Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Those verses use the word "slave" in the ancient Hebrew context.
Citation please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Those verses do not say slaves would not be paid.
Do you understand the difference between an INDENTURED SERVANT and a FOREIGN SLAVE?
An INDENTURED SERVANT is a person who is working off a DEBT.
A FOREIGN SLAVE is a person who is owned as PROPERTY.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Thanks for sharing. But that was an "epiphany" for you?
Yeah, because some time after that I realized "NOUMENON" is logically necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What personal feeling or opinion are you influenced by when you consider and represent the shape of the earth? Because I don’t believe their is one.
Why do you care what shape the earth is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How can a non-human "consider" and "represent" "facts"?They can’t, I forgot to highlight the broader definition which is “not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.”
It is impossible to describe (and therefore impossible to make any statements or claims about) some "thing" that "is not dependent on the mind for existence; actual".
For example,
Before anyone can declare that some "thing" "exists", it must be verifiable and verification requires a mind.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I do agree with medical records being private - and with doctor to patient confidentiality. I think mostly that medical privacy is a good thing. There are somethings that are none of anyone else's business.
I'm glad we can agree on this.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I also think that the logic you draw from a person giving money for charitable and good faith reasons to becoming a de-facto terrorist is flawed.
Fair enough.
I borrowed it from an "anti-terrorism" television commercial.
I reasoned that you can't really buy anything without indirectly supporting some brutal dictator or mean spirited person or unsafe working environment somewhere.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Allocating it for something else - is simply mirrors and shadows.
Ok, so why did you suggest you didn't think "your tax dollars" should help pay for feminine healthcare?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
How often does someone drunk driving cause a fatality or injury when it is done? If it’s very frequent, then drunk driving should be banned since the odds are too high. But if one million people drunk drive and it causes only 1 death(and it’s an average of all drunk driving incidents), then I’d support legalizing drunk driving. Odds of death matter.
This meta-analysis summarized the available, high quality literature to date on the relationship between acute alcohol consumption and death from motor vehicle accidents. At all levels of consumption, the odds of dying in a motor vehicle crash were significantly higher than for zero alcohol consumption, and were approximately 13 times higher at the current legal limit of BAC = 0.08. The policy implications of this are obvious – at this BAC, the risk is simply too high and efforts to lower the legal limit while operating a motor vehicle must be increased based on this available evidence. There is clear evidence that, upon a reduction in the legal limit from BAC = 0.10 to 0.08 reduced fatal accidents in the US (Hingson et al., 1996a, Hingson et al., 1996b), but the implications from this report would call for even more drastic measures, to 0.05, or even lower, particularly in younger drivers, who appear to be at the most risk based on single studies (Zador et al., 2000). [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Well, when I was a tiny tot, I encountered someone who thought they were really smart. I hammered them with objections and expletives and magnificently subtle sarcasm. This went on for days, I don't know, weeks, maybe even months until I finally reached the core of their philosophy. The lynchpin. And it was something they called, "NOUMENON". I gasped in amazement. THAT IS THE ABSOLUTELY MOST NON-SENSICAL, IRRATIONAL, INSANE CONCEPT I'VE EVER HEARD OF. ARE YOU EVEN SERIOUS?
I laughed myself nearly to death and then never spoke to them again.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Do you believe the government should have the power to compel a company to do business with someone they don't want to?
Yes.
Public companies can't pick and choose which customers they wish to serve on a whim.
There must be some procrustean standard that applies to all customers.
For example,
The exception to this would be PRIVATE CLUBS.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Other than that, Amazon doesn't have to host any app they don't want to.
Apparently.
Too big to jail.
Angry conservatives should abandon all AMAZON hosted apps and services immediately.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
but the automobile companies have no way they could have known or prevented that since they have no ongoing ownership of, or relationship to, their car.
Any vehicle with an onstar system can be remotely disabled by the manufacturer.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Do you believe that people who support medical privacy (for every human being on the planet earth) ARE "indirectly killing people"?I honestly still do not know what you are talking about? Please explain.
Medical Privacy.
Privacy of medical records.
Doctor to patient confidentiality.
Do you support Medical Privacy (philosophically) in principle?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
So no more taxes then - at all.
Perhaps the amount of your tax could stay the same no matter what, but you could check off a list of things you DON'T want "your money" to be used for.
For example, if you don't want to pay for prisons, then perhaps more of "your money" would be allocated for education or something else.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
But if you are asking whether I take the view that paying taxes is tantamount to paying for people to be killed
The argument is basically, (iff) you give money to a charity (or a government), (and) that charity gives money to poor people in a poor country (and) those poor people in a poor country give aid to people with guns who don't like foreigners with guns telling them what to do ("terrorists"), (then) you're a de facto terrorist.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
If a WAR is necessary then it ought to be privately funded.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't think that public monies ought to be ever used for things I disagree with, like WAR.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
And why would a health fund be killing people directly or indirectly?
A health fund indirectly kills anyone they "could have" helped but didn't help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I argued that because they all participated in the actual riot
Number one, it was a protest.
Number two, not everyone at the protest committed a crime.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
revoke parlor's access to their play store.
I actually agree with you on that part.
The "problem" is with AMAZON canceling their hosting without 30 days notice.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I never questioned that. I asked if these products were used to spread their sedition.
Yes. Without automobiles (and or water and or electricity), these dirty rotten scoundrels would have never been able to make it to the Capital Building to perform their evil deeds.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
And twitter isn't banning parler.
AMAZON is banning parler.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The law determines what is and isn't a crime.
So, we should simply arrest every (suspected) criminal and give them their day in court.
Not everyone who was at the protest committed crimes.
Not everyone who cheered them on while watching "the news" is guilty-by-association.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Would you consider drunk-driving to be "victimless"?No. The victim is the person that the drunk driver killed or injured.
Cripes.
DRUNK DRIVING DOESN'T ALWAYS LEAD TO MANSLAUGHTER.
Would you consider drunk-driving (that specifically does not kill or injure anyone) to be "victimless"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
because they all supported the action
Simply believing the election was "stolen" cannot make you guilty of a crime.
THIS IS THOUGHT POLICING.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Govt "IS" the very definition of organized crime and the ones at the top get all their minions to do their dirty work. If there ever was a solid case for applying the ricco act the US federal govt fits the bill to a tee.
Too bad the MOBSTERS are also running the court system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not sure it's fair to BROAD-BRUSH all of the participants as "violent".
Many protests are marked by "violence".
For example, I would not blame all "BLM" (or even their "leaders" and or "organizers") for the targeted police assassinations that happened at their protests.
For example, I would not blame all "anti-globalists" for the arson and general havoc that happened at their protests.
INDIVIDUALS may have made credible threats that constitute "criminal behavior".
INDIVIDUALS may have built and deployed illegal weapons.
Sure, those allegations should be investigated and the individuals involved should be treated the same as any individual accused of such crimes.
But attempting to invalidate every single "MAGAHAT" as some sort of "domestic terrorist" is seriously problematic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
WORDS AND SYMBOLS ARE INHERENTLY MEANINGLESS.
WORDS AND SYMBOLS ARE UNDEFINED VARIABLES.
WE BRAINWASH PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING THAT CERTAIN WORDS AND SYMBOLS MEAN SPECIFIC THINGS.
RULE #1: DON'T SCARE THE SHEEPS
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
...elevate the word as magical or imbued with more power than other words.
Ok, so basically you're giving the word power (by using it) in order to not give it power (by not using it).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you support, generally, the kind of thing they did - but not this one. Why do you specifically disagree with this one?
("not-support") =/= ("disagree")
I think it is very reasonable for people to believe the election was perhaps fraudulent (I personally don't think this particular election was any more fraudulent than any other).
I think it is very reasonable for people to push barricades and physically clash with police (this is almost the very definition of "protest").
I think it is very reasonable for people to enter government buildings as part of a protest (just like the HONG KONG protesters, just like Native American protesters, just like civil rights and anti-war protesters and anti-pipeline protesters).
Here's a good example (August 8th 2020),
Dozens of Lebanese protesters have stormed the buildings of a number of government ministries and the headquarters of the country’s banking association channeling their rage against state and financial institutions after the huge blast that killed over 160. [LINK]
So, it seems, "the news" calls people they like "protesters" and people they don't like "terrorists" and or "insurgents".
Dozens of violent Lebanese terrorists have stormed the buildings of a number of government ministries and the headquarters of the country’s banking association indiscriminately lashing out against state and financial institutions after the huge blast that killed over 160.
See the difference?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Do you believe that people who support medical privacy (for every human being on the planet earth) ARE "indirectly killing people"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm curious, do you support the sedition that happened at the capitol? Do you think it equates with BLM protests? Do you think it was the right thing for the wrong reasons? I wanna hear your take, since I'm getting mixed vibes.
I do not personally "support" these specific protests under discussion.
I VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT THE FREEDOM TO PROTEST (GENERALLY).
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Top 4 twitter alternatives,
Mastodon
Gab
Amino
Peeks
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Even then, it is post by post decisions, not a unilateral banning decision.
Good point.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Forcing Twitter to accept a member to its user base would violate this.
Presumably unless that blocked person happened to be a member of a "protected class".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
They act as a collective and under the Ricco act all of them should be arrested and tried for sedition and treason.
RICO Law, or the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,” is a law that allows the government to punish individuals associated with criminal activity, specifically the leaders of crime organizations. Before RICO law existed, crime bosses would order their minions to carry out crimes for them, and claim innocence if the police found out.
Their argument was that, technically, no one could prosecute them for crimes like murder because they weren’t the ones doing the killing. The RICO Law made it possible for the police to arrest even the leaders of crime organizations.
Initially, the government passed RICO Law as a way to control the Mafia. However, in recent years, authorities have applied RICO law to more cases, allowing it to have more of a widespread effect. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Would you consider drunk-driving to be "victimless"?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
are criminals using water and electricity to spread treason and sedition? I don't think so.
I'm pretty certain at least some of the evil parler users also use evil water and evil electricity.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
THE ENTIRE POINT OF SECTION 230 IS TO MAKE THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR WORDS AND NOT THE HOST.why are you bringing up section 230? This isn't a government rule or law. This is exactly what the right has always said they want. The free market making decisions. It has decided sedition is bad. It has decided not to allow their products to be used to spread sedition. You got exactly what you asked for.
Let's see.
Would you call the picture of Kathy Griffin holding up the severed head of the sitting president "sedition"?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
again, cars aren't being used to spread treason. Parlor is.
I'm pretty certain at least some of the evil parler users also drive evil automobiles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Your use of the word BAN suggest a legal prohibition but I don't think its illegal to say that word anyplace in America or should be. There will always be social sanctions for breaking the rules of any society but that is not a legal prohibition.
Why did you feel compelled to type the word out?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
considering and representing facts
How can a non-human "consider" and "represent" "facts"?
How can a human "consider" and "represent" "facts" without being "influenced by personal feelings or opinions"?
Why would you consider one "fact" and not some other "fact"?
Are you suggesting your attention itself (and sample-bias) is not "influenced by personal feelings or opinions"?
Why do you find certain things "interesting"?
Why do you find certain things "not-interesting"?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful.
hOWeVer,
The vague threat of (community) "boot-on-the-face" can go on forever.
5 MONKEYS EXPERIMENT,
SLAVERY WITH EXTRA STEPS,
Created:
-->
@Danielle
ANTIFA are the ones who caused a scene except that brave woman Ashli Babbitt who got shot dead. She wasn't ANTIFA but everyone else was. And all the other patriots that are promising to riot again in defense of Trump all over social media are also ANTIFA. See the media won't tell you that.
PROTESTER = TERRORIST
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
These companies know that allowing their platforms to be used by terrorists, traitors and murders is highly damaging to their brand.
Shouldn't we cut the phones, water, and electricity to all accused criminals?
Shouldn't VW, Toyota, GM, and Ford be able to disable their vehicles if they're being used by accused criminals?
THE ENTIRE POINT OF SECTION 230 IS TO MAKE THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR WORDS AND NOT THE HOST.
Created:
Posted in:
That's why I say imply. We can't know for sure but actions can give indications.
I wish I were as confident as you seem to be in your mind-reading abilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Objectivity has to do with facts, because all facts are objective.
What is your personally preferred definition of "objective"?
Created: