NationStates Jolt Archive

Reality has the story.

Discuss.

Depends on what you define by 'radical'. If you mean by preaching that we should go kill every single non-believer than no. If you believe 'radical' is wanting to outlaw the murder of an innocent child, than yes.

I mean religiously radical in the true meaning of the word, that literally interpret every word of their sacred text to be the absolute truth, that is the definition of fundamentalism.

By that definition, many churches are radical. Most believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

Depends on what you define by radical. If you mean be preaching that we should go kill every single non-believe than no. If you believe 'radical' is wanting to outlaw the murder of an innocent child, than yes.
I mean religiously radical in the true meaning of the word, that literally interpret every word of their sacred text to be the absolute truth, that is the definition of fundamentalism.

Just for mine own clarification ....

fundamental:

1. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary: the fundamental laws of the universe.
2. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central: an example that was fundamental to the argument.
3. Of great significance or entailing major change: a book that underwent fundamental revision.

radical:

1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.
4. Linguistics. Of or being a root: a radical form.
5. Botany. Arising from the root or its crown: radical leaves.
6. Slang. Excellent; wonderful.

http://www.answers.com/topic/fundamental?cat=biz-fin
http://www.answers.com/topic/radical

Could be confusing in certain contexts, as is the term "cleave".

Carry on ... :)

I mean religiously radical in the true meaning of the word, that literally interpret every word of their sacred text to be the absolute truth, that is the definition of fundamentalism.

From 2 Chronicles 4:2 - He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Check it out! Pi = 3 :D

From 2 Chronicles 4:2 - He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Check it out! Pi = 3 :D
From Malachi 2:3 :

KJV: Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

http://bible.cc/malachi/2-3.htm

Check it out! God's a coprophile! WooT!

Seed *AND* feces in the same context - smearing!

Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39 (NIV) - Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return ... will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." ... and the Lord gave them into his hands.... When Jephthah returned to his home..., who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! And he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

Jephthah got in God's good books for burning his daughter as a human sacrifice, and bonus points because she was a virgin.

Feces, seed, human sacrifices of burning virgins... God really is a kinky little devil! ;)

Song of Solomon 5:4 - My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

Ezekiel 23:20 (NIV) - There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

No comment on the last two verses, but someone really should make an X-rated porn movie based on the Bible.

Shit thread. AP fails.

surely its not radical if half the churches are doing it?

those radical evolution loving homosexuality tolerating churches are on the rise I tells ya!!!!

Sorry guys, I just take offense to a religion whose greatest attempt at a morality tale was the willingness of a man to commit infanticide because he heard schizophrenic thoughts in his head.

Sorry guys, I just take offense to a religion whose greatest attempt at a morality tale was the willingness of a man to commit infanticide because he heard schizophrenic thoughts in his head.

Well, that's dandy, because you're thinking of Judaism! Christianity is New Testament.

Nothing wrong with radicalism.

Well, that's dandy, because you're thinking of Judaism! Christianity is New Testament.

True, but the nuttiest of the nutty fundamentalist christians believe that the Old Testament is absolutely 100% accurate as well. ...except for the parts they don't like.

Sorry guys, I just take offense to a religion whose greatest attempt at a morality tale was the willingness of a man to commit infanticide because he heard schizophrenic thoughts in his head.

Not only was that a little hard to follow due to severe grammar issues... but also slightly confusing because all of that is opinion, and because there are many figures in the Bible (Old or New Testament) that someone could attribute this description to (rightly or not, that is not the point), I will ask you, are you refering to Abraham, in which case can you prove to me that he was schizophrenic? Moreover, throughout the Bible (again, Old, and New Testament) I think one could make the argument that there are many more acts of great morality that 'outrank' even Abraham's.

Before someone pegs me as a religious nut, I just want to say that I looked up the Bible on the internet and cross referenced the verses brought up to check it out for myself. I've never actually read most of these verses before, though I've looked into stuff in the past. Anyway...

From 2 Chronicles 4:2 - He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Check it out! Pi = 3 Assuming Pi to equal three is closer than many civilizations got. The Israelites also weren't exactly that well known for their advanced math skills. Furthermore, the following verses describe the bowl's (the "Sea") appearance, and in verse 5, it says "5It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom." If you've ever looked at a lily, you'll notice it's not an exact circle. Given that it has an irregular shape, i.e. not a circle, even using a perfectly exact measure for Pi, it is mathematically possible to have a diameter of 10 units and a perimeter of 30 units.


From Malachi 2:3 :

KJV: Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

http://bible.cc/malachi/2-3.htm

Check it out! God's a coprophile! WooT!

Seed *AND* feces in the same context - smearing!Actually, I'm pretty sure that "Seed" is a euphemism for "descendants." Being that the various translations on the link you provided translate it as such, I think I'm fairly justified in saying it was intended something like 'You've done so much evil that I'm even cursing your descendants.'

Also, the second part isn't because god has some feces fetish. It seems to me, that if you're holding this big ass feast to show everyone how great you are, that the biggest possible insult that you could have done to you is to have your own shit resulting from that very feast picked up and smeared in your face. Also, this verse was directed at the priests that were supposed to be leading the worship of god. They had rules and stuff that basically made it 'illegal' for them to even touch fecal matter, as it would make them ceremonially unclean and unable to perform their duties as a priest until some sort of purification ritual. To have it rubbed in their faces would not only be a huge personal insult, but it would be a major affront to the very core of their religious beliefs. I mean, if you can come up with a bigger insult than that, fine, but I sure can't think of one at the moment.


Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39 (NIV) - Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return ... will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." ... and the Lord gave them into his hands.... When Jephthah returned to his home..., who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! And he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

Jephthah got in God's good books for burning his daughter as a human sacrifice, and bonus points because she was a virgin.

Feces, seed, human sacrifices of burning virgins... God really is a kinky little devil!

Song of Solomon 5:4 - My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

Ezekiel 23:20 (NIV) - There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

No comment on the last two.Jephthah "got in God's good books" because he lived up to his oaths. Basically, I think this is saying something like 'be careful what you swear to do' or something like that but that if you make an oath to god, you should keep it. I dunno really, if this stuff were easy, maybe more of us would believe it.

Song of Solomon is full of sex and stuff like that. It's essentially a love story between a man and his wife and "describes the sexual joys that God himself has bestowed on us" (quoted from some commentary I just found). The whole "my bowels were moved for him" is the ancient middle eastern equivalent of saying "my heart fluttered for him." In the ancient middle east, the bowels were the seat of the emotions exactly as the heart is the seat of the emotions in modern western culture. I mean, saying something like "I love you with all my blood pumping muscle" isn't any more logical than saying "I love you with all my bowels." Of course, that probably made writing love songs a bit more difficult... (*tries to shake off a strange rendition of Billy Ray Cyrus singing "Achy Breaky Bowels"*)

The last one is part of an extended metaphor. The passage is comparing Samaria and Jerusalem to harlots (read sluts). As the women turned away from their "proper" roles in the metaphor, so too did Samaria and Jerusalem turn away from the god they were worshiping, instead taking up the idols and moral values of their neighboring countries. It's then carried further into a prophecy saying that Jerusalem's own "lovers" were going to attack and destroy her (which, as is recording historically outside the Bible, did happen).

Nothing wrong with radicalism.Depends on what the radix is. If it's something as uneducated, illogical, and a fraud as the abrahamic religions, then there's everything wrong with radicalism. Keep it real.

From 2 Chronicles 4:2 - He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

Check it out! Pi = 3 :D

They were actually pretty close given the time period, the lack of complete measurment uniformity, and the proximity to the correct value of Pi. (Also, nothing is to say that they did not round to the nearest whole....)

Not only was that a little hard to follow due to severe grammar issues... but also slightly confusing because all of that is opinion, and because there are many figures in the Bible (Old or New Testament) that someone could attribute this description to (rightly or not, that is not the point), I will ask you, are you refering to Abraham, in which case can you prove to me that he was schizophrenic? Moreover, throughout the Bible (again, Old, and New Testament) I think one could make the argument that there are many more acts of great morality that 'outrank' even Abraham's.Abraham sold his wife into prostitution at pharaoh's court. And after the circumstances became known and Sarah was sent back Abraham did not even have the decency to return the payment. Abraham is definitely human shit. The bible is devoid of "acts of great morality", wtf are you talking about?

Abraham sold his wife into prostitution at pharaoh's court. And after the circumstances became known and Sarah was sent back Abraham did not even have the decency to return the payment. Abraham is definitely human shit.

You should ease up on the Temporocentrism, it makes you sound really ignorant, you can't judge him for commiting actions that in his time period, and culture were not wrong. Say for the sake of argument that in 3,000 yrs Athiesm is almost universally frowned upon, and Athiests are considered bad, and amoral people, they would have no right to deem you bad, or amoral, because you are following a cultural norm given your culture and time period... (take a history class, it helps ease the ignorance).

Edit: changed 'immoral' to read 'amoral'

Depends on what the radix is. If it's something as uneducated, illogical, and a fraud as the abrahamic religions, then there's everything wrong with radicalism. Keep it real.

Religions are illogical by definition, your point?

The bible is devoid of "acts of great morality", wtf are you talking about?

Hmmm, so a righteous person who lays down their life for the lives of others is not a great act of morality? Giving to the poor, and the needy is not a great act of morality? Preaching love, and tolerance, and peace, and equality is not a great act of morality? Now, before you bring up the same comment about none of these things 'actually' happening, I am not arguing that they did happen, I am merely stating that the Bible (whether true or not, whether correct or not) includes these things, indeed, the Bible (specifically the Christian Holy Book) is centered entirely around serving others, and love and tolerance, and respect, and kindness. (Again, I am not specifically arguing that any of these events, or people are true, rather that they are in the Bible, which you apparently refuted).

Religions are illogical by definition, ...Because you say so? Show me that definition.

Because you say so? Show me that definition.

Wait, how can you call on proof from someone else? I haven't once seen even the bearest shred of evidence for any claim that you have made, let alone anything that comes close to proof.

You should ease up on the Temporocentrism, it makes you sound really ignorant, you can't judge him for commiting actions that in his time period, and culture were not wrong. Say for the sake of argument that in 3,000 yrs Athiesm is almost universally frowned upon, and Athiests are considered bad, and amoral people, they would have no right to deem you bad, or amoral, because you are following a cultural norm given your culture and time period... (take a history class, it helps ease the ignorance).

Edit: changed 'immoral' to read 'amoral'Selling your wife for money has always been wrong. Cut the crap. And you cannot even spell atheist, maybe you should take some lessons, and not only history.

Selling your wife for money has always been wrong. Cut the crap. And you cannot even spell atheist, maybe you should take some lessons, and not only history.

Actually, in many mid-Eastern cultures 3,000 years ago wives (and women in general) were little better than property (and that is when they were not outright considered property).

you have never actually read the book, have you?

Not completely... but I can help you out and give you some verses should you be daft enough to need them....

... the Bible ... is centered entirely around serving others, and love and tolerance, and respect, and kindness....you have never actually read the book, have you?

They were actually pretty close given the time period, the lack of complete measurment uniformity, and the proximity to the correct value of Pi. (Also, nothing is to say that they did not round to the nearest whole....)

Anything they would have tried to build using a pi measurement of 3 would have fallen apart. A pi measurement of 3 is about 3-4% out of true, a difference so large that nothing would have been built properly.

Why would they have rounded pi down to 3? If I needed a plank of pine that has to be 2040mm in length, why would I round down to 2000mm?

Also, for an example of Jesus' loving peaceful nature, check out Matthew 10:34 - "I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword."

"Blessed are the cheesemakers!"
"What's so special about the cheesemakers?"
"Well obviously he doesn't mean it literally, he refers to manufacturers of all dairy products."

You should ease up on the Temporocentrism, it makes you sound really ignorant, you can't judge him for commiting actions that in his time period, and culture were not wrong. Say for the sake of argument that in 3,000 yrs Athiesm is almost universally frowned upon, and Athiests are considered bad, and amoral people, they would have no right to deem you bad, or amoral, because you are following a cultural norm given your culture and time period... (take a history class, it helps ease the ignorance).
"Oh but [insert genocidal maniac here] was just a product of his time period and culture. You can't blame him for killing millions of the [insert ethnic or religious group here]. He was just a product of his times."

You can take that apologist BS and go dangle, my friend.

Time nor culture is no excuse for racism, murder, etc., no mater what trendy cultural relativism tells you.

"Oh but [insert genocidal maniac here] was just a product of his time period and culture. You can't blame him for killing millions of the [insert ethnic or religious group here]. He was just a product of his times."

You can take that apologist BS and go dangle, my friend.

Time nor culture is no excuse for racism, murder, etc., no mater what trendy cultural relativism tells you.

So, white people 500 years ago who were raised with the only instruction that they were biologically superior should be faulted for believing the only available hypothesis? That seems far to radical for me to accept.

Anything they would have tried to build using a pi measurement of 3 would have fallen apart. A pi measurement of 3 is about 3-4% out of true, a difference so large that nothing would have been built properly.

Why would they have rounded pi down to 3? If I needed a plank of pine that has to be 2040mm in length, why would I round down to 2000mm?

As I mentioned before, this wasn't written yesterday, but rather 3,000 yrs ago, and they had uniform, accurate, and standard measurments like we do now (that was sarcasm).

Well, it is 0400 here, and I will more than likely only get 4-5 hours of sleep tonight (not that I fear that I won't be able to easily out argue any of you from my current standpoint on little sleep) however, I will be back in the morning....

Shit thread. AP fails.

WTF ever. There's a lot of potential and already some kinetic humour here. Catch up.

Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39 (NIV) - Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return ... will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." ... and the Lord gave them into his hands.... When Jephthah returned to his home..., who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! And he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

Jephthah got in God's good books for burning his daughter as a human sacrifice, and bonus points because she was a virgin.

Feces, seed, human sacrifices of burning virgins... God really is a kinky little devil! ;)

Song of Solomon 5:4 - My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

Ezekiel 23:20 (NIV) - There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

No comment on the last two verses, but someone really should make an X-rated porn movie based on the Bible.

You *so* ROCK! *bows*

Well, that's dandy, because you're thinking of Judaism! Christianity is New Testament.

"Jesus" = practicing Jew ...?

B'sides, same god. 'lest you be talking about making Jesus out to be God ... then there's that whole "no other gods before me" ...
and you don't really want to go there, do you?

So, white people 500 years ago who were raised with the only instruction that they were biologically superior should be faulted for believing the only available hypothesis? That seems far to radical for me to accept.Yes. It isn't and never was a hypothesis. It was an idea, popularized by people who stood to gain from doing so. The opposite could have beeen done at any time, had anyone been inclined not to further themselves at the expense of others.

Same thing with wife-peddling, child killing, temple whoring and all the other shit people made up all manner of ridiculous excuses to legitimize, simply because they were in a position to do it and benefit from it.

Or to be blunt, it's no different from Chumblywumbly kicking your teeth out, stealing your wallet and claiming it was self defence, simply because Chumblywumbly can get away with it. Now, 2,000 years ago or 2,000 years from now. Don't make any difference.

You're right about the marriage thing though. The religious significance is, in context, just the latest in a long line of attempts to legitimize the dehumanization of human beings.

So, white people 500 years ago who were raised with the only instruction that they were biologically superior should be faulted for believing the only available hypothesis? That seems far to radical for me to accept.
Firstly, that wasn't the only available hypothesis at the time. White Europeans had plenty of contact with Moorish or Arabian traders 500 years ago; men who gave the Europeans mathematics and who kept the writings of many Greek philosophers in existence, to name but a few achievements. Certainly enough contact to contradict the 'only' hypothesis of biological superiority.

And if you insist on continuing down the road of cultural relativism, then your argument still fails. Christianity, the dominant culture at the time, teaches a clear message of acceptance: "Do unto others as you would do to yourself". Even if the societal leaders of the time followed a more hard-line version of Christianity, as many do today, then the fault of misreading their holy text still lies with them.

Yes, culture heavily influences our thoughts and beliefs; but it is not the ultimate arbiter of our moral code, and excusing past intolerances because of time or culture is merely being an apologist for murder, racism, sexism, etc.

You *so* ROCK! *bows*

Would "Jesus Does Jerusalem" be a good title for a biblical porno?

Actually, in many mid-Eastern cultures 3,000 years ago wives (and women in general) were little better than property (and that is when they were not outright considered property).

Making a good moral argument there, eh?

Would "Jesus Does Jerusalem" be a good title for a biblical porno?

Sure!

Salome, Lilith, Mary, Jezebel, Noah ... there's a lot of potential there.

Yes, culture heavily influences our thoughts and beliefs; but it is not the ultimate arbiter of our moral code, and excusing past intolerances because of time or culture is merely being an apologist for murder, racism, sexism, etc.

When in Rome, do as Caligula does?
Also - i've got "The Book of Lies" by Aleister Crowley ...
"Mein Kampf" by Hitler ...
"The Antichrist" by Nietzsche ...
some administrative notes from Idi Amin ...
all sittin' on the coffee table, waiting for some perusal, discussion, employment ...

When in Rome, do as Caligula does?
Also - i've got "The Book of Lies" by Aleister Crowley ...
"Mein Kampf" by Hitler ...
"The Antichrist" by Nietzsche ...
some administrative notes from Idi Amin ...
all sittin' on the coffee table, waiting for some perusal, discussion, employment ...Ah, but those don't appeal to some ineffable, intangible authority that makes it all alright, now do they? ;)

Ah, but those don't appeal to some ineffable, intangible authority that makes it all alright, now do they? ;)
!
Oh yeah! I forgot to look behind me! Santa and god are in collusion!
*guilt*

You should ease up on the Temporocentrism, it makes you sound really ignorant, you can't judge him for commiting actions that in his time period, and culture were not wrong. Say for the sake of argument that in 3,000 yrs Athiesm is almost universally frowned upon, and Athiests are considered bad, and amoral people, they would have no right to deem you bad, or amoral, because you are following a cultural norm given your culture and time period... (take a history class, it helps ease the ignorance).

Edit: changed 'immoral' to read 'amoral'

But one of the main criticism levelled by theists (at least the Abrahamic kind) is that Atheism leads to Moral Relativism which is BAD. They can't have it both ways: either morality is relative or it isn't.

Would "Jesus Does Jerusalem" be a good title for a biblical porno?

"Apostles Gone Wild"?

"Apostles Gone Wild"?

Let's go a much less subtle route: "Bible Bang 3" With a whole new cast from 1 and 2. :D

Hell you could probably stretch the Song of Solomon into all 3 of them if you wanted to.

Reality has the story.

Discuss.

All of Andaras is biased. Reality has the story. Discuss.

Sorry guys, I just take offense to a religion whose greatest attempt at a morality tale was the willingness of a man to commit infanticide because he heard schizophrenic thoughts in his head.

have you read the Bible? ever?

I am going to assume you are talking about Abraham, and if so, you should know that Isaac wasn't an infant, he was probably about 15, although, if you had read the Bible, you might actually know that.

I'm sorry if talking about it offends you, I just really can't stand the willfully ignorant rantings anymore.

Selling your wife for money has always been wrong. Cut the crap. And you cannot even spell atheist, maybe you should take some lessons, and not only history.

I never would have taken you as an objective morality proponent.

Sorry guys, I just take offense to a religion whose greatest attempt at a morality tale was the willingness of a man to commit infanticide because he heard schizophrenic thoughts in his head.

isaac wasnt a baby.

"Jesus" = practicing Jew ...?

B'sides, same god. 'lest you be talking about making Jesus out to be God ... then there's that whole "no other gods before me" ...
and you don't really want to go there, do you?

Jesus and God are the same.

I never would have taken you as an objective morality proponent.


He is whatever suits him best for the time.

All of the gods and goddesses live at the top of Mount Olympus. Zeus is the supreme leader of the gods, Hermes is the messenger of the gods, and Poseidon is the god of the sea. Everybody elses' beliefs are just crap.

Enjoying the thread. The shredding of idiots makes a great spectator sport. Quick question though. Why do all the right wing creepy fundies have such militant macho names? Frequently vaguely Gemanic,too.

And if you insist on continuing down the road of cultural relativism, then your argument still fails. Christianity, the dominant culture at the time, teaches a clear message of acceptance: "Do unto others as you would do to yourself". Even if the societal leaders of the time followed a more hard-line version of Christianity, as many do today, then the fault of misreading their holy text still lies with them.

Yes, culture heavily influences our thoughts and beliefs; but it is not the ultimate arbiter of our moral code, and excusing past intolerances because of time or culture is merely being an apologist for murder, racism, sexism, etc.

I agree with you, which is why I am not a moral relativist, nor have I once defended moral relativism, but rather argued against temporocentrism, I think, for example, that slavery is wrong, it always has been, but that is from my enlightened, abolishionist perspective, I don't think George Washington was a bad person for owning slaves, because owning slaves was not wrong then, it is similar to how the gov't (US) can not convict you of a crime that you 'commited' for doing something before it was deemed illegal. I don't look back and say, well, by todays standards that person would have been evil, because he wasn't acting by todays standards, and liberalism, and human equality have made great strides in the last two hundred years, so our perspective on racism, slavery and gender equality are naturally going to be different, I am not saying selling your wife is (or ever has been) right, or ok, I am saying that I cannot, and will not judge people for acting as they have in different cultures, and in different time periods, Abraham wasn't a 'bad' man for that it is beyodnd ANY ability of mine, or anyone else's who is alive today.

Also, until Luther, and Wycliffe translated the Bible into German and English respectively almost every European copy was in Latin, and almost no one outside the clergy was taught to speak Latin, much less read it, and then there is the difficulty of actually attaining a book that is very long and has to be copied by hand (meaning that they weren't found by the dozens at local bookstores) in practice, only the Catholic Church had realistic access to Bibles, and if you compare Catholic Doctrine (even today, but especially in the middle ages) to what the Bible itself says, you will see that the clergy, and the popes certainly felt it was their place to decide what the Bible says, and when tehy are the only ones with copies, and even then the only ones who can read them, who can argue? Are you blaming lay people of the middle ages for not knowing the actual contents of a book that they had no direct access to?

EDIT: modified for spelling, and added the 'argued against' in front of temporocentrism.

Enjoying the thread. The shredding of idiots makes a great spectator sport. Quick question though. Why do all the right wing creepy fundies have such militant macho names? Frequently vaguely Gemanic,too.

Was that aimed at anyone? I also have not seen anyone one here with a Germanic name making any right-wing proclaimations... and who exactly are the 'idiots' being shredded, your post was just kind of you thinking in type wasn't it? It wasn't very well put together....