he did actually answer the question - he lost the primary and is succumbing to what he perceives of as democratic legitimacy. that was his answer - if you want this stuff done, you gotta win an election first.
now, is he right though? does the fact that he lost the primary tie his hands? it sort of depends. i mean, he has to understand his mandate, to an extent - which is both to push for the things he campaigned on and to listen to the people that disagree with him. he has a mandate to push these points, certainly, but only up to a point, in the end.
something's that come out of this is that jimmy doesn't have much interest in democratic legitimacy, as a concept. this is all just about jostling for power, and that ought to be in a long list of grievances directed toward him. he wouldn't respect the will of much of any democratic body that disagreed with him. so, when does he get to be king, right?
but, let's not forget what the point was - it was understood by all that there is no actual leverage here, merely the power to call congresspeople out, and force them to lay out their hands. and, that logic simply doesn't apply in the existing senate.
so, the real question is what it is that bernie can actually do while maintaining the position he's in, and the answer is relatively limited. there's still nobody else in the senate that i'd rather have in that position. so, be patient.
you kids ever heard of joseph mccarthy?
deathtokoalas
"we did it ourselves"
who is we here?
are we talking about inclusion via nationalism or via class?
what i would say is this: they got up and left. and, they did it because of the disparity in labour conditions.
and, we - the working class of the world - need to unite across national borders to tear down their capitalist structure in both countries, at the same time.
Eencog Neeto
Bad news for you. You are alone in your fight, China is a communist country where the corporate is being ruled by the working class party.
deathtokoalas
that's laughably ignorant.
and, it's important that we get this point, because the only way out of the mess we're in is through entrenched international solidarity. we have to stand together, and stop letting them play us off each other. it's our only tactic.
Eencog Neeto
Well, there can be no social justice as long as you allow anyone to be a leader of your body and mind. Been like that since the dawn of ape.
deathtokoalas
i have no idea what that means, at all.
studying theology in an institution is not "going to school" in any functional way, it's more akin to a process of "unschooling" or "anti-schooling". and, the results are obvious enough - these are consistently the dumbest, most ignorant people you can find.
i'd actually go so far as to argue that these kinds of theological topics should be extirpated from publicly funded schools, and left to private trade colleges. if you want to study theology, let the market figure it out; it's not a useful expenditure of public resources.
you might have a doctorate in theology, but i don't think the designation should even exist. to me, it's like saying you went to clown college, or trucking school - it means nothing. at all.
"but, i have a doctorate in theology! obey my authority!"
yeah - you have a degree in organized ignorance. good for you.
but, you're the exact last person i'm going to listen to.
sorry.
unfortunately, as google decided to moderate this discussion without the consent of the parties involved, i've had to rebuild some missing context. and, i've removed a large amount of stupidity (mostly from my opponents), as well.
the reason i'm doing this is to preserve the narrative in the face of deleterious censorship; i'm trying to save this discourse, not distort it. but, believe what you will - i don't really care.
for that reason, i'm reposting it here and walking away from it.
====
(note that the initial post is dated to mar 31 at 0:59. this post is dated to my first response.)
deathtokoalas
arians would refer to arius, the progenitor of the christian "heresy" that taught that jesus was a human being, something that was popular amongst germans and scythians (the goths were mostly arians, after being converted....i guess they could only accept this christian thing to a point, and couldn't swallow the line on immortality) and condemned by multiple church councils. arius was probably greek in origin, and any similarities to the ethnonym of arya - which existed, historically, in the eastern parts of the iranic speaking regions, most prominently in modern day afghanistan, and as we see today primarily through the nation state of iran, and which hitler rather ignorantly used as the name of his imagined nordic race - is strictly coincidental.
he was essentially calling the christians heretics.
but, i think that exchange is seen as mythical by non-muslim historians.
אמת מוחלטת
It means orthodox Christians in Arabic.
deathtokoalas
that's very strange, if it's true, but of little actual relevance in understanding what was being said.
אמת מוחלטת
Nope: Accept Islam or the sin of the orthodox (you know the eastern orthodox church being the Byzantine church) is upon you. Pretty unambiguous to me.
deathtokoalas
to tell the orthodox church that the sin of the orthodox church is upon them would be a pretty devastatingly stupid statement to make, and it cannot be salvaged in any context, whatsoever. so, if you're going to hold by that statement, then you must also deduce that your great islamic leader was a functional buffoon. rather, it is obvious that he was referencing some outside entity, and as it is, we know exactly who the arians were.
"the christians will suffer the fate of the christians". brilliant, really - high level stuff, truly. i guess they didn't call him an illiterate peasant for nothing, huh?
it's incoherent, and if you insist on it then it can only be understand as an expression of truly utter, abject stupidity. it's like something out of a monty python film....
the messenger appears at the court in front of the emperor and is motioned to read the letter out loud. in absolute silence, the letter is read, until the end point is come to:
or you will suffer the fate of the christians!
the emperor then looks at his court staff and looks at the messenger and repeats.
or we will suffer the fate of the christians? you mean, us? ourselves?
the messenger nods.
and, what if we do listen, then? will we suffer the fate of some other people?
the messenger repeats the phrase: or you will suffer the fate of the christians!
(a voice from the back: well, that doesn't make any sense. what utter rubbish.)
emperor: well, we are christians, are we not? let us suffer our own fate, then. as though we might suffer any other?
rather, this seems to be an example of the muslims projecting an insult on to the christians that was previously directed at them.
as mentioned, that exchange was almost certainly mythical, but even that doesn't save the stupidity of telling the christians they will suffer the fate of the christians. rather, there seems to be a lot of ignorance built in to the arabic term for orthodox christians - it's rather baffling that they wouldn't know the difference between an arian and an orthodox christian, unless even the language is rooted in the projection.
if you read real history - rather than these islamic myths and legends that this guy is rather laughably recounting as actual history - they make it clear that the orthodox christians initially interpreted the muslims as arians, for the reason that they didn't accept the divinity of jesus. to a christian of the period, it would seem reasonable to just write off the muslims as a recurrent arian heresy, and that is no doubt what the muslims heard from the christians for however many years to start. this is referenced in a number of the roman histories of the period.
this story/myth/legend seems to be rooted in the idea of the muslims turning the table on the christians and sayijng "i'm not an arian. you're an arian.". but, that itself makes no sense at all.
and, so it may follow that the word for orthodox christians in arabic is the same as the word for the arian heresy, but that's a sad reflection on the level of understanding that the early muslims had of the world right in front of them.
אמת מוחלטת
I think the only devestatingly stupid thing in this conversation is your insistence on your error and your superimposition of your own ignorance upon the rest of the world. Don't condescend upon me and pretend like you studied anything that I never had access to. You don't even speak Arabic 😂 Nobody ever said that Heraclius is the church and I don't know why it's so hard to understand what a simple letter in simple Arabic entails. The only devestatingly stupid thing, far and wide, is the olympic-level mental gymnastics you're trying to make, in order to force your extremely erroneous view to fit reality somehow.
M writes a letter to H
H is the emperor under whose authority the eastern orthodox church is
Dear H, I am the Messenger of God and I invite you to God's religion (meaning your religion is NOT God's religion), if you refuse to accept God's religion, the sin of the Orthodox church which is under your authority, will be solely upon you.
Regards, M
Any child which is able to understand simple Arabic would understand this. It doesn't matter what the Christians thought the Muslims were.
deathtokoalas
can you give me an example of a single text written in arabic that is worth reading? i don't speak mycenaean, either. it's hardly relevant.
you've altered the syntax of the statement to make it seem less stupid, which is a typical tactic by religionists when they're called out on their idiocy. please refer to the syntax presented originally, and stop trying to deceive people with your lies.
as it is, this is an issue that's been dealt with ad nauseum, and there's little use in regurgitating decades old arguments - i can't convince people that rely on faith, nobody can, and the issue is considered resolved by secular historians that actually rely on evidence and logic and facts: while the letter was never sent in the first place, the implication was quite clearly that he was threatening the emperor with the fate of a minority he had himself persecuted, in an attempt to turn the tables on him in an ironic fashion.
but, what would you say if some hypothetical indo-european language used the same word for shiite that it does for sunni and then went around using the terms interchangeably? you'd suggest the language was pathetic, and the people responsible for inscribing it were horribly ignorant. i certainly hope that contemporary muslims are not still so ignorant as to be unable to differentiate between nicene and arian christians.
as it is, the scholarship is left to make a choice: if they insist that your warrior king buddy mohammad really meant to say orthodox christians, but said arian instead by mistake, then the translation should be corrected. but, you, in this youtube comment, appear to be the first person in history to do that. are you even allowed to do that? so long as you continue to translate the term as "arian" in english, and insist that that was the intent of the statement, you can't get around the reality of the statement being what it is - for heraclius was not an arian, he was an orthodox christian.
you should also realize that orthodox christianity did not exist until 1054, so your argument is an anachronism, anyways.
you would rather need to argue that early arabic referred to all christians as arians, which cannot possibly be true without requiring massive bouts of laughter and writing the entire thing off as nonsense in the first place - which is the right answer, anyways.
a very quick google search tells me that if your buddy mohammad meant to refer to all christians in his apocryphal letter, which would be necessary because the term "orthodox christian" would be meaningless in the 7th century, he would have used the term "nazarene" or "masihi". but, he didn't. he specified arian, which could have only referred to the heresy in a time before the orthodox church existed, as absurd as the claim that the words for nicene and arian christian are the same may be.
i've got a minute as it is, so let's work this out logically together.
you claim the word used is the same as the word for "orthodox christians", and i laughed at you and your language for it. how can orthodox and arian christians be referred to using the same word? that's laughable. but, i'll take your word for it. now, let's try to figure this out.
as orthodox christians did not exist in the 7th century, we're left with basically two deductions. either the source is later - after 1054 - or the word for orthodox christian sources from the scripture being cited. so, what's the earliest source of this apocryphal claim, anyways?
it seems like the earliest source is one "al-tabari" in the 10th century, which is certainly well after your bud died, but also quite a bit before the split in 1054. if the history was written around the year 900, as seems to be the case, it still doesn't make sense to have words that translate to "orthodox christian", as, even that far along, christianity hadn't schismed yet. so, this nice & easy way to prove it's a forgery (by citing anachronistic language) doesn't seem to work out, although i'll leave it to you to examine the original document and get back to me, given that you can read it and i can't. i'm merely a lowly logician.
so, we're left with the likelihood that the term for "orthodox christian" in arabic developed out of this apocryphal letter writing campaign, rather than the other way around.
but, as i'm a mere logician that does not read arabic, all i can do is point to two facts:
1) everybody translates the word to "arian". there must be a good reason for that.
2) my reading is what they taught me in a university course on byzantine history, and we stopped to talk about it for a minute and came to the conclusions i'm repeating.
so, i'll leave it to you to figure it out - if we accept that there were no orthodox christians in the year 700, what does the word literally translate to, in the context of the time frame it was supposedly written in?
אמת מוחלטת
I have never heard of a logician who makes so many contradictory claims and fallacies as they go. Aside from low belt insults against Muhammad, condescending speech and way too many comments I'm not seeing any logic.
You start your 10 comment rebuttal with an ad hominem Attack, basically asserting that my understanding of the syntax must be flawed because I'm religious.
(Am I ?) And you do that without even speaking the language yourself so there is no basis at all for you determining that the syntax is to begin with. You make the absence of (Roman written) evidence fallacy, asserting the old Orientalist trope that everything that isn't attested in European written sources basically didn't happen. Rendering African, South American and Arabic oral history all as invalid and reinforcing the burden of civilisation narrative, by which the only valid system of human existence and history is being a white girl called James Murray. A typical postcolonial victim.
Then you insist that the term means Arian, fine, insist on what you insist, although you have previously admitted that you are unable to read the language.
And at the end of the day, I have to find out that all this grand "logician" is doing, is regurgitate their knowledge from high school.
And then you go on citing Al-Tabari as a source for your information, which again shows your miserly level of Islamic education. You're like a blind man with a baseball bat, trying desperately to hit a homerun.
Since your abilities as a logician are obviously seriously limited, perhaps you can find a translator who is willing to engage with someone as insistent on their own position as yourself:
deathtokoalas
you didn't address a single point i made, you just dismissed my statements because you decided i was white (which, as it happens to be, i am not - i'm of mixed jewish, sicilian and native american background). your inability to see the logic in my deconstruction is a reflection of your own abilities, and not a reflection of my argumentation. i will repeat this point, however: i am not translating the word to "arian", the scholarship translates the word to arian. and, i am not citing al-tabari as the source - i am conducting a google search that indicates that it is understood that al-tabari is the source.
it should be clear that i don't have any interest in studying islam, or any other religion, for that matter. i'm not presenting myself as an islamic scholar, and would plead with you not to label me one - i do not want to be one. my interest is in objective history, and the roman sources are infinitely superior to the muslim ones on that point, regardless of your rather poor understanding of said - who would agree with me here, and not with you.
it's sort of ironic because this podcast/video series is actually just about the best example of orientalism - which is a term that refers to the tendency of westerners to exaggerate the differences between western and middle eastern culture, thereby othering the middle east as something mystical or exotic - and my deconstruction by insisting on objectivity and facts, rather than myths and legends, is just about the diametric opposite of it.
so, i don't want to waste any more time with this, until you can answer the basic question - how do you suppose that your buddy mohammad was referencing a split in the christian church that wouldn't happen for 400 years into the future? given that he clearly wasn't, you have the burden of proof (as an arabic reader) to offer a different interpretation of the term that makes sense in the context of the 7th century. and, if you can't do that, you've lost the debate.
אמת מוחלטת
(edit: note that this post was originally posted in arabic, but has been translated here by google translate for utility)
Different narrations regarding pronouncing the word Arysis:
This word appeared in the book that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, sent to Hercules, and it did not appear in other books. Imam al-Nawawi said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim: His saying, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him: (And if you depart, then it is against you that the Arrisites are iniquity). the first novel in the Muslim (Alorisien) a month in modern novels and in the books of the language, and this differed set to aspects: one Biaeen after the Seine, and the second Bia one after the Seine, and the two sides Humazah open and Alra broken diluted, and the third:Alarysyn Buxar alhmzh vtshdyd ra'y vbya’ after vahdh Olsen, vvq alrvayh alsanyh no no Muslim, vfy first Sahih Bukhari (sm alyrysyyn) no NW BI mftvhh after vbya’yn Olsen.
If one looks at the books of the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, to the princes, his warning appears to all kings that failure to follow Islam will be the reason for them to assume responsibility for the infidelity of their followers. In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, from Muhammad the Messenger of God to the great Khosra of the Knight, peace be upon those who follow the guidance, and believe in God and His Messenger, and testify that there is no god but God alone and have no partner, and that Muhammad is his servant and his messenger, and I invite you with the propaganda of God, for I am the Messenger of God to people All, let him warn those who are alive and have the right to say to the unbelievers, so he embraced Islam, and if I refuse, the sin of the Magi is upon you. ” And the Magi are followers of the broken messages of the Prophet Muhammad“ In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, from Muhammad, the Messenger of God to the Great Copt: Peace be upon those who follow the guidance, As for after, I invite you with the call of Islam, embrace embrace greeting God, and may God reward you twice. And the Copts are the followers of Almkot.
===
The reason you feel your comments haven't been addressed because I thought about what I wanted to say before writing it into 10 distinct comments with at least a logical fallacy in every second. You don't need to be white to repeat Orientalists tropes, the fact that you do find truth within Orientalist tropes is your own problem not mine.
You committed an ad hominem fallacy, an absence of evidence fallacy, you cited al-Tabari like that's where anyone gets their information from, you asserted things about the Arabic language which you cannot know without speaking it, thus contradicting your own claim that you do not know Arabic.
Claiming that "the scholarship" translates it that way, doesn't make it right.
I'm sorry to say but you suck as a logician. There's no need to take you serious as such.
You should find a translator, since you're not an Islamic scholar, before speaking on matter pertaining to Islamic scholarship.
And look girl, if it makes you feel any better to try and shift the burden of proof and tap your shoulders for "winning" a YouTube debate, then that's fine. It doesn't get you out of the fact that you are indeed the one making claims about a language you do not understand, purely based on a translation that you read and rendered to be true.
deathtokoalas
it's deeply disrespectful to speak to somebody in a language that you know they don't understand.
thankfully, i was able to translate that using google translate and the basic mistake in the analysis is that it's ignoring the fact that the source for these letters is in the tenth century. so, the logic that they all ought to be the same is entirely circular. that's not a good argument. at all.
now, you keep using words like orientalism that you clearly do not understand, so, again, i'm not interested in wasting my time with you. did you actually read the text by said, or did you just take a course in post-structuralism and pick it up from the course notes? that's what you get from reading foucault, i guess. waste of time...
you need to address the point about the anachronism or you've lost, and intelligent people reading this will understand that.
i think what you're trying to do is call me eurocentric, and i'll accept that and wear it with pride, but that's almost the literal opposite of what said was writing about.
אמת מוחלטת
Your ignorant of Christian Theology, Heraclius' religion, Islamic scholarship and simple dates. You're the first person to claim that Tabari was a source for any Islamic belief or truth, and you're the first person to claim the letters first appeared there. You embarassed yourself through logical fallacies, too much unnecessary writing, ignorance on matters of history and contradictory behaviour towards Arabic and sources therein. The live stream offer still stands but I'm happy to upload my analysis of your faulty claims without yourself challenging it.
You talked and talked but when it came to the hard truth, you went silent. Jessica, perhaps history, theology and the Arabic language, just as logic, should be on your mind after shitblogging because so far that seems the only thing youre good at.
deathtokoalas
you haven't addressed the issue of your analysis being an anachronism and it's fairly obvious why you haven't. but, if you go to the wikipedia page on the topic, it cites al-tabari as the source.
אמת מוחלטת
I cannot address it being an anachronism when it objectively just isn't an anachronism but you have already shown that you are afraid of a real debate. If your source is Wikipedia than you, perhaps, aren't even worth my time.
deathtokoalas
well, you would indeed be arguing with the author of wikipedia and not with myself. i'm just a lowly logician, that's googling easily findable information that is widely available to all, in an attempt to fit objective facts into a secular history. i have no depth of understanding of anything esoteric, or any interest in it at all.
but, tell me a little more about the orthodox christians of the 7th century
(attempts to draw me into a shouting match over a livestream have been removed)
i will reiterate that i am only interested in conversing in a written form, and that this individual has failed to address the chronological concerns in his anachronistic interpretation of the terms. but, this is what you usually get from islamic "scholars" when you push them on their myths - obfuscation, circular logic and what seems to be some kind of request for a pissing match, rather than a debate regarding the evidence.
MjGhost
I just cannot imagine someone wrote what you wrote and could take themselves seriously while they did. I mean who reacts to one comment with 9 comments, filled with unproven assertions and then expects people to just agree with they're diarrhea.
i will reiterate that you've been empirically shown to be a pathetic idiot with neither the grasp of history nor the grasp of logic and you turn around accusing people of the same.
deathtokolas
the somewhat comical truth here is that you happen to have somebody with a large amount of interdisciplinary formal education in front of you that can help you understand why you're wrong, and can help you work through these logical errors and come to a correct understanding of actual history. i've offered my time and patience in helping you understand and debunk this; unfortunately, you've decided to resort to childish attacks and insisted on upholding your mythology, instead. you can't even recognize intelligence when it's put in front of you. and, it's because you're dumb. to your core.
for the sake of clarity, the repeated posts are separations of thought, and there are algorithmic reasons why i post that way. first, comments with the most amount of responses climb their way up the rankings. second, youtube will periodically remove some of my comments because i have a tendency to be a little too honest for the existing pc crowd; by splitting the posts up, i can avoid losing longer sections of thought. third, it's actually easier to read, that way, i find - so it's a style decision, and i'd invite anybody to compare it to a wall of text. i think it comes off rather favourably.
but, you've done none of the things you claim you have - you've merely managed to make idiots of yourselves over and over again, and the baffling reality of it is that you're too stupid to realize you're stupid.
the basic issue at hand here - how it is that your bud mohummad could be referring to an idea that does not exist - has not been addressed, and you've just insulted me instead of dealing with the debate in front of you.
MjGhost
The basic issue at hand is that you're comfortable telling lies in comments but not comfortable having your pathetic lies exposed :) It's actually cute that your trying to be transgender logician but you literally have admitted thrice that you take your knowledge from google and wikipedia
deathtokoalas
see, this is the funny thing about this - what you're citing is so debunked by secular historians, that it can be easily found using a basic google search, and is all over wikipedia. but, you seem to be suggesting that i should read the koran, or consult "islamic scholarship" instead. no - the point is that wiki is, in context, a better source of information, because it reflects the better sources. so, i'm giving you decent references to agreed upon understandings by secular historians, and you're insisting that i cite myths and legends, instead. then, you're claiming that i'm the one that's being dishonest, and giving me shit for telling you i don't have time for your idiocy. it's perfectly idiotic.
...perfectly backwards. perfectly retarded.
i will state yet again that, for all their deflection and nonsense, these two buffoons have yet to address the point at hand.
now, my blog is just that - it's a blog. it's where i type my thoughts, talk about my day, etc. but, it's also a journal, and it's purpose is for it to be read by future historians that are interested in studying my art. so, if you want to cyberstalk me, please go to my bandcamp site and check out my music. the actual point of all of this is a giant frame around my existence as a composer, and nothing more and nothing less.
אמת מוחלטת
Denial doesn't make you any more intelligent than you are not. The point has been adressed, just because you dont like the way you have been put in your place doesnt mean it didnt happen. You were presented with the chance to debate your fallacious standpoint for hours. You can claim deflection and nonsense but you're the one who is a self professed Google and Wikipedia logician, so how would you know these things anyhow ? The fact hat you cannot refute my video shows that you are the only one deflecting. You don't know the first thing about orthodox Christianity nor about Arabic nor about Heraclius' theology. You actually claimed the letter was first found in Tabari, which is a categorical mistake. You. Are. Literally. Going. OFF. Of. Google. Information. Again, the only thing you're good at sharing is your poop.
deathtokoalas
video is not a valid form of discourse. if you had a worthwhile point, you would type it here - i'm not going to your site, and i'm not clicking on your links and i'm not watching your ads. say it here, in writing, in a valid form of discourse, or forfeit the point.
when a claim is easily googled - and i will state again that the source for these letters is al-tabari and cite wikipedia as a better source than your islamic forgeries - that is not a reason to doubt it's accuracy, but a reason to uphold it as widely understood by everybody except the faithful. and, when a claim is presented on wikipedia, that means it's undergone a concept of peer review that is superior to any sort of theological dogma.
we can have an epistemological debate here, but i'd consider wikipedia to be a far better source than any imam or theologian, for the reason that it's vetted by the secular community, and the religious sources are not.
heraclius was both an orthodox christian and a roman catholic, because they were one and the same thing, at the time.
but, if you are confident in your claim that you can use a word intended to refer to orthodox christians in the 7th century, then post your sources and your argument here. if you choose not to, it's your choice - but you are forfeiting the debate, whether you accept it or not.
stated tersely: i don't care what your religious documents say, and do not consider them to be valid sources of information. what i care about is what secular historians say, and if the information is easily googled and available at wikipedia then there is little reason to research it further.
the ease of which the information is found by a basic google search is a reason to trust it's authenticity, and not a reason to doubt it.
....and, that should really be a mirror reflection held up - your religion is debunked in 20 seconds by any savvy 12 year-old with a laptop or cell phone. deal with it.
MjGhost
Let's not talk about what you call music. Future historians will be shocked when they hear how you cited al Tabari for the source of the letter and then actually admitted you just read that off of Google. I can see why you are so arrogant now though, to actually think that people who don't care about you now will surely care about you after you are dead must warrant an intense sadness that HAS to be masked by arrogance or else your psychological house of cards would fall apart won't it ? :D
deathtokoalas
that's correct - it's easily googled that the letter is a forgery that dates to the tenth century. deal with it.
MjGhost
its easily googled that the letter dates to the 8th century at the very latest
deathtokoalas
again - it states very clearly on the wikipedia page that the primary source is al-tabari in the 10th century. i'm sorry, but i find that far more convincing than something an imam might say. you can post something else if you're convinced it's correct, but understand that i'm not likely to give it a second glance unless it's secular in character.
אמת מוחלטת
Secular historians say that your using Wikipedia as a source is a disaster. But why would I expect you to have been to university ?
deathtokoalas
i've already told you that i have a large amount of formal education, which has taught me to be skeptical of religion, rather than held in subservience to it.
i don't actually think that secular historians are going to be particularly harsh on wikipedia in the year 2021. it's had a lot of the bugs worked out, and it's focused strongly on sourcing. like any other source, if you find something hard to believe, you can check the footnote. i consider it a useful tool, and i'm happy to cite it with confidence - especially in the particular context.
and, i'll state this into the void for anybody reading this - don't listen to these guys, google it yourself.
אמת מוחלטת
Premise 1 : Bukhari was written before Tabari
Premise 2: Tabari contains the letter
Premise 3: Bukhari contains the letter
Conclusion: Bukhari is an earlier source than Tabari
deathtokoalas
well, i'd invite you to correct the wiki page and have that discussion with them; i'm not overruling the peer review on your divine authority. that said, it looks like it's a 10-15 year difference, and probably hard to establish with any clarity.
MjGhost
I'd invite you to correct yourself first.
If Bukhari was completed in 846 and Tabari was born in 839, how can it be a 10-15 year difference ?
Do you always shift the blame of your fault ? I mean how many things do you make your dad and mum responsible for, let's be honest ?
deathtokoalas
because i don't have a lot of confidence in the dates you're citing. because we're dealing with largely untrustworthy histories that have large margins of error, we can only really state with confidence that they lived at about the same time. but, if you want me to expand my margin of error from 10-15 to 10-50, that's fine - it matters little.
listen - you're wasting your time. you seem to be trying to prove i'm not an expert in islamic theology, which is something i freely admit, and never claimed for a minute. what i'm telling you is that i don't care about islamic theology, and i'm only interested in approaching this from a secular perspective, which largely discards these sources you're citing as unreliable.
EdSmi Jr.
No I think everybody here wanted to prove that you are anything but a logician. You're an ideologue and a really bad one at that. Of course you're not well versed in Islamic theology, neither are you in Christian theology, nor in the art of making a claim and proving it, and CERTAINLY not in the field of logic.
deathtokoalas
well, i'll let my diploma stand - you can write me an essay, if you want me to respond to it. but, to be clear: the people posting here did not present any valid logical errors, which is why i haven't bothered responding. what they've done is cite some silly colloquialisms that they probably pulled from a ben shapiro video.
i'd request that you make sure to link to my websites in your video, though.
MjGhost
I think it's about time that you stop justifying your error and stop saying things that are unprovable. Suddenly you don't have confidence in the Wikipedia dates that you were just building your false argument on ?
And just so you know France is the home of secularism and here schools do not teach their children to look at Wikipedia for information. Neither does Germany or the UK.
You said that the orthodox Church didn't exist until 1054.
Just Google "Council of Calchedon"
You said Heraclius wasn't a heretic.
Just Google "Ecthesis"
Tamir has already proven in the video that you are arguing from a paradigm of white supremacism and with flawed information from Wikipedia.
Jessica, you're an insult to logic and an insult to academia.
Just stay this poop logging transgender and leave the academics to themselves. You were destroyed in the comments, destroyed on video and you'll be destroyed again in the future. It'll just be someone else who exposes your lack of education.
Have fun pooping, you're the best at doing it with the brain.
deathtokoalas
again - you're wasting my time.
the council of chalcedon has nothing to do with any concept of orthodox christianity, and would not have constructed a separate identity for the byzantines as any kind of ethnic or cultural entity. i'm even being generous in pointing to 1054 - the concept of byzantium and orthodoxy is really a much later concept than even that, that was constructed in a fit of revisionism.
further, the idea that heraclius was a heretic is something that much, much later writers invented to describe how he interacted with other heresies. nobody at the time would have referred to heraclius as a heretic.
i'm not bothering with this, as it's nonsense, but it's easy enough to piece together where you're going, and it just leads to the same circuitous path of circular logic we were at in the first place, as you're just building up revisionist history on top of itself, and presenting more evidence for a later forgery.
nothing you're talking about makes any sense at all in a 7th century context.
but, like i say - write me an essay.
and, make you sure you link to my sites in your video.
now, regarding the dates, let's read this carefully.
"It was completed around 846 CE / 232 AH."
now, what's the important idea here? is it that we know that the text was written at a specific point in time? or is it that we can only date it roughly to the middle of the 9th century?
there's something instructive here, because religionists are instinctively literalists. so, when they see a date in text, they drop the "circa", the "approximate", the "around" - and they pick a specific, exact date.
but, we don't know exactly when this was written.
and, that is actually what the wikipedia page says, if you have the comprehension to understand it.
EdSmi Jr.
She's probably gonna say that she isnt a supremacist because she has a black friend or something lol
deathtokoalas
i'll let you think i'm a white supremacist if you want - i don't really care. i know it's not true, and i think you're an idiot, anyways.
just make sure you link to my sites if you're going to make videos about me, whatever they are.
אמת מוחלטת
Lol, when he said "WELL WIKIPEDIA IS WRONG THEN !" without apologizing for his insistance on a wrong information.
Look Jessica, I think I don't need to say anymore after Video I've made but here's a simple mathematics exercise:
If Bukhari was written 846 CE (not my number, Wikipedia's number) and Tabari deals with history up until 915 CE, how large is the difference in the very least ?
(NON-POOP MATH : 915-846 = 70 years) (10>50>70)
deathtokoalas
i'm just going to focus on observational commentary at this point.
"WELL WIKIPEDIA IS WRONG THEN !"
see, as it turns out the wiki page provides approximate dates. now, like i say - don't argue with me. i'm just citing them - argue with them. but, at the end of the day, i'm going to trust them, and not you, and not your sources. and, i'll state it again - the wiki page cites al-tabari, and there must be reason for that. i believe them - and not you.
but, again we see a window into the mind of the religionist, which needs to have a text as an authority, rather than a suggestion. let me let you ponder this - what if wiki is right about one thing and wrong about another? i don't think that's the case here, but i can accept that, because i'm not looking towards a text for the literal truth, like you are. that's not a contradiction, for me, like it is for you.
now as stated previously, the wiki site is clear that we're dealing with approximations, here. when i say i trust them and not you, that doesn't necessarily mean they're correct. but, i'll leave this debate to be had between you and them, and i'll let the result of that debate present itself in the text.
for the point that i'm making - that the letter is at least old enough to precede the 1054 schism - it doesn't matter that the forgery stems from al-tabari or this other guy. what matters is that the forgery dates the language to before the schism, suggesting that this term for orthodox christians probably comes from the historiography, and not the other way around.
for now, i will hold to my source and tell you to take it up with them.
(pause)
you know, i'm just copying the important parts of this to my blog (and leaving the nonsense behind) and the obvious question presented itself to me rather bluntly - what if he actually did mean to refer to the ethnonym of arya, and was threatening the fate of the persians? i mean, it's almost too easy.
i don't want to get into this stupid argument again, other than to remind people that the logic presented here by these people nipping at my heels is circular - the letter to heraclius may stem from a pre-existing legend, but the letters-to-world-leaders meme, including the one to heraclius as we know it, stems from al-tabari in the 10th century, so to argue that the term must refer to the byzantines to conform to the meme is circular, logically, and backwards chronologically. rather, if arabs are out there calling orthodox christians "arians" nowadays, or did in an earlier period, it is probably a consequence of this myth, rather than a reason to suggest he meant to refer to the byzantines, themselves.
but, whether apocryphally or not, the persians had fallen at the time of the letter writing campaign and it was probably a scarier threat than pointing to some visigoths or vandals.
again - i don't speak or read arabic, and don't really care to learn it. i'm just repeating what i learned in a course on byzantine history - the term translates to the heresy. further, a quick google search upholds that interpretation as standard. but, google translate suggests that the transliteration of arian and aryan is fairly similar. so, did some scribe just mess this up at some point? was it even messed up on purpose to align with the narrative in al-tabari? and, is the necessity to take everything the prophet said literally interfering with the observation of an obvious typo?
and, of course, the byzantines did not suffer the fate of the persians - at least not by the time of the 10th century, and not at the hands of the caliph. so, what is a copyist to do? mohummad would look like a goof, threatening the romans with the fate of the persians, only to have them outsurvive the caliphate, itself. a minor typo could be a face-saving process. but, i'm just speculating - the standard interpretation is that he was referring to the arian heresy and not the aryan (iranian) people.
even worse are the nutcases that want to actually co-opt religion. what kind of mind is that? not the type you want on your organizing committee, that's for sure.
if the structure of religion is left in place to be wielded as a weapon, it will be - it must be entirely eradicated, to prevent it from coming back and reconstructing the status quo.
the control mechanisms are too powerful to leave in place.
i'm really speaking as a tactician, here, as a self-appointed general in the industrial reserve army: if we don't eliminate their tool of control in the form of religion first, capital will win decisively. every time....
this needs to be the primary tactic, overthrowing religion.
and, nobody gets it.
no, i'm going to repeat something i posted previously, and extrapolate on it: we will never have socialism, until we break the power of organized religion, first. the biggest threat to the left has always been and will always be religion, which is exactly why the media wants to conflate religion with the left - which is, historically speaking, completely incoherent.
it is for that reason that anybody advocating for religious tolerance or multiculturalism is the most vicious kind of reactionary possible. all of these other types of reactionaries are annoying, but they're not catastrophic - they won't break the back of the movement. only religion has the power to truly destroy socialism.
this isn't a call to violence, and it's not even a call to exclusion. we need to convert them from religionists to socialists, to hold the mirror up; as i've argued that what i really want to see is muslim women burn their own hijabs, what i also want to see is apostates burn their own mosques down. i'm not looking to create further divisions, i'm looking to unite the working class against it's greatest enemy, which is god.
and, that's hard. i get it.
but, it's the only solution - and, to an extent, it's a race against time.
today's post is inri029, which now contains both versions. i also now call this my third symphony.
====
this was my grade 12 final project in electronic music design. the assignment was something along the lines of creating a piece of music with a social message.
the message is part dystopian, but focuses more on the idea of identifying certain threats that would become a problem in the upcoming century. remember that this was the middle of 1999. how close was i?
1) intro
2) war
3) noise pollution, or pollution in general
4) conformity (or the collapse of individualism)*
5) chemical warfare
6) global warming
7) outro
* i was thinking in terms of personality/uniqueness, rather than something political. and i think the extreme conformity underlying gen y social attitudes have played this out frighteningly well, actually. it's a reaction to the radical mindset of anti-conformity that dominated gen x, but it's still a very real thing that will have very real ramifications in the upcoming decades. if you thought the 50s were creepy, wait until you see what these kids grow up into!
i should have included something about inequality. i also removed a vegan track, partly due to time restraints. besides that, i think i got all of the broad ideas right.
the piece is made to be played in an indefinitely repeated loop.
most of the tracks are slightly remixed/resequenced versions of tracks from inri or inriched. track 5 is brand new, and recorded on the school's synthesizer (part of the project requirements).
recorded over 1997-1999. constructed in this form in june, 1999. published on november 30, 2013. re-released (with new hidden track) and finalized as symph003 on sept 13, 2017. first liner note release added on dec 26, 2019 & updated to include the video for inertia on jan 27, 2020. this is my third symphony; as always, please use headphones.
this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1999, 2013-2019). as of dec 26, 2019, the release includes a 15 page booklet in doc, pdf & html, with an html5 audio frontend, that includes journal entries from the remastering process over nov, 2013. as of jan 27, 2020, the html5 frontend has been augmented to include the video for inertia, which has been added to the download, and the booklet has been expanded to 19 pages, and now encompasses nov-dec, 2013.
released june 20, 1999
j - synthesizers, sequencers, effects, guitar, bass, piano, drum programming, noise generators, metronome, a broken tape deck, sampling, loops, cool edit synthesis, windows 95 sound recorder, sound design, digital wave editing, production