On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 7:02:48 AM UTC-5, NUR wrote:   
   > On Thursday, 23 January 2020 00:30:57 UTC+10, denisgi...@gmail.com  wrote:   
   > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 9:10:52 AM UTC-5, NUR wrote:   
   > > > On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 23:20:04 UTC+10, denisgi...@gmail.com    
   wrote:   
   > > > > Nima wrote:   
   > > > > > The Point of the Bayan advised against   
   > > > > > the study of the sort of straitjacketed   
   > > > > > Aristotelian system of antiquated logic   
   > > > > > prevalent in the hawza in disciplines   
   > > > > > such as fiqh as a support of faith,    
   > > > > > absolutely! This logic of the Usuli   
   > > > > > mujtahids (and their Sunni counterparts)   
   > > > > > -- which the Akhbaris also reject -- is   
   > > > > > the same one that proposes asinine    
   > > > > > propositions speculating about the tahara   
   > > > > > status of hermaphrodites and whether   
   > > > > > it is halaal to have sex with animals   
   > > > > > or not and/or whether the halfway    
   > > > > > penetration of infants constitutes    
   > > > > > actual sex.   
   > > > >    
   > > > > Amazing that you went there. Is that what   
   > > > > you think the study of logic is about?    
   > > >    
   > > > You never studied logic, Gironovsky,    
   > >    
   > > I prefer Gaslightonovsky, and, actually, formal    
   > > logic was the focus of my studies as an undergrad.   
   > >    
   > > Nima wrote:   
   > > > You were trained in professional gaslighting.   
   > >    
   > > As has been explained to you before, just because   
   > > something causes you to question your own sanity,   
   > > that doesn't mean it therefore must be gaslighting.   
   > > Sometimes the problem really is with your own sanity.   
   > >    
   > > Nima wrote:   
   > > > I was referring you to what the Bab was    
   > > > actually talking about   
   > >    
   > > Here's the thing: prohibiting people from   
   > > trying to make room for bestiality or child   
   > > rape need not entail a prohibition on logic.   
   > > It seems, therefore, that your initial    
   > > objection bordered on a gross misrepresentation   
   > > of what logic is.   
   >    
   > It seems you are misrepresenting the core argument   
   > of the Bayan,    
      
   I don't even know what "the core argument of the Bayan" might be. I was   
   responding to something you wrote. Might you be at risk of being accused of   
   narcissism when you recast one of your usenet posts typed while high as "the   
   core argument of the Bayan".    
      
   That aside, I asked clarifying questions which you avoided. It's ironic that   
   in a discussion about whether Babis were prohibited from studying logic, the   
   one self-described Babi I know of is struggling mightily to be clear with his   
   position (and is    
   attempting to assuage his intellectual frustrations with red herrings and ad   
   hominems).   
      
   NUR continued:   
   > why are you Zionists so afraid of the Bab   
      
   I'm not afraid of the Bab. I don't know anything about him. I read a claim   
   about him on the internet, and asked a single question about him. You   
   initially seemed to pretend to want to answer the question, but have opted for   
   an exhibition of your own    
   emotional state instead. Perhaps an appropriate counter question might be: are   
   you, self-described Babi, afraid (or unable) to coherently answer questions   
   about the Bab?   
      
   NUR asked:   
   > Is it the case that if the truth ever got   
   > out about Him, His real doctrines, not to   
   > mention the fact that His final remains    
   > are NOT even on Mt Carmel, but still in   
   > Iran, that a major source of shekel    
   > revenue of your tourism industry would   
   > vanish overnight?    
      
   Let's explore the proposition:   
      
   "If the real truth about the Bab got out, then a major part of Israeli tourism   
   would vanish over night."   
      
   From your post, I am to understand that the relevant "major part" of Israeli   
   tourism has not yet vanished. That would seem to entail that either (a) the   
   relevant "real truth" has not yet come out, or (b) the proposition is false,   
   insofar that the    
   antecedent does not entail the consequent. Now, if that "real truth" has not   
   yet come out, I cannot say for certain what impact it might have on the   
   relevant "major part" of Israeli tourism. Therefore, at this time, I can only   
   say that the proposition    
   you wanted to examine, at best, has an undetermined (or indeterminate?) truth   
   value, and, at worst, is simply false.   
      
   NUR wrote:   
   > Do you want to logic? How does IsraHell justify   
   > fully supporting an organization that claims to   
   > its followers it will one day take over it with   
   > the Universal House of Justice becoming the    
   > government of the land? I am sure the Israeli    
   > establishment you serve already knows this about   
   > these scumbags. Yet they keep supporting them.    
   > How does this relationship make any sense,    
   > Gaslightonovsky?    
      
   I have no idea what the relationship is between the secular state called   
   Israel and the Baha'i faith, though I imagine it has relationships with   
   multiple religious groups which predict a time when they themselves or their   
   doctrines will dominate the land.   
    In that regards, if your description of Baha'i eschatology is accurate, the   
   Baha'is would not be unique.   
      
   > Or do you even give fuck as long as   
   > you get paid?   
      
   I'm not getting paid, but, that aside, yes, this is not a question I find   
   particularly interesting.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)