Posted on 12/21/2023 1:58:22 PM PST by marcusmaximus
Russian war fanatics are enraged over an 'almost naked' party staged in Moscow by wealthy showbiz celebrities including Vladimir Putin's 'goddaughter'.
The 'debauched' gathering was likened to Sodom and Gomorrah by critics claiming the antics of the wealthy stars insulted those on the frontline in the Kremlin's illegal war against Ukraine.
Among the most visible guests was a pregnant and braless Ksenia Sobchak, 40, a TV presenter and 'liberal' Russian presidential candidate in 2018, in a nude-coloured Sorelle outfit.
She is known as Putin's goddaughter after he attended her baptism and viewed her late father Anatoly Sobchak as his political mentor.
-snip-
Putin's goddaughter later rejected criticism of the semi-naked party, saying: 'Maybe it was a bad party in your opinion.
'We wanted glamour and it turned out the way it did.
'Maybe you don't like to look at it all, but, sorry, where and when grown-ups go with a bare bum is their own business.
'The world isn't fair - it always has been this way, is and always will be.
'Somewhere people are being killed, somewhere children are starving, and somewhere else [people are] drinking champagne at the same time.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I would ask that you consider this idea and give it a great deal of reflection, for years to come if necessary: “Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.” (Sir Francis Bacon)
“I would ask that you consider this idea and give it a great deal of reflection, for years to come if necessary: ‘Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.’ (Sir Francis Bacon)”
I don’t have to, because that was pretty much my argument ab initio: FAITH is the conviction that one’s BELIEF is true.
Right. Including your belief that spirituality is emotion.
“Right. Including your belief that spirituality is emotion.”
Nice try. There is not much rationality in spirituality. Indeed, the two are pretty much contradictory. Thus, the driving force behind spirituality must necessarily be emotional in nature.
That is not meant as a criticism of spirituality.
But, I don’t expect you to understand that.
(Grey Whiskers, you don’t need to participate, this is just a ping.)
Oughtsix, I don’t mean to make you uncomfortable in bringing the focus to your own beliefs.
Your own beliefs include the one telling you spirituality is emotional.
That is to say, you believe spirituality is a function of emotion, or e = f(s).
But my point here is that your belief is itself a function of emotion, otherwise stated as f[f(s) = e] = E.
I will just mildly comment that Saint Thomas Aquinas would argue for the role of Reason in Faith.
Merry Christmas to all in the Household of Faith in Christ!
Oh, BS. In math a function reflects what is put into it, and thus can result in a wide range of conclusions. Hence, the depiction of functions on an x,y axis (graph) can take on different geometric shapes, where possibilities lay upon different points along the lines of those shapes.
And, your formula is interesting. Since you have declared that e (or, emotion) is equal to f (function) s (spirituality); and you then proceed to declare that function of that equals E; you are in fact saying that function(e = e) = E (where you have not defined E, but generally E is the symbol for Energy); or f(e) = E. In other words, f(emotion) = Energy. I’m not sure Einstein would agree with you. I mean, his formula was Energy (specifically, kinetic energy) = mass times the speed of light squared.
Nice try, though.
No, not energy. Emotion. Remember, these are symbols and to that extent they are arbitrary. You just have to keep your focus on what we’re talking about.
You say spirituality is emotional, and you believe what you say. This belief of yours is itself emotional.
“No, not energy. Emotion.”
Nice try. Either you do not know how to write an equation or you are a bullshitter; but I suspect both.
If — in your formula — E is emotion; what is e? The two elements we were discussing are emotion and spirituality, which you have expressed mathematically as “… spirituality is a function of emotion, or e = f(s).” Thus, since those are the only two elements (emotion and spirituality), addressed, “e “ must necessarily refer to “emotion” and “s” must necessarily refer to “spirituality. “
So, if e = f(s), then we can simply replace f(s) with e; as, per your equation, f(s) is equal to, or has the same value as e.
You then trot out this absurd formula: f[f(s) = e] = E. Since you have already stated that f(s) = e, your equation can also be written as f(e = e) = E. Since f (e = e) is the same as f (e), your equation is reduced to f (e) = E. Or, written out, the function of e is equal to (the same as) E. Or, E = E. And you have now – per your above comment – defined E as “Emotion.” Applying your singular logic, you are saying the function of emotion is – get this! – Emotion; or that Emotion is Emotion. In other words, you’ve said nothing.
I’m done with your games.
Peddle your snake oil somewhere else.
Your method here is distraction and distortion. Means you have nothing.
But the fact remains: your beliefs, all of them, come from emotion.
Think of f[f(s) = e] = E as g(f(s)=e)=E.
Both e and E denote emotion. I could have used e1 and e2, but I didn’t have the patience to assume you couldn’t understand it.
Complete BS.
You appear to be very emotional about it.
Nice try, kid. Your “formula” is gibberish. And you know it.
My statement does not depend on the formula you couldn’t understand.
I can see you not understanding the formula. But you don’t have to be a genius to understand this statement:
All your beliefs originate in emotion.
“I can see you not understanding the formula.”
And neither can you; because it’s meaningless, it’s gibberish. It leads nowhere.
“All your beliefs originate in emotion.”
Kid, I’ve been saying all along that FAITH is the conviction that one’s BELIEF is true. BELIEF, by its very definition, has its foundation in subjectivity; it can’t be otherwise. And subjectivity is personal, and based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, opinions, etc. Emotion is AN element of subjectivity; but it is not THE sole element of subjectivity. So, your premise that “All your beliefs originate in emotion” is simply not true. Some may be; but not ALL, which was your premise.
And you claim you were some clever witness in court, who destroyed the counsel questioning you? I doubt that very much. If you testified in court the way you are arguing here the judge would have declared your testimony unresponsive; and would have instructed the jury to disregard your testimony. We used to love getting people like you on the stand, because people like you were so easily impeached.
Stop trying to bait me to give you more information about the case I testified in.
Meanwhile, you’re unable to name even one belief of yours that isn’t founded in emotion.
“Stop trying to bait me to give you more information about the case I testified in.”
Don’t flatter yourself, kid. I don’t give a damn what your “case” was. Or even if you really had a case in which to testify. You’re a bullshitter, kid. That’s why we loved getting people like you on the stand: Impeachment was so very entertaining.
And you’re another one of those who fills his profile page with scripture and religiosity. That is usually a “tell” that one is a zealot, and full of crap. It’s like one of those “It’s God’s will!” excuses; you use God as such an easy and convenient scapegoat to explain away your human failings. You insult God in the process. That’s why I laugh when I see all the hosannas and hallelujahs on the profile pages of people who slander the God they profess to worship.
Go try to sell your snake oil somewhere else.
Your problem here is a failure to identify what you claim.
Nothing you say about me and God is true. You’re unable to support it, which means you have nothing.
Meanwhile, your beliefs are all grounded in emotion.
You’re a fraud, kid. Moreover, your screen name is a contradiction, which proves it.
Because, kid, faith resides in the heart (emotion), not in the brain (reason). Faith is trust (hope) that your claim (belief) is true even though it is unsupported by reason.
Faith resides in theology and religion; reason resides in empiricism and logic.
Or, as Mark Twain so succinctly put it: “Faith is believing what ain’t so.”
You seem to want to grab on to scripture as a life vest; but in your hands it is an anchor, and is dragging you down to the depths.
Peddle your snake oil elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.