Read 'em and Weep
-
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
Well, if you're not, you're in luck. A great way to prevent that is to make an effort.
Thank you for that life lesson, particularly when I've said I've no wish to prevent it. At least, not for random postings that are not of do-or-die significance.
Here's an honest question: if you're not interested in giving a damn, why should anyone take the time and effort to discuss things with you?
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
if you're not interested in giving a damn, why should anyone discuss things with you?
You're getting tiresome. You asked if I was fine with not knowing what I was talking about. I answered no, that that was your (inaccurate) conclusion. And here you are, accusing me of not giving a damn. What part of NO are you having trouble with?
Just to put this pointless circle finally to bed, it so happens that if I find the subject at hand worth investigating, I'll do so -- and have, many times.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.
In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.
When next we get invaded.
Warring parties were often different.
Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.
In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.
When next we get invaded.
Warring parties were often different.
Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.
Short version - I was right, and you were wrong.
Again.
I was only joking
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
if you're not interested in giving a damn, why should anyone discuss things with you?
You're getting tiresome. You asked if I was fine with not knowing what I was talking about. I answered no, that that was your (inaccurate) conclusion. And here you are, accusing me of not giving a damn. What part of NO are you having trouble with?
Just to put this pointless circle finally to bed, it so happens that if I find the subject at hand worth investigating, I'll do so -- and have, many times.
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
And here you are, accusing me of not giving a damn.
Here's why. You said:
And I'll probably continue to. Not everything is worth the effort of verifying.
If you're not going to take the time to verify your own words, then why should I listen to you?
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.
In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.
When next we get invaded.
Warring parties were often different.
Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.
Short version - I was right, and you were wrong.
Again.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.
In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.
When next we get invaded.
Warring parties were often different.
Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.
Short version - I was right, and you were wrong.
Again.
On yer bike.
-
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
And here you are, accusing me of not giving a damn.
Here's why. You said:
And I'll probably continue to. Not everything is worth the effort of verifying.
If you're not going to take the time to verify your own words, then why should I listen to you?
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
If you're not going to take the time to verify your own words, then why should I listen to you?
Absolutely, you shouldn't. Feel free not to.
-
The writer of the article is a marriage counselor.
And whether you'd like for them to fuck off or not, I think it does most folks good to hear a little Bible. One should never take what somebody else quotes as gospel, but should take those quotes and look at them for their own education and edification.
As Americans, we tend to have a pretty intense dislike for authority, but authority is not always bad. That's why I quoted Judges. Without some type of authority, man dissolves into anarchy, which is unstable and without justice.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
The writer of the article is a marriage counselor.
So he says. He doesn't really sound like any counselor I've ever heard, TBH. Way too many strong opinions....
-
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
The writer of the article is a marriage counselor.
So he says. He doesn't really sound like any counselor I've ever heard, TBH. Way too many strong opinions....
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
The writer of the article is a marriage counselor.
So he says. He doesn't really sound like any counselor I've ever heard, TBH. Way too many strong opinions....
When I read the article his presentation reminded me of that annoyingly sanctimonious radio personality, Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
-
"Life Coach" isn't a proper job.
This guy is telling everybody else how to live, and he's a professional "life coach".
Edit: To be fair, I guess that's what a life coach does....
I was only joking
-
"Life Coach" isn't a proper job.
This guy is telling everybody else how to live, and he's a professional "life coach".
Edit: To be fair, I guess that's what a life coach does....
Seems to me the term “life coach” is a pop culture invention.
In the old days they were simply referred to as meddlesome busybodies.
-
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
And what is wrong with that?
The Craw article, as you have acknowledged, makes it a point to distinguish “needs” from “lusts.” Whether there’s anything “wrong” vis a vis the Craw article may depend on whether the wives were put in public spotlights to help meet a “need” or to help chasing after a “lust” (e.g., for power or prestige of elected offices).
@Axtremus said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
And what is wrong with that?
The Craw article, as you have acknowledged, makes it a point to distinguish “needs” from “lusts.” Whether there’s anything “wrong” vis a vis the Craw article may depend on whether the wives were put in public spotlights to help meet a “need” or to help chasing after a “lust” (e.g., for power or prestige of elected offices).
Did your mother drop you when you were a baby? On your head, perhaps?
-
"Life Coach" isn't a proper job.
This guy is telling everybody else how to live, and he's a professional "life coach".
Edit: To be fair, I guess that's what a life coach does....
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
"Life Coach" isn't a proper job.
This guy is telling everybody else how to live, and he's a professional "life coach".
Edit: To be fair, I guess that's what a life coach does....
Just because he's doing his job from a Biblical perspective, doesn't mean the job doesnt exist. The title, and the perspective, is not uncommon down here.
These folks don't have to chase clients down the street. Plenty of people have troubles in life and seek help.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.
In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.
When next we get invaded.
Warring parties were often different.
Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.
In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.
When next we get invaded.
Warring parties were often different.
Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.
In short, don't eat your seed corn.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
"Life Coach" isn't a proper job.
This guy is telling everybody else how to live, and he's a professional "life coach".
Edit: To be fair, I guess that's what a life coach does....
Just because he's doing his job from a Biblical perspective, doesn't mean the job doesnt exist. The title, and the perspective, is not uncommon down here.
These folks don't have to chase clients down the street. Plenty of people have troubles in life and seek help.
I'm thinking about getting a job as a life coach when I retire. My motto will be "Don't be a knobhead", which I feel distills many (although of course not all) of Jesus' teaching down to an easy to remember little phrase. Rather similar to that book I was forced to read, "Who Moved My Cheese" which sells for $10.85 on Amazon, and could really be distilled down to "Things change, deal with it".
I'm gonna be rich! Maybe I'll be a double-decker life coach!
I was only joking
-
You'll be a double-decker something or other...
-
I'm thinking about getting a job as a life coach when I retire. My motto will be "Don't be a knobhead", which I feel distills many (although of course not all) of Jesus' teaching down to an easy to remember little phrase. Rather similar to that book I was forced to read, "Who Moved My Cheese" which sells for $10.85 on Amazon, and could really be distilled down to "Things change, deal with it".
I'm gonna be rich! Maybe I'll be a double-decker life coach!
@Doctor-Phibes
Did you see the old Bob Newhart bit where he plays a therapist, and a client comes in and sits down and does ten minutes of, boo-hoo, cry-cry, self esteem, sob, and at the end of all that Newhart says, "Well, stop it! Just stop doing that!" -
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.
In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.
When next we get invaded.
Warring parties were often different.
Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.
In short, don't eat your seed corn.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.
In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.
When next we get invaded.
Warring parties were often different.
Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.
In short, don't eat your seed corn.
Basically, yeah.
-
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
-
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
@taiwan_girl said in Read 'em and Weep:
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
The gospel of John was originally filled with so many spoilers that they had some guy eat a load mushrooms and re-write it.
-
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
@taiwan_girl said in Read 'em and Weep:
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
Can't remember the study, but they looked at some oral vs. written Jewish verses awhile back. The two were very, very similar.
And if you look at the oral tradition within the Muslim religion, you will find the same thing. People can and have, passed down oral passages without change, for centuries.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Read 'em and Weep:
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
Can't remember the study, but they looked at some oral vs. written Jewish verses awhile back. The two were very, very similar.
And if you look at the oral tradition within the Muslim religion, you will find the same thing. People can and have, passed down oral passages without change, for centuries.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@taiwan_girl said in Read 'em and Weep:
Somewhat off topic, but I am wonder how much of the Bible is really original.
I assume the stories in the Bible are based on oral history. Somebody telling somebody something. Years (decades or even centuries later), someone wrote down the latest version into what? Latin? Greek? Jewish language? Americ? Translated again and again until finally being translated into English.
I would be curious as to comparing the original story with what is currently in the bible now.
Can't remember the study, but they looked at some oral vs. written Jewish verses awhile back. The two were very, very similar.
And if you look at the oral tradition within the Muslim religion, you will find the same thing. People can and have, passed down oral passages without change, for centuries.
The problem with that is that when you compare a written version to an oral version, you are only comparing to the last one spoken. A person really doesn't have any idea what the oral version was 20-30 generations ago.
It is like the kids "telegraph game". You go around the class repeating what the person next to you said, and then when you get back to the beginning, you compare the original to what it ended up as.
