ellauri046.html on line 369: Diapsalmata: I'd rather be a swineherd than a misunderstood poet. People are vapid, unreasonable, life is a trouble, I feel trapped, and bored. Alas, the door of fortune does not open inwards so that one can force it by charging at it. Business is silly. If the gods offered me a wish, I'd wish for laughter.
ellauri046.html on line 433: This brief study argues that Kierkegaard's Journals show beyond reasonable doubt that he was homosexual. It does so because he believed that the recognition of this fact was central to the understanding of his life and thought, because he could not bring himself to say this openly even in the privacy of his own Journals, because he hoped and prayed that his "reader" would discover and reveal it after his death, because even distinguished scholars privy to his "secret" have remained silent and because, given these facts, it is surely time to open up this question.
ellauri066.html on line 735: “There’s no other reasonable explanation,” he adds. Sweden’s government has largely allowed non-elected bureaucrat Tegnell to lead its pandemic response.
ellauri145.html on line 515: I had no idea Nietzsche could be funny until I read his letters. “The gentlest, most reasonable man may, if he wears a large moustache, sit as it were in its shade and feel safe,” he wrote, self-mockingly. “As the accessory of a large moustache he will give the impression of being military, irascible and sometimes violent – and will be treated accordingly.” More fun wisecracks:
ellauri146.html on line 662: “I am a Virginian,” declared Poe; and “the distinguishing features of Virginian character at present-features of a marked nature—not elsewhere to be met with in America-and evidently akin to that chivalry which denoted the Cavalier—can be in no manner so well accounted for as by considering them the debris of a devoted loyalty.” Poe’s Virginia background may or may not have rendered him typically American, but it seems reasonable to think that it fostered in him a Virginian Anglo-American attitude as opposed to an Anglophobic Americanism so common at that time in New England.
ellauri156.html on line 586: Man (and exceptionally, woman) has been seeking to cover up his sins ever since the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve thought they could cover their sins by hiding their nakedness behind the fig leaves (hardly large enough for Adam's snake), and if not this, by hiding themselves from God behind Eve's bush. But God "lovingly" sought them out, not only to rebuke them and to pronounce some select curses upon them, but to give them a lame promise of forgiveness when the flagpoles start to bloom. It was God who provided a covering for their sins, in the form of snappy sackcloth jeans. The sacrificial death, burial, resurrection, and feasting on rumpsteaks cut from our Lord Jesus Christ's butt is God's provision for covering our sins. Have you experienced it, my friend? If not, why not confess your sin now and receive God's gift of forgiveness from him in person (in pirsuna pirsunalmente), and work henceforward with Jesus Christ in the cross factory of Cavalry? How 'bout that? A. Yokum, frost-bite travelers re-skewered reasonable. Ask for rates!
ellauri171.html on line 1020: It seems reasonable that Jezebel, a foreign royal princess by birth, was highly educated and efficient. Also, although her son’s theophoric names have the element yah or yahu (referring to God) in them, she seems to have been a patron and devotee of the Baal cult.
ellauri180.html on line 189: There are many other reasons why circumcision may have evolved. Some have suggested that it is a mark of cultural identity, akin to a tattoo or a body piercing. Alternatively, there are reasons to believe that the ritual evolved as a fertility rite. For example, that some tribal cultures apportion seasons' for both the male and female operation, supports the view that circumcision developed as a sacrifice to the gods, an offering in exchange for a good harvest, etc. This would seem reasonable as the penis is clearly inhabited by powers that produce life. Indeed, evidence of a connection with darvests is also found in Nicaragua, where blood from the operations is mixed with maize to be eaten during the ceremony. (Fig. 3). Although the true origins of circumcision will never be known, it is likely that the truth lies in part with all of the theories described.
ellauri189.html on line 724: The Pashtuns, who live in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, have a very special tradition, which says they are Bene Israel, and is widely spread among some of the Pashtun tribes. In this article we intend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this tradition is true, and they are in fact the descendants of the 10 tribes of Israel, who were taken to Afghanistan thousands of years ago.
ellauri219.html on line 597: In his autobiographical essay, “On My Religion,” Rawls explains why he abandoned his orthodox Christian beliefs in spite of the deeply religious temperament that informed his life and writings. In particular, he recounts how his personal experiences during the Second World War, and especially his awareness of the Holocaust, led him to question whether prayer was possible. “To interpret history as expressing God’s will, God’s will must accord with the most basic ideas of justice as we know them. For what else can the most basic justice be? Thus, I soon came to reject the idea of the supremacy of the divine will as [like the Holocaust] also hideous and evil.” Furthermore, by studying the history of the Inquisition Rawls came to “think of the denial of religious freedom and liberty of conscience as a very great evil,” such that “it makes the claims of the Popes to infallibility impossible to accept.” Finally, his reading of Jean Bodin’s thoughts about toleration led him to claim that religions should be “each reasonable, and accept the idea of public reason and its idea of the domain of the political.” Against this background, it is no wonder that Rawls considers the very concept of religious truth as authoritarian and intolerant, and the ensuing persecution of dissenters as the curse of Christianity.
ellauri219.html on line 599: Pope Benedict’s basic answer is that, although modern principles of political freedom, democracy, equality, and reasonable argument are to be affirmed, a free state rests on “pre-political moral foundations,” which serve as normative points of reference for every regime and must be held in common by all religions and secular world-views. This answer reflects the fact that Pope Benedict disagrees with Rawls on at least two fundamental issues, which constitute the core of the debate between them and to which I shall refer regularly in the course of my analysis. In the first place, Pope Benedict does not share Rawls’s trust in fundamental human reasonableness as a guarantee for political fairness. For Rawls, persons are reasonable when they are ready to propose principles and standards as fair terms of cooperation and to abide by them willingly, given the assurance that others will likewise do so. Those norms they view as reasonable for everyone to accept and therefore as justifiable to them; and they are ready to discuss the fair terms that others propose.
ellauri219.html on line 601: This idea of reasonableness informs the whole project of Rawls’s political liberalism, because “the form and content of this reason … are part of the idea of democracy itself.” In contrast, Pope Benedict, although consistently stressing the importance of reason in all human affairs, is much more pessimistic about Rawls’s claim that human beings, who are always children of their own time and cultural situation, are reasonable enough to provide the general principles or standards that are necessary for specifying fair cooperation/competition. Joo olen kyllä Pentin kannalla siinä että nää termiittiapinat on aivan vitun tyhmiä, täysin beyond redemption. Ei ne ole toisilleen hyvänsuopia ellei niillä izellä mene paremmin. Mitä uutta kissimirrit tässä? Ei mitään, samaa paskanjauhantaa.
ellauri279.html on line 199: In his sensational exposé, Informer 001 or the Myth of Pavlik Morozov, a product of research carried out clandestinely in the Soviet Union between 1980 and 1984, he demolished the long-standing, “official” Soviet version of the young, thirteen-year old “pioneer” (who never was) and communist martyr – designated, in 1934, a Soviet literary hero at the First Congress of Soviet Writers – who had turned in his father to the authorities for treasonable activity. The boy was subsequently murdered, according to the authorities, by members of his own family. The young Pavlik did, in fact, denounce his father, but, as Yuri demonstrates, he appears to have been put up to it by his mother, seeking revenge for her husband’s infidelity. As to who actually killed Pavlik, Yuri establishes that it was certainly not family members who were hauled before a Soviet court and subsequently executed. No less a literary figure than Alexander Solzhenitsyn hailed the publication of the book in 1987, claiming that it was “through books such as this that as many Soviet lies will eventually be told as revealed.”
ellauri285.html on line 226: I have also argued (Lasonen-Aarnio 2010, 2021) that there is such a thing as “unreasonable knowledge”: there are also cases in which a subject is negatively evaluable, even to be blamed for believing a proposition p, even if she knows p. Jos voittaa zägällä ei voi saada kiitosta, väittää Mirja. Paskanmarjat, voittaja saa kiitoxet vaikka olisikin tehnyt virheitä (Stalin), häviäjä saa turpiin ettei kotiin löydä (Hitler).
ellauri313.html on line 473: Most Americans are not entirely comfortable with the concept of "cool," or businesslike, negotiations in an atmosphere of some degree of physical threat or coercion. For the most part, they do not consciously assign to force any rational or reasonable role in "ordinary" negotiations. In the recent past (except in the case of "just" revolutions), we have tended to the view that only a criminal or a sick or insane person initiates the use of force. Therefore, we are inclined to believe that someone who uses force is not only our enemy, but an enemy of humanity—an outlaw who deserves extermination, imprisonment, or medical constraint and treatment. The "crusade," and even an initial pacifism as well, comes more naturally to Americans than the kind of cool, restrained, and moderate willingness to threaten or use force that will be suggested in this book.
ellauri324.html on line 234: Edit: My apologies to those who may have wished to leave reasonable and informed comments; I got tired of being notified of comments that were rude and stupid, and there are already plenty of comments in the thread that disagree with my point of view.
ellauri412.html on line 655: What would be unreasonable in the skeptic who says “offspring” in Isaiah 53:10 means only naturalistic biological offspring, so because Jesus didn’t have any naturalistic biological children, he is not the suffering servant of Isaiah 53?
ellauri412.html on line 657: How do you know the canonical gospel authors weren’t simply creating fictions about Jesus to make him sound more like the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 than he really was? Of course you will tout the historical reliability of the gospels, but I would provide scholarly resistance to that conclusion every step of the way. The question is not whether YOU can be reasonable to see Jesus as the Isaiah 53 servant but whether skeptics can reasonably deny this allegation.
ellauri412.html on line 676: Look, if you’re reading the Bible as an atheist and asking about a reasonable interpretation, then the world is your oyster. You are not required to accept the worldview of the authors of the Bible, who all believed in God and wrote about Him from that perspective. And at the same time, as someone who does not believe God exists and does not accept the inspired nature or inerrancy of scripture, you have limited your possible interpretations of Scripture to only natural explanations that do not invoke God. This is going to cause significant problems with your use of the historical-grammatical method, which strives to discover the biblical author’s original intended meaning in the text. For example, every time Isaiah writes, “thus says the Lord” (which is a lot!), how will you interpret that? For an atheist, a statement like that either makes Isiah delusional (he believed a non-existent God told him something) or a charlatan (he’s knowingly asserting a false attribution).
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 430: So uncertainty and hostile business environments tend to chill investment in new ventures. When the tide changes, then boom, it increases, and even at lower tax rates, we end up with MORE tax revenue due to a wider tax base and more people working and paying taxes and reduced tax avoidance, since rich people will pay "reasonable" taxes, but when they are high, then they look for shelters and overseas investments.
xxx/ellauri114.html on line 288: I think it’s reasonable to expect prophecies that have only been partially fulfilled in history to have their ultimate fulfilment in our future. The idea that a partial historical fulfilment points to a complete future fulfilment is a well established principle in the Bible. Two examples we’ve reviewed recently are Isaiah 17 and Psalm 83. The literal and complete fulfilment of these prophecies has not happened yet.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 173: Wheeler's career hit its high point with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act in 1920. As enforcement of Prohibition became increasingly difficult, federal agencies resorted to draconian measures including poisoning alcohol to try to dissuade people from consuming it.[6] Wheeler's refusal to compromise, for example by amending Prohibition measures to allow for consumption of beer, made him appear increasingly unreasonable. His influence began to wane, and he retired in 1927.
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 637: In a letter written from Sorrento to Grace Norton in Cambridge, he described a group of English persons he visited in Frascati after leaving Posilipo. They were of an “admirable, honest, reasonable, wholesome English nature,” in sharp contrast to the “fantastic immorality and aesthetics of the circle I had left at Naples.”
xxx/ellauri179.html on line 825: If by Pacifism is meant the teaching that the use of force is never justifiable, then, however well meant, it is mistaken, and it is hurtful to the life of our country. And the Pacifism which takes the position that because war is evil, therefore all who engage in war, whether for offense or defense, are equally blameworthy, and to be condemned, is not only unreasonable, it is inexcusably unjust. Sorry Christ, we gotta move on, that's how the cookie crumbles. Phil Roth's 2 Swedish sluts were just plain wrong, and so were you J.C.
xxx/ellauri186.html on line 637: Which one is true? We simply do not know for sure. The facts about his death have not been historically proven, beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there is no historical consensus on the person of Matthew. There are several conflicting accounts, and the Greek text does not state anywhere he was an eyewitness (and therefore a disciple). Maybe he was a fake. The problem is the gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the oldest surviving text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the second century, although the gospel doesn't state it's an eyewitness account. The historically very likely incorrect tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis.
xxx/ellauri193.html on line 337: The judges agreed with Fox News's defense that reasonable viewers would have "skepticism" over statements on dogs Carlson makes on its show, as he often engages in "exaggeration" and "non-literal commentary" and that Carlson is not "stating actual facts" on its show.
xxx/ellauri224.html on line 609: Ingmar Guandique, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador, was convicted of Levy’s murder in 2010 and sentenced to 60 years in prison, but his conviction was later overturned and a retrial ordered earlier last year. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia dismissed all charges against Guandique in July after the office concluded that "it can no longer prove the murder case against Mr. Guandique beyond a reasonable doubt."
xxx/ellauri363.html on line 667: Hänestä tuli johtava angloamerikkalaisen oikeusfilosofian teoreetikko ja porvarillinen radikaali, jonka ideat vaikuttivat hyvinvointipolitiikan kehitykseen. Hän kannatti yksilön ja taloudellisia vapauksia, kirkon ja valtion erottamista, sananvapautta, naisten yhtäläisiä oikeuksia, oikeutta avioeroon ja (julkaisemattomassa esseessä) homoseksuaalisten tekojen dekriminalisointia. Hän vaati orjuuden, kuolemanrangaistuksen ja fyysisen rangaistuksen, mukaan lukien lasten, poistamista. Hänestä on tullut myös varhainen eläinten oikeuksien puolustaja. Vaikka hän kannatti vahvasti yksilöiden laillisten oikeuksien laajentamista, hän vastusti ajatusta luonnonlaeista ja luonnollisista oikeuksista (joita molempia pidetään "jumalaisina" tai "Jumalan antamina"). alkuperä), kutsuen niitä "hölynpölyksi paalujen päällä". Bentham kritisoi myös terävästi juridisia fiktioita (a family of hypothetical figures in anglo-saxon law including: the "right-thinking member of society", the "officious bystander", the "reasonable parent", the "reasonable landlord", the "fair-minded and informed observer", the "person having ordinary skill in the art" in patent law, and stretching back to Roman jurists, the figure of the bonus pater familias, all used to define legal standards).
xxx/ellauri404.html on line 479: Alter wrote: The Gospels do not record any historical words attributed to Jesus that demonstrated that he conceived of his death as a propitiatory sacrifice to save mankind from its sins! Why then did Jesus not once, during his ministry, either in private to his disciples, as recorded in the Gospels or as part of his public teaching, ever announce indisputably and unequivocally a divinely ordained scheme for the redemption of mankind? If the salvation of the world was at stake, as Christians proclaim, would it not have been reasonable, in plain and unequivocal terms, to have declared this plan to those whose benefit it was supposedly intended? (p. 77)
29