[Archive c 17.03.2008] Humour [Archive to 28.04.2012] - page 275
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
It would be a good idea to take this topic of conversation out of this thread. It might be useful to create a new one.
Yes, you're right. But it doesn't seem to make sense to create a new one. So, we exchanged opinions on the subject and so on. From here on, everyone makes his or her own choice.
And the fact that it was here, so you posted a link here. It must have been humour. I didn't get it either. :-)
--
Since the brand of the "Interior Ministry of the Russian Federation" is seriously (some experts say hopelessly) discredited, the merged agency should operate under the brand of the Russian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate - the Russian Law Enforcement Centre of the Moscow Patriarchate. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia will head the agency, which will move forward the long-awaited personnel reform in the former Interior Ministry. The position of the head of the united agency will have the full title "Minister of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation - Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate" and the abbreviation "Minister-Patriarch" (for the sake of convenience).
The most important meaning of such a reorganization is to assign the status of clergy to the staff of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and vice versa. Such a measure would quickly and dramatically change public attitudes to the domestic police system. Instead of shunning and/or harassing the police, Russians en masse will rush towards the new type of law enforcers, seeking their blessing, and will soon learn to kiss their hands. "Father, bless you!" - that will be the standard Russian address to a new kind of police officer.
--
... The new police will help to get rid of the term 'ment' which is unfortunately, ingrained in our language. The new police officer will be called 'cop' after the first two letters of the word 'cop' and the last two letters of the word 'cop', as seen in Hollywood films.
--
You should agree that "priest lawlessness" sounds qualitatively different from "cop lawlessness" -- this new kind of lawlessness reveals the potential infinity of mutual love between the people and the government.
--
The unification of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs will make it possible to introduce the "Electronic Confession" service everywhere and create a nationwide bank of confessional data accessible to authorized law enforcement agencies. The Unified Confession Server (USS) should probably be housed in the cathedral of the Skolkovo Innograd (Moscow region).
--
http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2010/090/09.html
PapaYozh:
...The post of the head of the united agency will have the full name - "Minister of Internal Affairs - Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate" and abbreviated (for general convenience) - "Minister Primate"...
"...Vicar of the Holy Order in the Region of Arkanar, bishop and battle master servant of God Reba!
It is not a question of the correctness of concepts, but, on the contrary, of incorrectness. This fellow's method is inadequate. Some name is taken, to which in science, or in philosophy, or in any other field, there corresponds quite a certain concept. Then this name is attributed a completely arbitrary meaning, which, you see, in the opinion of the author has this concept. And then the criticism begins, or the same arbitrary juggling with this meaning, or some other trick.
Nykhtilin's fierce battle with materialism illustrates this well. Starting from arrogant slapping of ancient Greek philosophers on their cheeks, shoulders and other places, a couple of vulgar jokes about Marx-Engels, through worthy of a magician replacement of the thesis "matter is primary" with the thesis "matter is eternal", invented by Nuchtilin himself concept ".real infinity", very evident finiteness of all existing from his point of view (by the way, in Nyukhtilin's world it seems to be so), mountain of nonsense about mathematics, he finally comes to absolutely incontestable conclusion - there cannot be anything infinite in reality! Neither in the sense of space, nor in the sense of time, nor in any other sense. So there is nothing eternal. And therefore matter cannot be eternal either. It cannot be at all.
That's the power of ordinary consciousness! Just like that, easily, right out of the sleeve, anything is always at your service. And all because all traditional (as he calls it) explanations, all efforts of his predecessors to refute materialism, turns out not to satisfy the author. Apparently because of their lack of evidentiary power. They were weak, those predecessors.
The only pity is that this thinker (with a capital 'ME') never asked himself a question: how is it that he, Nyuhtilin, so finite and definitely constituting only a part (rather insignificant) of the whole, takes it upon himself to prove something about the whole. For example, that it cannot be infinite. Simply it cannot, that's all. After all, he, Nykhtilin, cannot imagine such a thing, so it is so. And he doesn't care about Gödel.
And he doesn't care about Russell. So what if Russell said that there is no constructive way to prove or disprove the existence of God. And Nuchtilin, with only the force of his logical intellect, in just a few pages, between anecdotes and lies, without any philosophical tricks, natural scientific arguments or axiomatic constructions proved that there is no matter (in the sense as a primary source). That means there is a God!
And he does not care about common sense either. And common sense says - mind your own business, mind your own business. Nyukhtilin himself states this principle more than once in his book. One trouble - only in relation to other people. Alas, he himself does not follow it. This is his wrong notion of what he must do and how.
That may be so. But there is a clear contemptuous note in your words and a commonplace unwillingness to penetrate this "writing". The author, according to you, took the wrong job, well that's up to the author to decide what to do. The result is not humorous, and it can be treated differently. The easiest way is of course to scold.)))
I do not defend the author - he does not need it. And I'm not trying to argue - we do not need it. But this work deserves attention, and not because of its scandalousness, but for a worthy attempt to raise a huge layer of interconnected problems and questions of existence and our place in it. Of course it is easier not to think about it, because the great ones have already thought it over, so why even try. Much easier to quote and cherish them, and protect them from all sorts of scribblers)).
Here you call the author a liar ("between anecdotes and lies") - obviously, by the right of a person possessing the absolute truth of knowledge?)) After all, it is only from that position that one can make such a bold claim. Are you sure that you really know how it was? Of course, the author cannot know either, but he provides us with a version of events, a version of truth and his own perception of the world. He has the right.
Besides, speaking of creative method... Kandinsky, too, could draw, and draw people's faces "round", but no one has ever called him a liar for drawing square ones. And that is the easiest thing to do. Is Kandinsky's method adequate to your perception? )
I can't comment on Marx-Engels verbatim, I haven't studied it, but are you sure that you can't find the "matter is eternal" thesis on a good search? Do you know everything verbatim and have you studied the same works as the author who has collected more than a ton of literature for material? And is it necessary to dig? Logically, "matter is primary", therefore there was nothing before it, and no pre-existence, therefore "matter is eternal", since it exists at all. Can it be interpreted this way? Quite.
And no one knows the truth.
By the way, we should be discussing the original source, not the translated versions.
Gentlemen! Raise your hands if you have read Marx in the original.
I, for one, have not read it.
By the way, we should be discussing the original source, not the translated versions.
Gentlemen! Raise your hands if you've read Marx in the original.
I, for one, haven't read it.
Right!
What kind of opinion on architecture can a man without a residence permit have?