Phat's Bookshelf

About Paul Jacobsen - Case Against FaithHe won't give his real name. Don't blame him.

Time itself will allow my demonstration to unfold. Nobody knows everything. I can at least admit as much. You guys need to be humbled once in awhile. ALL? That sounds like a bit of a hyperbole. Thankfully your humor keeps us interested in this thread. I dont expect to be a devoted "Trumpite" anytime soon, though one of my conservative friends is trying to convert me! He insisted that I read two books which are in my reading pile. I'll bring them up for dog-piling later, after I read them,
They are:
Ship Of FoolsThe Case For TrumpI might not get to them for awhile...I have older books which come first.

Don't even waste time with stupid statements like that. ANYBODY can say the same thing about their own stupid ideas. You just contradicted yourself again. You just claimed that "time itself" would demonstrate that you are right. That's the exact opposite of admitting you don't know everything. I was just humbled the other day, by xongsmith when I made a rash statement about global warming.I expect to be humbled by smart people when I say something wrong. I am NOT humbled by foolish people saying something stupid. I don't feel like looking up the HTML entity for infinity. I have asked you many times, why do you agree with him so often? Why don't you ever answer?

Wanna know what will save the world? Art and Music. The Left Brain. The right brain has been hijacked by rationality and data, which will soon marry artificial intelligence and morph into something nonhuman or inhuman.Art, Music, Creativity and belief will outgun logic, reason, and data most every time. Your right brain came from the tree of knowledge. Your left brain comes from the tree of life.

Nonsense. Humans have not been around all of the time nor will they be here at some point in time. "Time itself" is synonymous with infinity and/or infinite wisdom. Though I dont claim to have infinite wisdom, I feel that I can be in communion with infinite wisdom. This belief in no way means that I know when I will be right...since im a finite being.

Not in my courtroom.
​

ringo:

---

Are you blind? How can you not see them?

---

​ And as for the jury?
They are still out.

You didn't think for a split second before you said that, did you? You just decided to play Mr. Opposite. You might as well have said, "1 + 1 < 2 most every time."Let's think about it now, shall we?Where would art and music be without logoc, reason and data? The worms don't produce much in the way of art and music, do they? That makes no sense. Right brain and left brain are inextricably intertwined. You can't pick one over the other.

No it isn't. Don't call what I say "nonsense" and then say something stupid like that.

Nope. In. Dismissed. Gone home.And you have the unmitigated gall to quote from what you call a "dusty old book"?And you have the multplied gall to quote from the Revelation? The most obfuscated pile of nonsense in the book?Shame on you.

More stupid comments that are off topic.

The Grinch has spoken. Now on to the next book on the shelf. The War On The West. I cant say enough about this book. I recommend reading the diverse comments from others on this book,(IN the link) but will quote from the book itself under this subtitle.

Chapter One: Race

Chapter One:

---

There is an obvious, observable truth about people in the West. Historically the citizens of Europe and their offspring societies in the Americas and Australasia have been white. (...)In the war on the West, white people are one of the first subjects of attack. A fact that has been steadily normalized and made into the only acceptable form of racism in the societies in which it happens. To demonize the West, it appears to be necessary first to demonize the people who still make up the racial majority in the West.

---

Chapter One goes on to discuss the evolution of CRT(Critical Race Theory) and of its effects on society-at-large. Many progressives have been bamboozled through CRT.

Chapter One writes:

​

...one of the distinguishing marks of CRT was that its assertions were based not on evidence, as it might previously been understood, but essentially on interpretations and attitudes. (...)the rules of CRT had no need for normal standards of evidence. If a person's "lived experience" could be attested to, then the question of "evidence" or "data" had to find a place further back in the queue, if at all.

​

In other words, it became "sufficient to fall back simply on the evidence of one's own perceptions". Theodoric has yet to explain why one cannot be racist against white people. I await his scintillating logic!

​

AddByEdit:

​

Here are the Chapters:

​

quote:

---

Chapter 1: Race
01:14:07
Chapter 1: Race, Continued
01:10:48
Interlude: China
47:45
Chapter 2: History
01:16:06
Chapter 2: History, Continued
01:16:02
Interlude: Reparations

​

Chapter 3: Religion
01:03:22
Chapter 3: Religion, Continued
01:15:14
Interlude: Gratitude
31:37
Chapter 4: Culture
49:48
Chapter 4: Culture, Continued
01:02:49
Conclusion
52:48

---

​

Edited by Phat, .

​

Edited by Phat, : edit

---

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).

​

When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy

​

Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022

​

We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed

Here is why you racism and books like this are so stupid. You and the author are racists.Race and ethnicity are solely cultural constructs. Yes, we can genetically measure % of ancestry but how do we accurately define race.
A prime example is my heritage. My father was born in Puerto Rico, to a very Puerto Rican family. I do not have his DNA profile, but I do have mine and I have the DNA profile of a maternal uncle. From that, we can make a large number of assumptions. Hopefully one of my Puerto Rican relatives will have their profile done to do a comparison also.
One thing that makes this analysis easier is that my parents had almost zero genetic overlap. There is a possibility my father had a tiny bit of English ancestry but that is it. My mother's ancestry is English, Scottish and Irish. Nothing more. This is confirmed by looking at my maternal uncle's DNA.
Therefore, whatever other DNA heritage I have comes from my father. Here is where it gets interesting. My father was the whitest looking man you would have ever seen. He was practically see-through. People always say that I don't look Puerto Rican. I don't mention my father, I just tell them that Puerto Ricans look like anyone you see walking in the USA. We are pale white to darkest black and everything in between and to the sides. In my family alone we run the gamut of colors and "races". Yes even Asian and for the anti-semites, even Jews.
My father was, approximately 55-60% Spanish, Portuguese, Basque, and 12-15% English and Welsh. He was also approximately 20-25% Taino(indigenous) and 12-15% African. What does this make him racially? What does this make me racially? According to the slave laws of the old south, I could be enslaved. According to the one-drop rule which was in place in many places prior to 1967, I would be considered black. Prior to Loving vs Virginia which is after my birth, in some states my parents could not be legally married and in fact, they would be guilty of a felony. In fact, I would not be able to marry my wife prior to Loving in a number of states.
But for us, it was different than for a lot of other people. We are white looking. Genetically, we probably have more African and Indigenous DNA than some people that are classically black and indigenous looking.
The point of this screed is that it is all just a social construct. You have no idea what the DNA history is of the person you are talking to. We are all the same but we are all different.

That's all rather interesting but where do you get the idea that the author of the book was racist? So you dismiss his observations and conclusions?

The premise of his argument is fallacious and racist. His previous writings are racist. The snippets you posted are racist.I do not need to read read racist arguments to dismiss the observations and conclusions.