> The Arab slave trade took even more slaves than that ... How come they didn't benefit so much from it?
Microsoft sold mobile phones, just like Apple does. How come they didn't benefit so much from it?
326 karma · joined September 7, 2017
Microsoft sold mobile phones, just like Apple does. How come they didn't benefit so much from it?
[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/transatlantic-slave-trade
Humans have a strange thirst for blood, whether its for religion or money.
*Where X is I some tech I myself have learnt.
If there is no one there to drink it, then it is not drinkable. A beverage requires both a liquid and a drinker to make it drink-able.
Don't all of them do though? Like @babel/preset-react for example
Honestly, that sounds much more like a dev who is always chasing the new shiny, rather than a dev competent in a boring, stable old tech like php
Why would they be fighting against HTML & CSS? The best path is to embrace HTML & CSS from the OS level, that will provide the "flattening" you are looking for.
- Unlike software photography/illustration are not used to run essential systems like banking, manufacturing, medical equipment etc
And what is the difference between "the brain" and the person watching the movie show?
Users do not care about "immense developer productivity"
lol.
> You say that and then go on to say absolute truth doesn’t exist and if you ask people the same question twice you get a different version of the truth.
lol! Different accounts !== different versions of the truth. Once you've calmed down enough to think clearly, go and reflect on the term "absolute truth".
> You’re either incredibly piss poor at reading comprehension
> conversing with you has been like trying to hold a debate with someone who’s suffering from severe mental trauma
> some people are incapable or reading any form of texts
The insults are now flying fast and furious, all over the place, lol! I do agree with you on one thing though: this conversation is now over.
lol!
> Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out.
> I didn’t say the Bible lacked any female accounts.
It looks like I'm doing a better job than yourself of keeping track of what you've said.
> Book editors generally work in conjunction with the author
Generally? That's a "wildly off" assumption
> I take it from that is that you don’t see an issue with reading a reinterpretation that happened without the authors input?
A "reinterpretation"? That's not what a book editor does.
> Putting aside questions about the truth behind Bible specifically, can I assume from your comment that you view non-fiction works as a dramatisation too?
Drama, by definition is a specific type of fiction. So how can non-fiction works be dramatized and remain non-fiction? And just because something is non-fiction does not make it the absolute truth. We all have perception filters and imperfect memories so seeking that kind of intimacy with a books author through their work is a futile exercise. A book is a one-to-many communications medium, not a face to face communication. And everyone derives their own version of the truth from the same book. Even if Mary miraculously appeared and told you her story, if you asked her about it again one year later many of the details will have changed! Long story short: that absolute truth you seek does not exist.
Good. I rest my case then.
> The points being the Bible lacks the accounts from those closest to Jesus and his teachings.
Moving on, assuming you are talking about Mary here, and have read the gospel of Mary, can you tell us just a few things that it contains that are lacking in the other gospels, written by men who were also very close to Jesus?
> I don’t really know why you’ve got fixated about gender nor why you find it so offensive that was even mentioned in the first place. I wasn’t trying to undermine the feelings of any alpha males on here
hmmmm... ok
> It’s not that impressive of a feat.
Indeed. If you don't remember the books in the bible that give a females account despite saying that's what the bible lacks, then reading the whole book isn't that impressive at all. It's also really interesting how you said that it is "harder to grok than Shakespeare", then turn around and say that reading the whole book isn't that impressive anyways ..
> My point is that those collating it are not the authors.
There is actually a whole profession that revolves around modifying the work of the original author. They are called "book editors". If I want to hear someones pure, pristine, unedited account, I'll have a face to face conversation with them. Not read their books.
> My point was that the sincerity and authenticity of the Nee Testament is comprised because they withheld accounts.
You spoke only of one withheld account, that of Mary, and you said it was because of her gender.
And when you say it lacks authenticity, is it because it's a mans account? Meaning a mans account cannot be authentic in its own right.. it has to be balanced by someone else's account? Is this a court of law where two people (genders in your case) are fighting for I don't know what and both sides have to present their case to the jury/readers? Is this the test for authenticity.. that a female point of view must be included for it to be real?
> So while you’re free to disagree with me, please at least disagree with the actual argument I’ve made rather than creating these straw man arguments that even I wouldn’t agree with.
You are still saying the same thing: the bible is fake/"not authentic" because it was written by men.
In an online forum, people will usually only respond to things they strongly agree or disagree with. I just strongly disagreed with the idea that a book should not be read because of the gender of its author.
This is life. There will always be tensions, envy, politics and resentment whenever people come together, regardless of gender. Jesus was betrayed by one of his very own disciples after-all.
So you say you've read the whole bible, but have you read the gospel of Mary Magdalene which you consider would "redeem" the bible by? Why, haven't you read it?
> Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a book that is believed to be an account of her albeit not directly written by her.
There are many books in the bible that give a females account. You should know about them as someone who's read the whole book (an impressive feat).
And what do you think of the many other books omitted from the bible, for example the gospel of Thomas? Is it because it was written by a man?
> This last link helps illustrate how the Bible is collated by man to fit a narrative defined by man.
Is there really anything in this world that is written and collated that does not fit a narrative defined by their authors?
> Which should cast scepticism about the motives behind the various rewrites and decisions behind what gets included and what doesn’t.
The changes have been greatly exaggarated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI
Which book was this? How do we know about it, and have you read it?