blasphemy.
Get an education you pathological liar!!!
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jun 11, 11:11 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > That's what Michael Ejercito thinks. He said this: "... when God
> > > > > orders genocide; in fact, it is wrong NOT to commit genocide when God
> > > > > tells you to do so."
>
> > > > Who cares?
>
> > > Depends. How many people share his opinon? How many are in
> > > government positions and can influence national policy?
>
> > I'd be more worried about assholes like you I might encounter in
> > everyday life.
>
> Name calling isn't an effective way to conduct a debate, Deborah.
I just call 'em like I see 'em, Gertrude.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Hmm, seems to me Jews are the most gifted and productive people on
> > > > earth.
>
> > > What a perfectly racist thing to say.
>
> > How do you figure?
>
> Racism is the classification of one race as better, or worse, than
> other groups of people.
You'd better look "racism" up in the dictionary, asshole. Regarding
the achievements of Jews, they are perfectly quantifiable and
empirical. Per capita there is no group that achieves more than the
Jews. That's a fact, not racism. You don't like it? Who cares?
>
> > Perhaps you consider objectivity a racist practice?
> > It wouldn't surprise me.
>
> Ad hominem arguments are not an effective way to conduct a debate,
> Deborah.
"Ad hominem" - the asshole's favorite two words. Obviously this
asshole doesn't even know what they mean. He uses them a a child's
excuse to sidestep debate, in this case confronting whether
outstanding jewish achievement is objective or (lol!) racist.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Do you worship the evil god YHVH?
>
> > Are you a total moron?
>
> I don't think so.
Think again. Anyone can look up any of my posts to you and see that
anyone who doesn't know the answer to that question by know is
definitely a moron.
>
> > Have you read any of the posts I have written
> > to you recently?
>
> Yes. Were you as evasive there as you are here?
You learned that word from people here who used it to describe you.
I'll bite, asshole. What, PRECISELY, are you claiming that I'm
evading?
>
> Why.... I think so!
that stuff you call "thinking" - that's what's getting you into
trouble, asshole.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > If not, do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
>
> > Ibid. Stick your inane questions up your ass.
>
> Okay, so Deborah doesn't unconditionally condemn genocide.
Yikes. Time for your medication. When you come back, try to keep a
clear head.
RabbiJoekerr
> >>On Jun 11, 12:39 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> >>>There are many standards of right and wrong. Following the evil god
> >>>YHVH is just one standard. And we can see the "fruits" of those that
> >>>follow the evil god YHVH
>
>
> 1 - Don't murder
> 2 - Don't steal
> 3 - Don't worship idols
> 5 -Don't torture animals
> 6 - Don't curse
> 7 - Establish courts of law and bring offenders to justice.
>
> Maimonides observed that any human being who observes these laws has a
> place in the next world. Duwayne, by his own admission, rejects these
> standards of morality as evil. Thus, Duwayne believes it's okay to
> torture animals,
> curse, and ignore courts of law and justice.
>
> >>Hmm, seems to me Jews are the most gifted and productive people on
> >>earth.
>
> <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >What a perfectly racist thing to say.
>
> racist as well as antisemitic.
>
> >>One should be circumspect before rejecting those fruits.
> >Do you worship the evil god YHVH?
>
>
> >>>And since YHVH isn't really god, the Bible thumpers code is actually
> >>>based on a thousands-year-old god invented by ancient people. Using
> >>>YHVH as one's standard for morality is as misguided as using plato as
> >>>one's authority on physics.
>
> morality and ethics.
>
> How odd that Duwayne has never condemned as "evil" that god whose
> followers target infants and children, commit ethnic cleansing,
> proclaim a universal struggle against non-believers, and fly planes
> into tall buildings.
>
> Deborah
Remember his so-called god died when DNA testing proved his religion
was a farce!!!
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
> On Jun 11, 12:43 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >Deborah, it's time for you to stop spreading that lie.
>
> > You're lying again, Duwayne. The facts are as I stated above: I
> > disagreed with Michael, and you went on stating that I shared his
> > beliefs. As usual, you lied.
>
> Deborah, it's time for you to stop spreading that lie.
WHOA!!! Duhwayne the pathological liar in chief falsely accusing
someone else of lying bwahahahahar!!!!!
mg
wrote:
> On Jun 11, 3:03 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 11, 2:49 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > Duwaynea, what would you do if God told you to commit Genocide?
>
> Tell him no. I'm an atheist, you know.
I'm a 99.9% atheist also, but I leave 0.1% for doubt. Are you 100%
sure there is no God?
mg
Are you saying that on the one hand you believe in God, but on the
other hand, you are sure he would never talk to you, or talk to you
through a spiritual leader?
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jun 11, 3:03 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 11, 2:49 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > Duwaynea, what would you do if God told you to commit Genocide?
>
> Tell him no. I'm an atheist, you know.
That answer makes no sense. It confirms that you are a moron, and
suggests you are a fake atheist.
everythingzen
Yup, sounds about right. Maybe a little more to it than that, but that
explanation works great for me.
dsharavi
wrote:
> <snip>
"Snip" is Duwayne Anderson's childish method of dealing with facts he
can't face, and usually signals that he's going to lie, as usual,
about what he snipped.
Duwayne's snippy snippy restored:
>On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
>>Anderson made a claim about Moses,
On Jun 10, 3:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
>genocide.
And that claim, like Anderson's associated claims, was wrong, as
usual--a thought Anderson utterly refuses to entertain.
>>I pointed out that Anderson's claim
>>is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
>>back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
That's SOP with Anderson. Whenever he finds himself cornered by facts
and his own ignorance, he retreats to his standard "liar liar pants on
fire" defence.
>And you just did it again. Let's review.
>1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
>people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
Yes, so? This is not at all contrary to established procedures of
warfare at that general time and in that place.
>2) Moses commanded the deaths of prisoners of war (Numbers 31:17)
Yes, so? This is not at all contrary to established procedures of
warfare at that general time and in that place.
>3) Moses commanded that the girls be given to the Israelites and
>removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
32,000 of them, along with 675,000 head of sheep, 62,000 of cattle,
and 61,000 donkeys -- and all of these from five tribes dwelling in
the Aravah and northern Sinai. That should give you a clue as to the
validity of the tale. But, numbers aside, again, this is not at all
contrary to established procedures of warfare at that general time and
in that place.
>If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
>the 1948 convention) you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
>the definition.
Maybe nobody mailed Moses a copy, or asked him to be a signatory.
>Here's the link:
dsharavi
wrote:
> <snip>
"Snip" Snip is Duwayne's childish method of dealing with facts he's
incapable
of facing, and usually signals that he's going to lie about what he's
snipped.
Duwayne's snippy snippy restored:
>>Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>><snip>
.
>>>On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
>>>>Anderson made a claim about Moses,
.
>>On Jun 10, 4:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
>>>genocide.
No, Anderson doesn't "claim" this. He states it as irrefutable fact,
which it is not.
>>>>I pointed out that Anderson's claim
>>>>is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
>>>>back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
>>>> In fact, Anderson long gave up even trying to argue his original
>>>>point, since he couldn't support it. But he never retracted his
>>>>hysterically false accusation.
.
>>>And you just did it again. Let's review.
>>>1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
>>>people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
>>>2) Moses commanded the deaths of prisoners of war (Numbers 31:17)
>>>3) Moses commanded that the girls be given to the Israelites and
>>>removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
.
This is not backing up Anderson's claim.
.
>>>If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
>>>the 1948 convention) you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
>>>the definition.
.
Anderson fails to entertain the notion that Moses's copy might have
been lost in the mail, or that no one mailed him a copy, or invited
him to be a signatory to the convention.
.
>>>Of course I posted all this before, so David really did lie when he
>>>said I didn't "even try and backup" the accusation that Moses
>>>committed genocide.
.
David was truthful. Anderson failed to back up his claim.
.
>>>Instead, David asserted that he doesn't accept
>>>the international law on genocide because he thinks it "too easily
>>>targets innocent people."
.
This is another of Anderson's typical sidedodges when he can't argue
to the facts: change the subject, and produce another of his lies.
>There's really no question -- the events described in Numbers 31
>(along with others you have posted) were genocide. If they were done
>today, and they could be brought before the world court, the perps
>would be convicted.
.
That is one large IF, with a mutliplicity of minor IFs.
.
IF the events described in Numbers 31 actually happened--
IF the events were done today--
IF the perps could be brought before the world court--
IF Star Fleet would detach a galaxy-cruiser to warp back through time
and bring the perps forward 3,000 years--
IF the world court could prove jurisdiction in this matter--
IF the world court wasn't preoccupied with the greater cases of
Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Nebuchadrezzar II, Xerxes of Persia,
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar (all of whom made Duwayne's alleged
Mosaic "genocide" look like small potatoes)---
.
There is still no assurance that defence attorneys wouldn't prevail.
.
>>If you believe in the
>>Bible, I suppose you could say that the Flood was also genocide,
>The universal flood is a myth. There's so much evidence against it,
>that you might as well think the world is flat.
.
rotf
Dismissing the ludicrous improbability of a self-proclaimed atheist
spending so much time on the actions of a god in whom he claims not to
believe, Duwayne may well have said, "There's so much evidence against
the world being flat that you might as well think that the universal
flood really happened."
.
[snip Duwayne's "proof" that the flood never happened, Dwayne's
presumptive belief that he can read Michael's mind, and cut to the
meat of Duwayne's "argument">
.
> Following the evil god
>YHVH is just one standard. And we can see the "fruits" of those that
>follow the evil god YHVH -- the fruits are nuts like Michael Ejercito,
>who thinks that when YHVH command genocide then it's a sin not to kill
>people.
.
As above, for a self-proclaimed "atheist", Duwane spends an inordinate
amount of time dwelling on god -- particularly, the Jewish one.
.
>And since YHVH isn't really god, the Bible thumpers code is actually
>based on a thousands-year-old god invented by ancient people. Using
>YHVH as one's standard for morality is as misguided as using plato as
>one's authority on physics.
.
The evil god's evil commandments for non-Jews:
.
1 - Don't murder
2 - Don't steal
3 - Don't worship idols
4 - Don't be sexually immoral (i.e., that doesn't just mean fucking
around)
5 -Don't torture animals
6 - Don't curse
7 - Establish courts of law and bring offenders to justice.
.
Maimonides observed that any human being who observes these laws has a
place in the next world. Duwayne, by his own admission, rejects these
standards of morality as evil.
Thus, Duwayne believes it's okay to murder, steal, worship idols, be
sexual immoral, torture animals, curse, and ignore courts of law and
justice. His claim to abhor genocide is merely another of his lies.
Deborah
dsharavi
wrote:
> <snip>
"Snip" is Anderson's childish method of dealing with facts he's
incapable of facing, and usually signals that he's going to lie about
what he's
snipped.
Anderson's snippy snippy restored:
>>Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>><snip>
.
>>>On Jun 10, 12:28 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net>wrote:
>>>>Anderson made a claim about Moses,
.
>>On Jun 10, 4:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>I claim that the events described in Numbers 31 depict acts of
>>>genocide.
.
No, Anderson states this as irrefutable fact, which it is not, he
doesn't merely claim it.
.
>>>>I pointed out that Anderson's claim
>>>>is not backed up by the text in the Bible. Rather than even try and
>>>>back up his accusation, Anderson accused me of lying.
>>>> In fact, Anderson long gave up even trying to argue his original
>>>>point, since he couldn't support it. But he never retracted his
>>>>hysterically false accusation.
.
>>>And you just did it again. Let's review.
>>>1) Moses commands the Israelites to destroy and entire group of
>>>people (Numbers 31: 1-15)
>>>2) Moses commanded the deaths of prisoners of war (Numbers 31:17)
>>>3) Moses commanded that the girls be given to the Israelites and
>>>removed from their society (Numbers 31: 18)
.
This is not backing up Anderson's claim.
.
>>>If you read the international legal description of genocide (based on
>>>the 1948 convention) you'll see that Moses' actions clearly satisfy
>>>the definition.
.
believe, Anderson may well have said, "There's so much evidence
against
the world being flat that you might as well think that the universal
flood really happened."
.
[snip Anderson's "proof" that the flood never happened, Anderson''s
presumptive belief that he can read Michael's mind, and cut to the
meat of Anderson's "argument">
.
> Following the evil god
>YHVH is just one standard. And we can see the "fruits" of those that
>follow the evil god YHVH -- the fruits are nuts like Michael Ejercito,
>who thinks that when YHVH command genocide then it's a sin not to kill
>people.
.
As above, for a self-proclaimed "atheist", Anderson spends an
inordinate amount of time dwelling on god -- particularly on \
his personal version of the Jewish one.
.
>And since YHVH isn't really god, the Bible thumpers code is actually
>based on a thousands-year-old god invented by ancient people. Using
>YHVH as one's standard for morality is as misguided as using plato as
>one's authority on physics.
.
Or like using Duwayne Anderson as an authority on ethics and morality.
.
The evil god's evil commandments for non-Jews:
.
1 - Don't murder
2 - Don't steal
3 - Don't worship idols
4 - Don't be sexually immoral (i.e., that doesn't just mean fucking
around)
5 -Don't torture animals
6 - Don't curse
7 - Establish courts of law and bring offenders to justice.
.
Maimonides observed that any human being who observes these laws has a
place in the next world. Anderson, by his own admission, rejects these
standards of morality as evil.
Thus, Anderson believes it's okay to murder, steal, worship idols, be