3RU7AL

Not even sure why three is brought up. The mods have said if you pm them they will discuss the details of any banning. Even before it happens. 

I had to check out the vid to see how PGA could think CS Lewis was a materialistic atheist!   Having watched it, I am even more at a loss to see how PGA could think CS Lewis was a materialistic atheist.    I think he must have watched the wrong video.

One is a working hypothesis based on independently verifiable data and constantly seeking refinement in order to maximize efficacy.

It is based on an interpretation of the past from the present, using what is available to us in the present supposing that the present is the key to the past. 

And the other is a dogmatic story, immune to criticism, written down by people who couldn't figure out electricity.

Yours is just as dogmatic.

It uses the man and his limited mental capacity as the measure.

The Bible has been exposed to more criticism than perhaps any other writings in history.

Prophecy is logical and reasonable to believe. 

An atheist starts from a position without God and builds a worldview around that position. When something does not fit it is left on the backburner. 

A non-commital deist is simply not sure of what he believes. 

Good luck shadowboxing with your imaginary "atheist materialist" straw-man.

C.S. Lewis IS A CHRISTIAN.  He never argues in favor of atheism @ 8:45--> or at any other point in the video.

C.S. Lewis was not always a Christian. He describes reluctantly coming to the realization of its truths. 

I am not an "atheist materialist".  I AM A DEIST.  Please try again.  - Not A Materialist

Then you need to examine what kind of deist you are. What kind of deist, BTW? Are you a Buddhist, an Eastern Oriental deist, a New Age deist, a monotheistic deist,  or don't you know?

there are already anti-harassment laws right?  so this law isn't needed because it's already law.  

The law implies that healthcare workers engage in this kind of behavior often enough that a special and unique law is needed to protect those people.  Employers don't educate or discipline employees adequately and consistently so this law is needed.

Respect and dignity are real issues in l.t.c. facilities but rather than focus on that and include everyone they decided to pander to a very small select group.  Don't you wonder why?  should be as plain as the nose on your face.

If this truly is a problem then there are much bigger issues in California.  Maybe California has a disproportionate number of sickos that would engage in this kind of behavior, I'd believe that.

But let's be real here, they don't really care about protecting patients otherwise they would protect them all equally and to the best the law will allow.  Working with employers, encouraging, supporting and enabling them to provide the best care possible for everyone in their facilities.

my stance is everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, period.  No one group should be treated better, have special rights, attention, whatever because that is NOT treating everyone the same.

If someone is "willfully and repeatedly" uses words that a person in a l.t.c. facility finds harassing the Employer should deal with it to make it stop, if that fails then the state should step in and look at the individual situation and remedy it.  Anonymous reporting has been a thing in the states I have lived/worked in since I can remember (and I'm old).  If these remedies are not available in California there are much bigger issues going on there wouldn't you say?  why shouldn't all patients in l.t.c. facilities enjoy the same protections?  

with the numerous people I have address over many, many years, even those with gender issues, not once have I ever referred to them face to face by a pronoun, language just doesn't work that way, nor has this ever happened to me.

Can you give me an example of how a conversation like that would take place?  Hello she/he/it, how may I help you?  yeah that just doesn't happen.

The E.M.R. I use has the ability to add preferred names.  But when you first identify/verify the person it must be with the legal name.  Any medication, specimens whatever must also be labeled with the legal name for obvious reasons.  In casual conversation you can use their preferred name though the instances for that occurrence is extremely rare.  It should be obvious that some tests and procedures are sex specific and must be that way.

What's interesting imo and never thought much about it but I've seen P.O.C. on tv refer to others as male/female, it makes a lot of sense and we should just do that, problem solved.

In the real world, the employee who harasses their wards will be fired before they are ever charged with violation of this particular law.

in the real world people are fired before the law would even apply.  so firing isn't enough for you?

The question is whether it is your worldview or mine that is superstitious. Are you involved in the fairy tale or are we. (Once upon a time, billions and billions of years again the universe exploded into existence...)

I love it when an aristocratic British voice is used to appeal the minds of the unsuspecting with a worldview that makes no sense - stupidity, IMO.

Such a worldview springs/originates from a mindless, unreasoning universe. Why would you think we would be able to find reason and knowledge in such a universe? There would be no rhyme nor reason for its existence, no intent or logic behind it. Somehow you have to manufacture how we humans arrive at such knowledge and reason from inanimate, uncaring, mindless matter as if we could. And when the evidence does not line up with the preclusion it is put aside as, "science does not have the answer yet, but we are getting close." The gods of materialism are science and the human mind as the ultimate. There are many theories as to how we arrived at the present, but which idea is the true belief? Humanism, secularism, materialism, scientism can't disprove God, just deny Him with all kinds of sophistry. It makes up morality that is constantly evolving so that we can never know which view is absolutely right and best. Best can never be arrived at. It is driven by those who control the majority or by a select aristocracy or oligarchy or dictatorship that decides what the rules will be, as pointed out in your video @ 4:21-5:06. Does the materialist view fit the "real universe"? The video smuggles in qualitative values without a set or final reference point. Thus values become nothing more than relative shift views that are used to influence the masses to the desired purpose that does not matter in the greater scheme of things because there is no greater scheme. So, it marginalizes and devalues the Christian view with purposeful demonizing and belittling language, such as @ 8:45--> where it suggests it is the Christian who is in the state of dishonest error, and that this dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions, with certain shiftiness and a vague worry in the backgrounding resulting in a blunting of his whole mental edge with a loss of intellectual virginity. What a load of malarky and propaganda with the claim that intellectual honesty has sunk to an all-time low (based on what?) for those who believe in God while the atheist takes the moral high ground - moral and high according to their manufactured ideas of good which is changing and shifting. 

I do not see him as someone to be reasoned with. 

did I not give a definition of harassment?  post #101

the law giving certain people extra protections (or extra penalties) when those protections already exist is ok with you?  do you like to be pandered to?  do you believe in equal justice under law?

how about harassing people with disabilities do we need specific laws for that?  no one seemed to care too much when that douche on snl made fun of the wounded vet who lost an eye? 

Can I do the same to the people of this law and say it's ok because I'm being funny?  how do we draw these lines?

How many times qualify as “repeatedly” how do you prove "willfully" have you ever made the same mistake more than once?  twice?  what's the number?

one of the huge issues I have with all of this is the inconsistency with enforcement and application, so if you factor that in with everything i said it should be pretty plain I think.

I thought it was clear my opinion is this law is stupid, unconstitutional, not needed and just political pandering.  Everything I have said should reflect that, I meant it to reflect that anyway.Just because I wouldn't conduct myself in the examples given doesn't mean the government has the right and authority to force compliance by force.  Free speech is need to protect speech you don't like.  If protecting free speech means protecting that with which I don't agree or even like, that is a price we should all be willing to pay.

but getting back to the point, with the examples, laws etc I've given do you think I'm wrong that this law was never needed because laws already cover the described situations and much more?  I guess you do as you never challenged or acknowledged what I have said.

- If artificial womb technology increases(which is inevitable) to the extent that from conception, a woman could cheaply and safely relocate the fetus into an artificial womb, therefore any pain the woman endures during pregnancy can be solved with renting an artificial womb.

so is it the words or the actions that constitute harassment?  

you don't see the stupidity and complete absurdity of this law?

From OP, "The law of California states that anyone who deliberately and repeatedly misgenders someone will get up to 1 year in imprisonment." - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1211?page=1&post_number=1

California health care workers who “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient's “preferred name or pronouns” could face punishments ranging from a fine to jail time under a newly signed law.

Among the unlawful actions are “willfully and repeatedly” failing to use a transgender person’s “preferred name or pronouns” after he or she is “clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.”

The law states that if provisions are violated, the violator could be punished by a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars” or “by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both. - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-california-law-allows-jail-time-for-using-wrong-gender-pronoun-sponsor-denies-that-would-happen

1. Should DART moderation be able to punish users for sever misconduct which occurs on the site's discord?

2. Should there be a public ban log?

3. Should COC-violating conduct be deleted?

Yet, what I am telling you is a truth you can confirm.

LOL you don't think speeches by M.L.K. weren't seen as disruptive by some?  How about protests?  Lots of those seem pretty disruptive but where they criminal acts?  Is being disruptive a crime?  Doesn't seem it is, a call to action and actual violence is, actual immediate threats are, generally.

If I'm in one of these "no profanity" zones and I say I think you are an effing moron (but use the real word) do I have freedom of speech to express my opinion as I want without being free of morality laws?

If I say to a tranny "you still look like a man to me" and we get into a back and forth because he is trying to convince me otherwise, could I be convicted under this law if we are in a ltc facility?

when was the last time you called or someone called you he/she/it etc to your face rather than addressing you by your name or not using any kind of pronoun at all?

In all the conversations you've had here how often has that happened? ever?  

if you identify as an attack helicopter and want to be referred as such, how would that work? 

would I have to use that term every time I addressed you?

I would go a step further and say that because you are against The Orthodox Church, your interpretation would always be suspect. Really, it is our book to interpret.

many civil rights leaders gave very disruptive speeches.

If I claimed to know the one, true interpretation of the ancient holy scriptures, (illuminated by an angelic messenger) would you believe me?

No, unless what you said was logically consistent with the biblical revelation, and once you put in the caveat emptor "illuminated by an angelic messenger" I would be doubly cautious of anything you said.

Joseph Smith did not claim to be God. His followers never claimed to see him alive after his death. His teaching contradicts the Bible.

I thought this was a discussion forum and that is what we were doing, you are very confusing.  Or is it you don't have an answer for the links and quotes and this is your way of giving up.

If you believe it does not qualify as "fighting words" then you have no reason to protest.  It should just fix itself.

no reason to protest unconstitutional laws?  hmm that a very peculiar thing to say.

The original fighting words doctrine was born out of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted of disturbing the peace for yelling at a local sheriff, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist” and for further remarking, “the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, creating a narrow category of speech—“fighting words”—that did not enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. The fighting words doctrine, as originally announced in Chaplinsky, found that two types of speech were not protected—words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace. [LINK]

We are at the top of the slide. If you don't have the faith to go down the slide, you are never going to know what it is like to experience going down the slide.

Are you taking this discussion seriously, or are you simply using this as a way of mocking?

I am personally having trouble believing that you are being honest, but I will at least take your word for it. If I am wasting my time and efforts trying to help you understand, plesse tell me.

...but you never see them getting arrested?

Honesty = Truth = Fact = Indisputable = Verifiable = Quantifiable.

This is not true

If a statement is disputable, it may be Sincere, but it is not True

This is an admission that the above statement is not true.

I have said before that "Brahman" might be an appropriate translation of God in India. Likewise, Tao might be an appropriate translation of God in China.

The concepts mean the same thing even if maybe they are understood differently in these diverse cultural manifestations.

But to clarify the first question, can you quantify honesty?

1. Citizenship shall not be given until birth, legal protection is to be given from conception. If a woman did not know she was pregnant and drank, she would not be in violation of the law.

2. My point is that sperm and eggs are not beings. None of what you said changes my point.

Quanitify success?

Can you quantify integrity?

I do not say that god= YHWH

I say that God = YHWH

Because believe it or not, "The Ultimate Reality" is a legit English translation of that name.

It isn't that I can't explain, it is that my explaining would be in vain!

Everything that I am saying is obviously true, but that won't stop people from struggling!

If The Ultimate Reality is God, God exists.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

An impure heart(nous) is going to be perverse in all its perceptions and reasonings.

Purify the heart(nous) in order to perceive clearly and have discernment!

And the heart is not purified by man's effort alone, but by the grace of God and the cooperation of man.(synergy)

god = "YHWH"

The spirit of socialism is the idea that if you don't have anything but somebody else does, there is nothing wrong about robbing them.

Um, no.  You are mistaking faux-socialism for the real thing.

A definition of faith according to Merriam-webster....

"something that is believed especially with strong conviction"

Facts very often times play an essential role in believing something with strong conviction.

For example, me accepting God as a fact helps me have faith in the discipline of purifying the heart.

The spirit of socialism is the idea that if you don't have anything but somebody else does, there is nothing wrong about robbing them.

You speak without understanding. You are arguing against purifying the heart not because you know better. 

Even persecuted by the heretics you mentioned.

The waterslide exists. You are telling the child from atop a cliff with a hundred foot sheer drop that it's a waterslide.

Socialism does not exist independent of capitalism. They are not opposites.

Historically socialism has always mutated into totalitarianism.