olofscience

I think your observations are acceptable - the more pacifist elements of the USSR stood by and allowed the religious purges to happen. However, you're implying that it's a slippery slope from allowing the left wing to take power then it will be 1940s USSR all over again. If you think today's left-leaning ideology centres around the elimination of religion, you'd be wrong. In 1920 (or even 1940) religion was MUCH more powerful than it is today, therefore it was more of a threat to the newly born USSR than it is now. In today's left, religion is a tiny afterthought, if even that - economic concerns, having a fairer society is the main issue that the left is concerned with. Religion doesn't even get into the top 10 issues, and many leftists are religious Christians too. Same. But we're not out to get you.

So I actually went and read some more history. Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown in 1917, then right after they fought a Civil War. Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin came to power 3 years later in 1927. So this really looks like after overthrowing the tsar, they felt insecure that they had a lot of rivals for political power. Even Stalin had rivals - he was one of the successors to Lenin in 1924 but it took him 3 years to get rid of his rivals. So Stalin then went on the Great Purge - to solidify his power. Interestingly, the religious purges weren't even mentioned in the main article about the history of the Soviet Union. The Great Purge was primarily political. Now, those purges took a lot of propaganda to get the population to go along with it, but I really don't see you offer any counter-argument on the purges simply being a way to eliminate political rivals.

I was explaining my interpretation of wolfriverjoe's statements, and explaining the mechanisms behind resource allocation in society. I did not make any policy recommendations, and if you haven't noticed yet I'm very detailed and methodical in those things IF I was trying to formulate a policy. I'm pretty sure I was talking about the separation of Church and State as espoused by the founders of the United States, particularly Thomas Jefferson. Then talk about it. What is it about my claim that "it was the elimination of a rival political power" which was incorrect? Can you refute that particular statement? I'm genuinely interested to see your view on this. It would be a welcome change from your other posts at least.

I think wolfriverjoe's statements were not singling out Christians, but people who endanger others in general. Society has an implied "social contract" - if you follow the laws of society, you can get the benefits of society such as medical care. We still do it for some people who break the laws, but that's because of 2 things: during normal times we have plenty of supply of medical care available it's on a small scale anyway we still take some societal benefits from them - freedom (by imprisoning them) In a time of crisis, the societal benefit of medical care is a lot more scarce - hence his statements, if they break the law/rules on a large scale, and the medical system was already overwhelmed, then priority has to be made for people who DID follow the rules. Soviet religious persecution was so bloody and violent because the new socialist/marxist leadership wanted to eliminate a rival political power which had been extremely influential in europe for centuries. When Henry VIII got fed up of Rome it got similarly bloody and violent, except it was between the Church of England and Catholics. With separation of Church and State that shouldn't be an issue in the US but you keep making it out like it is. So you can calm down, nobody's itching to massacre Christians (except for exceedingly rare nutcases).

Here's how it works: You make a claim that you're a centrist The logical consequence if (1) is true means that you should critique/defend both left and right equally. You should also recognise emotion in left/right posts equally. Most posting evidence points to a heavy bias towards Trump. Even right-wingers who criticise trump are automatically labelled "far-left" like George F Will. Therefore, claim in (1) can be concluded to be false, until further evidence emerges to balance out the posting history. You know, the scientific method they teach in high school - you can't just REQUIRE proof of a negative out of the blue. The claim, or hypothesis, is where you start. I actually continue reading your posts to gather more data to prove the claim (1), but it's getting a bit tiresome and you're not really providing much except support to Trump. So I do complain a bit about the lack of evidence. As soon as you provide that I will be happy to agree with your claim. But since I made no claim yet (about the topic at least), Coreece had no basis to then shout "hypocrite" by choosing something arbitrary that I didn't say.

You mean when I was busy, got confused by your answer to a question I didn't ask, then said "need more coffee"? You severely misinterpreted my tone if you think I was remotely angry. I never even used any swear words. But: And: Yeah, I'm the one who lost it alright

So you're attacking me for something I didn't say, "silence" on a particular topic because well, you have nothing else to attack with. Well, I find your silence on the persecution of the yazidis appalling. Blatant bigotry! That's some projection there. Too stupid to live? I know you think you are, but other Christians aren't. You were the one who got hot and bothered. I just made a few calm posts saying an "attack" wasn't really an attack and you eventually lost it. And Turtle will ignore your hate-filled posts and call it "humour". So much for the centrist. My tone was pretty calm and I was even trying to be helpful in case you had proctitis.

Okay, quote one - just one - quote where I demonstrate anti-religious bigotry and actively support persecution of religion. My family and extended family are quite religious and I'm on pretty good terms with them. I'll wait.

For one thing, the people responsible are dead. Unless you think that an atheist like me is responsible for the deaths of millions of people? Funny seeing you challenge me about the content - despite your narcissistic self-quoting, your posts are not as insightful as you think they are. Even the entire "persecuted Christians" topic is a deflection since you lost the homosexuality argument so badly.

So much hatred in your posts. Lots of use of the f-word. I'm a former Christian - I'm pretty sure those aren't the teachings. However somehow Turtle will consider calm, detailed statements as spittle-laced hateful posts of the left rather than Coreece's. Somehow.

Well at least Christians believe in DNA now. Science says "you're welcome". However it's not quite that simple. Males have XY chromosomes, females have XX, but people are indeed born with XXY, XYY and other combinations. In the natural world there are trisexual species, and lots of other animals have various combinations of male, female, and both (in the same organism). And I'm not even a biologist. I just tried to download a neuron connectome for a tiny worm expecting just male and female and was presented with a bewildering array of gender choices.

If you read my first reply to your comment "no need to attack Phil111 like that" - I literally said "it can't be an attack because there's nothing wrong about being homosexual". I was not offended at all, I was just making a statement. Then you started digging your hole...

As Jerry also said. I hope none of us judge him for what he does consensually and in private, it's his business and his business alone. However for stupid, hateful, misogynistic things he posts in public forums, now THAT can be a good basis for judgement.

You spend way more time than I do thinking about what they put where. I just try to treat them like human beings and not judge them for whatever they do consensually and in private. And definitely not use them as insults. You should try it sometime.

I'm just talking calmly here and contributing some views. Someone seems triggered though. Must be their proctitis flaring up.

If that's an expression of pain due to the above mentioned conditions then you should see a doctor. Christians should understand, given that Jesus was probably gay.

Man, I'm slow today, not enough coffee. I was making a statement "there's nothing wrong with homosexuality" and not asking a question "what's wrong with homosexuality?", which seems to be the question that you answered in rather graphic detail. This is like saying "there's nothing wrong about being a runner", then you saying "what about runner's knee?". Which is silly because: A question was not being asked. Can you assume every runner will get that condition? Even then, whatever medical condition someone has doesn't reduce their humanity, and doesn't make their identity into a personal insult. Really weird that you know so much detail about those medical conditions though.

Coming back to this - I still have no idea what your point is, but if you have those conditions, I highly suggest you see a doctor.

Ok boomer. (apologies to the actual boomers here)

The 1990s called, it wants its outdated jokes back. Nothing wrong with being homosexual, so as such it cannot be an 'attack'.

No need to wonder, it means you got nothing...

This post probably has more words in all caps than most of the posts of the anti-trump crowd here. Lots of exclamation marks too. So if it's so common...could you give some quotes with the uppercase words and lots of exclamation points? If it's really common here it shouldn't take you too long to find an example.

Well, it would be really embarrassing for you if I was 12, won't it?

Ok, boomer.

Okay, so which thread was it? Link please.