Be careful,,,,,,

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What bearing would knowing you in greater depth have on eninn's sharing helpful information with others?

Do you need to know a great deal about people before you can share knowledge?
Would the New York Times have become a multi-million dollar industry if its staff writers, copy editors, and publishers needed to know each customer personally?

Under exactly what circumstances does the premise "You must know me before you can help me" work to the exclusion of the reverse?

It's pretty obvious that he's just talking about eninn's penchant for preaching instead of engaging in discourse like the rest of us. Did you really not gather this from the context? It's an observation mentioned in jest, not a scholarly journal.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Further on that note, addressing the book issue:

The police, if they responded to your call, would respond to the situation by following the program of a book THEY read and studied.

More likely than not, those officers wouldn't know you from Eninn.

Would they be more effective in doing their job if they DID know that you like to take long walks on the beach, that you have a cat named Sam Spade, or that your favorite color is blue?

Does the simple fact that people have a book to guide them to action that benefits others mean they are devoid of good intentions?

This is being needlessly nit-picky, again. All he was saying is that the health concerns aren't the reason he made this thread. It's because he was told it was wrong by a book, and hasn't scrutinized the claim beyond that. Do you disagree with that assessment? Do you think eninn has rationally researched the subject? Or is he parroting something based on blind faith? I'm pretty sure your answers will be in agreement with mine. So why this ridiculous hypothetical? If he knew he'd be dealing with your example here, designed specifically to break down a comment intended for a different person and post, I'm sure he would have been more exact.

And beyond that, everything in this thread has been with some humorous sarcasm, until you. Are you incapable of detecting the tone of the posts and seeing them for what they are - light-hearted jabs at fundamentalist thinking? Or do you really, really want to break them down like they're thesis statements?

Be absolutist if you want. You're ignoring the context in which the comments were made and contributing nothing productive.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
You missed out on a chance for BACON?!

Shame on you! eninn is clearly a bad influence.

Especially given that All of Hollywood is tainted by Bacon! Also, I love that site.

Originally posted by Digi
It's pretty obvious that he's just talking about eninn's penchant for preaching instead of engaging in discourse like the rest of us. Did you really not gather this from the context? It's an observation mentioned in jest, not a scholarly journal.

This is being needlessly nit-picky, again. All he was saying is that the health concerns aren't the reason he made this thread. It's because he was told it was wrong by a book, and hasn't scrutinized the claim beyond that. Do you disagree with that assessment? Do you think eninn has rationally researched the subject? Or is he parroting something based on blind faith? I'm pretty sure your answers will be in agreement with mine. So why this ridiculous hypothetical? If he knew he'd be dealing with your example here, designed specifically to break down a comment intended for a different person and post, I'm sure he would have been more exact.

And beyond that, everything in this thread has been with some humorous sarcasm, until you. Are you incapable of detecting the tone of the posts and seeing them for what they are - light-hearted jabs at fundamentalist thinking? Or do you really, really want to break them down like they're thesis statements?

Be absolutist if you want. You're ignoring the context in which the comments were made and contributing nothing productive.

👆

BWR's attempts to white-knight eninn are adorable, especially given that he's the only person eninn ever mentions by name.

Could be that they go to the same mosque together or something.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Especially given that All of Hollywood is tainted by Bacon! Also, I love that site.

👆

BWR's attempts to white-knight eninn are adorable, especially given that he's the only person eninn ever mentions by name.

Could be that they go to the same mosque together or something.

He also has an hard-on for you. 😛

What can I say? I'm secksy.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
What can I say? I'm secksy.

😂 Bacon! Bacon! Bacon!

Consider the actual statistics, the idea behind the teaching, and what eninn actually seems to be trying to warn against.

His real premise is that the long term effect of a poor diet is bad health and high blood pressure, correct?

Try actually following the CDC (Center for Disease Control) stats long term.

What is happening as people keep to their unhealthy diets over the course of years and decades, something sensible, lifelong daily religious practice should theoretically correct?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.. Age..........Men (%)..........Women (%)
20-34..........11.1................6.8
35-44..........25.1................19.0
45-54..........37.1................35.2
55-64..........54.0................53.3
65-74..........64.0................69.3
75-xx..........66.7................78.5
All-yy..........34.1................32.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/facts.htm

Looks an awful lot like the 50% eninn claimed in his original post, doesn't it?

In fact, as the ages go up, those numbers start to trend closer to 2/3rds or even 3/4ths of the population.

50% actually starts to look conservative once you get high enough ...

=

What bearing would knowing you in greater depth have on eninn's sharing helpful information with others?

Do you need to know a great deal about people before you can share knowledge?
Would the New York Times have become a multi-million dollar industry if its staff writers, copy editors, and publishers needed to know each customer personally?

Under exactly what circumstances does the premise "You must know me before you can help me" work to the exclusion of the reverse?

To do good, a person must be a generalist, not a specialist?
Is that what you're arguing here? Because a lot of foods are bad for us
no one can argue against one type of food until they cover all the rest?

Does that really make good sense to you?

To use an analogy, answer for me whether you'd decry a firefighter, who, called at work, failed to do more than forward you to the nearest police station
when you tried to report a burglary in progress?
Would you do that?
Or would you more than likely thank him or her for directing you to people who not only CAN aid you in stopping that robbery
but are actually paid and trained specifically to do so?

Further on that note, addressing the book issue:

The police, if they responded to your call, would respond to the situation by following the program of a book THEY read and studied.

More likely than not, those officers wouldn't know you from Eninn.

Would they be more effective in doing their job if they DID know that you like to take long walks on the beach, that you have a cat named Sam Spade, or that your favorite color is blue?

Does the simple fact that people have a book to guide them to action that benefits others mean they are devoid of good intentions?

thank you dear brother

==

Could be that they go to the same mosque together or something.

i wish this

===

daar brothers

Muslims do not eat pork

Feel nauseous

There is no difference between deep freezing and normal cooking.
Result is the same

This is the main reason for the prohibition of pork in the three monotheistic religions

to see pork after placing cola
See What's in your tummy O eat pork
you will feel nauseous

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQVHZ3Xo9Fc

and pork are the sanctity of God in Islamic law,

and spoke of that Prophet Muhammad 1400 years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NRf0xIXRQ

Originally posted by eninn
Consider the actual statistics, the idea behind the teaching, and what eninn actually seems to be trying to warn against.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It talks in the third person, precious.

We think that is very strange. 😂

It does support an idea I had some time ago; eninn is not just one person, but instead is a group of people using one membership. Kind of a reverse sock.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We think that is very strange. 😂

It does support an idea I had some time ago; eninn is not just one person, but instead is a group of people using one membership. Kind of a reverse sock.

mmm What's the term for the comedy trio formed by yourself, Lucien, and Stealth Moose?

It's fairly obvious to anyone familiar with how the KMC writing program works that eninn simply has not had practice with use of KMC's "Quote" feature.

He's trying to use standard "copy and paste" protocol, which doesn't make a fine enough distinction between your words and someone else's words to understand without careful reading.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
mmm What's the term for the comedy trio formed by yourself, Lucien, and Stealth Moose?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It's fairly obvious to anyone familiar with how the KMC writing program works that eninn simply has not had practice with use of KMC's "Quote" feature.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
He's trying to use standard "copy and paste" protocol, which doesn't make a fine enough distinction between your words and someone else's words to understand without careful reading.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
mmm What's the term for the comedy trio formed by yourself, Lucien, and Stealth Moose?

I called Machiavellianism.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I called Machiavellianism.

The Christians are the only ones around here with a king.

dear brothers

The pig is one of the filthiest animals on earth. It lives and thrives on muck, faeces and dirt. It is the best scavenger that I know that God has produced. In the villages they dont have modern toilets and the villagers excrete in the open air. Very often excreta is cleared by pigs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhcCt8AgpPk

Originally posted by eninn
dear brothers

The pig is one of the filthiest animals on earth. It lives and thrives on muck, faeces and dirt. It is the best scavenger that I know that God has produced. In the villages they dont have modern toilets and the villagers excrete in the open air. Very often excreta is cleared by pigs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhcCt8AgpPk

But I don't get my bacon from third world villages.

I get them from a super market, and most of our bacon is produced stateside.

Have you considered trying cleaner pigs from the US?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
But I don't get my bacon from third world villages.

I get them from a super market, and most of our bacon is produced stateside.

Have you considered trying cleaner pigs from the US?

No wander he doesn't like pig. I wouldn't eat pig from his home land ether.

eninn buy US pork.

I wonder what he thinks is appropriate fertilizer for crops, given that pigs are disgusting for ingesting feces. This is all the more ironic because most Muslim countries which are third world still wipe with their left hand.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I wonder what he thinks is appropriate fertilizer for crops, given that pigs are disgusting for ingesting feces. This is all the more ironic because most Muslim countries which are third world still wipe with their left hand.

However, we first world nations have a bad habit of feeding cows to cows. We just all have to be smarter.

I think the idea of dietary restrictions on behalf of God is pretty retarded. I mean, an all-powerful Creator can just make pigs non-edible. Problem solved.

If homosexuality bothers him, just make it not happen.

If sin is bad, make that not happen too.

I also enjoy the idea that nature gives us insight into God's mind, except when it contradicts scripture, in which case man is somehow to blame or it's unnatural. And ignoring that nature consists of animals killing, eating, and ****ing each other without any moral consideration.

#lolreligiouslogic.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I think the idea of dietary restrictions on behalf of God is pretty retarded. I mean, an all-powerful Creator can just make pigs non-edible. Problem solved.

If homosexuality bothers him, just make it not happen.

If sin is bad, make that not happen too.

I also enjoy the idea that nature gives us insight into God's mind, except when it contradicts scripture, in which case man is somehow to blame or it's unnatural. And ignoring that nature consists of animals killing, eating, and ****ing each other without any moral consideration.

#lolreligiouslogic.

2000 years ago, it was a good idea to not eat pork. But how do you tell people to not eat pork in a way that is enforceable? You tell people "God said..." However, today when we see something that is bad for us, we tell people not to eat it, and enforce it with "Science said...". Has anything really changed?