RUBNI'S CONSPIRACY RADIO NETWOK - David Rubini

[SredniVashtar]

Not really. You conveniently neglect to point out the rationalism that grew out of Christain scholasticism and brought your sad nation out of the dark ages and into the beginnings of the modern world. I’m routing for the Christian army to continue making the world a better place. Commies like you always want to take us back to before the Magna Carta. :

The Greeks were way ahead of you. Scholasticism was based on the work of Aristotle, which was preserved by Islamic scholars like Averroes. Instead of doing something useful with it, the Schoolmen retarded thought for centuries by fussing over irrelevant details. Once again, you have shown yourself useless.

[Dr. MD MD]

The Greeks were way ahead of you. Scholasticism was based on the work of Aristotle, which was preserved by Islamic scholars like Averroes. Instead of doing something useful with it, the Schoolmen retarded thought for centuries by fussing over irrelevant details. Once again, you have shown yourself useless.

Yeah, Descates, Newton, etc. all idiots. You and Marx were the only smart ones. :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism

[SredniVashtar]

Haha I will not pull a jesting Pilate on you ("Quid est veritas?") but I think, since you can see my nipples, that truth or at least verisimilitude is probably more important to me than the rest of you faceless losers.

Also you are allowed to vote your conscience; that is what it is for.

We don't know it's you. It could be some Himmler lookalike. A very seedy one. He probably looked like that when he had to flee Berlin.

[SredniVashtar]

Yeah, Descates, Newton, etc. all idiots. You and Marx were the only smart ones. :

Oh, I see, you don't know what Scholasticism was. Big surprise.

[Dr. MD MD]

Oh, I see, you don't know what Scholasticism was. Big surprise.

Au contraire! You’re the complete ignoramus here.

Descartes: In 1607, late because of his fragile health, he entered the Jesuit Collège Royal Henry-Le-Grand at La Flèche,[29][30] where he was introduced to mathematics and physics, including Galileo's work.

Newton: In June 1661, he was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge, on the recommendation of his uncle Rev William Ayscough, who had studied there. He started as a subsizarâ€"paying his way by performing valet's dutiesâ€"until he was awarded a scholarship in 1664, guaranteeing him four more years until he could get his MA.[16] At that time, the college's teachings were based on those of Aristotle, whom Newton supplemented with modern philosophers such as Descartes, and astronomers such as Galileo and Thomas Street, through whom he learned of Kepler's work.

[K_Dubb]

We don't know it's you. It could be some Himmler lookalike. A very seedy one. He probably looked like that when he had to flee Berlin.

Don't play dumb games with me.  You know damn well much of history would evaporate if you applied the kinds of standards you pretend to apply.  It is intellectually dishonest.  History is a whole series of competing narratives claiming to make sense of events that had a high degree of randomness and consequences that were largely unintended and, while you may not be able to say which one is truest, you can say which one is yours.  That is how it always has worked.

Your narrative has Science coming in and wiping out, rather selectively, a lot of things we thought we knew because now we are smarter people.  I don't buy it for a minute, because I see what you are trying to put in its place and it is antiseptic and ugly.  We are the same dumb people, but some of us are ugly.

[SredniVashtar]

Au contraire! You’re the complete ignoramus here.

Descartes: In 1607, late because of his fragile health, he entered the Jesuit Collège Royal Henry-Le-Grand at La Flèche,[29][30] where he was introduced to mathematics and physics, including Galileo's work.

Newton: In June 1661, he was admitted to Trinity College, Cambridge, on the recommendation of his uncle Rev William Ayscough, who had studied there. He started as a subsizarâ€"paying his way by performing valet's dutiesâ€"until he was awarded a scholarship in 1664, guaranteeing him four more years until he could get his MA.[16] At that time, the college's teachings were based on those of Aristotle, whom Newton supplemented with modern philosophers such as Descartes, and astronomers such as Galileo and Thomas Street, through whom he learned of Kepler's work.

I'm starting to feel sorry for you now.

[Dr. MD MD]

I'm starting to feel sorry for you now.

Why? Because you’re losing this argument?

[SredniVashtar]

Don't play dumb games with me.  You know damn well much of history would evaporate if you applied the kinds of standards you pretend to apply.  It is intellectually dishonest.  History is a whole series of competing narratives claiming to make sense of events that had a high degree of randomness and consequences that were largely unintended and, while you may not be able to say which one is truest, you can say which one is yours.  That is how it always has worked.

Your narrative has Science coming in and wiping out, rather selectively, a lot of things we thought we knew because now we are smarter people.  I don't buy it for a minute, because I see what you are trying to put in its place and it is antiseptic and ugly.  We are the same dumb people, but some of us are ugly.

I got into this with another dumbass a few weeks ago. History means 'inquiry'. It's not static, it's dynamic. People like you start throwing your toys around if you're told that what you learned at school may not be true. Until recently history was skewed almost completely to reflect the aims and views of the powerful. It was a form of propaganda that ignored a vast swathe of humanity. It was often wrong, or at least flawed. Just because a narrative has been around a long time doesn't entitle it to automatic respect.

I notice you don't cite examples. As usual it's all wishy washy. There's fact, there's reasonable conjecture, and there's speculation.

[SredniVashtar]

Why? Because you’re losing this argument?

Go and look up Scholasticism. You really are worthless.

[Dr. MD MD]

Go and look up Scholasticism. You really are worthless.

I don’t have to. I’ve already studied it at a university level and I posted the Wikipedia article about it here so that everyone else can see how full of shit you really are. NEXT!

[SredniVashtar]

I don’t have to. I’ve already studied it at a university level and I posted the Wikipedia article about it here so that everyone else can see how full of shit you really are. NEXT!

What a rube.

[Dr. MD MD]

What a rube.

Waiting for the explanation as to why.

[K_Dubb]

I got into this with another dumbass a few weeks ago. History means 'inquiry'. It's not static, it's dynamic. People like you start throwing your toys around if you're told that what you learned at school may not be true. Until recently history was skewed almost completely to reflect the aims and views of the powerful. It was a form of propaganda that ignored a vast swathe of humanity. It was often wrong, or at least flawed. Just because a narrative has been around a long time doesn't entitle it to automatic respect.

I notice you don't cite examples. As usual it's all wishy washy. There's fact, there's reasonable conjecture, and there's speculation.

Wrong and flawed but also beautiful and coherent in a way yours will never be.  You are still trading in a worn-out and tattered version of the old Myth of Progress which is so last-century.  Like most people I would throw my own myths over if something more beautiful came along but Science is not it.

Did you read the article I posted weeks ago on the Death of Postmodernism?  You are sadly out of date, my dear.  The era of deconstruction and critique is now over; we are all Authenticists now.  That has legs.

[SredniVashtar]

Waiting for the explanation as to why.

If you really think Descartes was a member of the Schoolmen then you're welcome to bask in your ignorance.

[SredniVashtar]

Wrong and flawed but also beautiful and coherent in a way yours will never be.  You are still trading in a worn-out and tattered version of the old Myth of Progress which is so last-century.  Like most people I would throw my own myths over if something more beautiful came along but Science is not it.

Did you read the article I posted weeks ago on the Death of Postmodernism?  You are sadly out of date, my dear.  The era of deconstruction and critique is now over; we are all Authenticists now.  That has legs.

It's not about beauty. The fact is you're just too lazy. These discussions are one-sided. I'm specific while you hide behind subfusc generalities. You witter on about history while never citing anything to back up your case. You think science is sterile and nasty without knowing a thing about it. Science is simply knowledge. If you didn't respect reality you'd be dead.

[Dr. MD MD]

If you really think Descartes was a member of the Schoolmen then you're welcome to bask in your ignorance.

Having gone to a Jesuit school he clearly came out of that tradition, as did Newton, you ignorant slut. :

Christain scholasticism > rationalism > natural philosophy > science

What don’t you get about this progression?! : :

[K_Dubb]

It's not about beauty. The fact is you're just too lazy. These discussions are one-sided. I'm specific while you hide behind subfusc generalities. You witter on about history while never citing anything to back up your case. You think science is sterile and nasty without knowing a thing about it. Science is simply knowledge. If you didn't respect reality you'd be dead.

Haha now "Science" is just knowledge which is whatever Shreddie accepts using his own personal weights and measures, and we are back at the beginning.  I have given you a couple specific examples of how your infantile laboratory "scientific" methodology turns history into a looming void (there is no hard evidence Jesus existed therefore the past two thousand years of Western history that bear His fingerprints are based on a fabrication, the dynasties of Egypt may well have been carved to bolster some usurper's claim so we don't really know all those names and dates, do we?)  Fine, you switch from your original simple true/false to reasonable conjecture, but yours will never be mine, or anyone else's.  You're just shopping, and for yourself alone.

We can say what narratives were dominant and inspired people at different times, which is far more important than your individual viewpoint, point out their flaws (in which hard science/archaeology is invaluable, as well as new methods inspired by Postmodernism like microhistory etc. but if you look at the fruits of those disciplines they are already pre-packaged in their own narratives -- Neolithic farmers were peaceful nature-worshippers, Britain was never really invaded just a few elites who were welcomed with open arms because they brought wine and fancy new villas, the native Britons just adopted Anglish because it sounded cooler than their guttural mother tongue -- that clearly have more to do with current political debates than anything that came out of the ground.  They are offering their own competing narratives.  Your hard truth is immediately pressed into service as soon as the papers come out.

My point, which is necessarily nebulous, is that changing minds wholesale has more to do with aesthetic and philosophical trends than science.  You do not like it and sputter and protest that I don't understand science/epistemology/history (heeheehee), but I maintain that I have described reality more accurately than you.  And further, that I know what trend wave you are riding, and that it is on the ebb.  Which, as far as a critique goes, is the most meaningful I can offer.

[Silphion]

Haha now "Science" is just knowledge which is whatever Shreddie accepts using his own personal weights and measures, and we are back at the beginning.  I have given you a couple specific examples of how your infantile laboratory "scientific" methodology turns history into a looming void (there is no hard evidence Jesus existed therefore the past two thousand years of Western history that bear His fingerprints are based on a fabrication, the dynasties of Egypt may well have been carved to bolster some usurper's claim so we don't really know all those names and dates, do we?)  Fine, you switch from your original simple true/false to reasonable conjecture, but yours will never be mine, or anyone else's.  You're just shopping, and for yourself alone.

We can say what narratives were dominant and inspired people at different times, which is far more important than your individual viewpoint, point out their flaws (in which hard science/archaeology is invaluable, as well as new methods inspired by Postmodernism like microhistory etc. but if you look at the fruits of those disciplines they are already pre-packaged in their own narratives -- Neolithic farmers were peaceful nature-worshippers, Britain was never really invaded just a few elites who were welcomed with open arms because they brought wine and fancy new villas, the native Britons just adopted Anglish because it sounded cooler than their guttural mother tongue -- that clearly have more to do with current political debates than anything that came out of the ground.  Your hard truth is immediately pressed into service as soon as the papers come out.

My point, which is necessarily nebulous, is that changing minds wholesale has more to do with aesthetic and philosophical trends than science.  You do not like it and sputter and protest that I don't understand science/epistemology/history (heeheehee), but I maintain that I have described reality more accurately than you.

Points will be awarded fairly in due course, if all is just and good.
The odds, however, may be measurably in favour of the Faithful.
Let us now proceed with matters at hand in the Land of Gab.

[Dr. MD MD]

Points will be awarded fairly in due course, if all is just and good.
The odds, however, may be measurably in favour of the Faithful.
Let us now proceed with matters at hand in the Land of Gab.

Pascal’s wager?

[K_Dubb]

Points will be awarded fairly in due course, if all is just and good.
The odds, however, may be measurably in favour of the Faithful.
Let us now proceed with matters at hand in the Land of Gab.

I see I have dazzled you with my nipples.  Victory for Jesus!

[Silphion]

Pascal’s wager?

As we will all proceed in time in matters of the Hereafter.

[K_Dubb]

Pascal’s wager?

You did real good, honey.  Don't ever let that ogre make you feel stupid; he pisses in his own Wheaties every morning.

[Dr. MD MD]

You did real good, honey.  Don't ever let that ogre make you feel stupid; he pisses in his own Wheaties every morning.

We got him from both ends like a Chinese finger-cuff! 



Wait...that didn’t come out right.

[K_Dubb]

We got him from both ends like a Chinese finger-cuff! 



Wait...that didn’t come out right.

[pate]

There! The page loads a lot faster now that I’ve put Pube Weenie on ignore. :)

Also, someone was kind enough to delete all of the RUBBY's spam posts.  Somewhere he was talking about his size 12 foot, whenever people say they have big feet I always think it means that they are well suited to wear Clown Shoes...



Hah!

[Jackstar]

Grapefruit do something.

Well done. This pleased ALL the wizards. I will have any witnesses eliminated immediately. There's a little bit of a backlog happening, in that, the wizards are arguing amongst themselves over who gets the privilege to incinerate themselves for your glory first, My Queen.


K_Dubb take note.

[Jackstar]

You did real good, honey.  Don't ever let that ogre make you feel stupid; he pisses in his own Wheaties every morning.

With a few modifications, this would make for one hell of a chest tattoo.

[SpaceMeowMaid]

Why are you guys having this conversation here? You are not feeling the magic? Get with the playbook. This is no time to sit around with your thumbs up your asses! Get it together! Infants have the most intelligent/productive brains of any age of beings, in all species, so for you to think infant is an intellectual insult amuses the mermaid. Mermaids love JESUS CHRIST. JESUS CHRIST was born the SON OF GOD to save our Souls. We are sinners saved by the blood of the SAVIOR. JESUS loves you whether you believe in Him or not. GOD WINS


#Hallelujah #Mermaidlivesmatter #RUBINIMAGIC #SPARKLEINTHEDREAM #TIMETRAVELWITHUS #ClassicRubini #Rubini4Ever #LEGACY

[pate]

... Infants have the most intelligent/productive brains of any age of beings, in all species, so for you to think infant is an intellectual insult amuses the mermaid...

This is true, but an infant "wakes up stupid" much like a computer and must learn quickly from the environment, learn to parse statements and ultimately communicate with other human beings.

What do you do with a "mean baby"?  This question has haunted the forum for years, and I think ultimately the reason this discussion occurs hear in this Magickal thread is because the RUBBY is apparently responsible in part for this unanswerable query.

That is just my opinion though.

MurMaiden, since you enjoy my frequent musical selections hear are some I selected entirely at random that seemed pertinent by their titles alone:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx17RvPMaQ8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OijD72t4XY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8TYyG6QPQE

I am Nautical Shore if they have anything at all to do with this conversation, but I will say I generally have good luck with this method of musical selection.

Perhaps the advice, "Wait for it" might apply?

Apogees in advance.

-p