Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
because the roman army was on permanent conquest elsewhere.Citation please.
Overexpansion and military overspending
At its height, the Roman Empire stretched from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Euphrates River in the Middle East, but its grandeur may have also been its downfall. With such a vast territory to govern, the empire faced an administrative and logistical nightmare. Even with their excellent road systems, the Romans were unable to communicate quickly or effectively enough to manage their holdings. Rome struggled to marshal enough troops and resources to defend its frontiers from local rebellions and outside attacks, and by the second century the Emperor Hadrian was forced to build his famous wall in Britain just to keep the enemy at bay. As more and more funds were funneled into the military upkeep of the empire, technological advancement slowed and Rome’s civil infrastructure fell into disrepair. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It would be easier and more convincing to cite the readily available migration statistics away from violent urban centers where criminal rehabilitation conducted by the State has failed spectacularly.
citation please
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Labor monopolies are not fair to independent workers struggling to get into a profession, and are also very costly to the general public.
TRIANGLE-SHIRTWAIST
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The barbarians simply waltzed into a largely undefended empire towards the end.
because the roman army was on permanent conquest elsewhere
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The "small government" conservatives speak of spends trillions bombing civillians abroad. Why is spending the money fixing real problems worse?
to be fair, BOTH "republicans" and "democrats" have increased military spending at every opportunity
"congress" is simply a game where players compete for subsidies and federal contracts (and legislation to "protect" their donors)
the players who can "bring home the most bacon" are considered "good politicians" who "support their districts
the scope of the federal government is completely out-of-bounds (relative to the united states constitution)
federal taxes are basically like insurance payments
the money goes into a pool
and individuals (states) compete for the pool by making claims
the largest contributors rarely get back as much as they put in
the smallest contributors rarely get back less than they put in
to many, this seems "unfair"
but the alternative is to basically, abolish the insurance company (that way the rich states never have to pay for the poor states)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
or re-edit the species.Bingo. You can't gaslight human nature or millions of years of evolutionarily biology.
funny enough, we are already "domesticating ourselves"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
in other words regressing back a century or two
it appears Benjamin is NOT in favor of "regressing back a century or two"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
just for gun purchases ?
why not for all purchases ?
Created:
Posted in:
And I think if I put someone on ban they shouldn't be able to read my posts.
then we agree - - the original proposal was a MUTUAL-MUTE
i suspect i know what my proposal was better than anyone else
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
And how would society stop greater alliances or more powerful entities from dominating the smaller, weaker and less powerful?
by removing incentives
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Whether or not the existence of those bodies is morally just has no bearing on the fact that they do exist,
i'm going to hazard a guess that you never consider changing things that "do exist"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I disagree with you that an inconsistent application of premises renders it subject to inconsistency and therefore subsequent moral insignificance.
(IFF) your version of "morality" is inconsistently applied (THEN) your "morality" dissolves into "whim"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
and I'm sure you've been presented with many, many examples of abhorrent things you have to defend to remain logically consistent
you're jumping to conclusions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
The entire purpose of law enforcement / government / societies that people choose to live in and to associate with is to uphold policies with positive consequences and not just a unilateral principle of self-ownership or property.
unfortunately "positive consequences" is certainly NOT what current policy is focused on
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Should a 3 year old be allowed to have a permanent
parents have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best-interest of the (citizen) children they have voluntarily taken under their care
up to and until that child is legally considered an adult
this does not "violate self-ownership" and it certainly does not "violate the non-aggression-principle"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Why can't a principle have limits and leave room for nuance or gradation, at least as far as governance within a society goes?
because that would turn a "principle" into a "suggestion"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I repeat, the NAP is not valuable to me regarding U.S. law.
don't start a fight ?
don't invade a peaceful country ?
isn't an "unprovoked attack" universally frowned upon ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
it's almost like you've never heard of the BROAD-BRUSH fallacy
Created:
Posted in:
I mean there was at some point a policy being thrown out that people should be able to be shadowbanned by the site and nobody would be able to read any of their posts
the proposal was - - posts would be hidden from people who have blocked that specific user
for example
since you have blocked me, you wouldn't be able to see any of my posts
including this one
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Socialist utopias neither exist, nor work, because everyone is not equal.
employee owned businesses do exist
Created:
Boy this whole atheist lying thing is at a whole new level this week. Let's quote a post and then say it says something it doesn't you're being dishonest even with shit that's in black and white. Fucking disgusting.
if you want to know what a gnostic believes, try asking an actual gnostic, heck, ask ten
you might get ten different answers
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
just goes to show how minor differences in people lead to conflictMaybe, a multicultural society isnt best
Rwanda was not "multi-cultural"
But many observers would be surprised to learn that the longstanding conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis has nothing to do with language or religion—they speak the same Bantu tongues as well as French and generally practice Christianity—and many geneticists have been hard-pressed to find marked ethnic differences between the two, though the Tutsi have generally been noted to be taller.
Many believe that German and Belgian colonizers tried to find differences between the Hutu and Tutsi in order to better categorize native peoples in their censuses. [**]
also, Sicilians have no problem finding reasons to kill each other, even if they look the same and speak the same and go to the same church.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Gnostics are a gap religion between monotheism and polytheism. They believe in this one true secret God out there beyond the universe that nobody could know and never really created anything. And they believe Christ served that god and not the god of Abraham. They believe the other gods are real and you can work through them to get the best one true God that's for some reason hiding out beyond the edge of the universe. They also are heavily influenced by psychology there's a lot of Jungian concepts and there's a lot of alchemy and a occult concepts. The major arcana in the tarot that was developed by Crowley, the Fool's journey, is sort of based on the Gnostic journey. They also believe that there is a divine feminine aspect tied to the divine masculine. They're more of don't follow religious rules follow spiritual practices kind of thing which makes me believe he's not a gnostic at all because he engages from what I can tell in no spiritual practice whatsoever. It sounds to me like he has been influenced by psychologist who was trying to let him keep his Christian religious aspects intact that he liked but getting rid of those stuff he didn't like. Because he only speaks to certain concepts within the religion and not all the other stuff as a matter of fact he tends to turn down his nose to a lot of the other stuff so I don't know how he thinks he can practice one aspect of the religion but not the others. But either way I'm pretty sure he's just somebody who also has another account here because of the way he posts are too familiar with another poster and this is just a way for him to beat up on Christians but say he's a theist. But a lot of the Masons and other ceremonial magical practices including Crowley's Thelma are based off Gnostic texts. And Thelma is the basis for Wicca which was developed in the 50s/60s.
a gnostic is simply someone who has "seen the light" for themselves
there are a lot of different metaphors and stories and charts and graphs that may or may not be "useful" in describing "the light"
these gnostic metaphors and stories and charts and graphs are not "doctrine" or "dogma" like in most other religions (although people who subscribe to doctrine and dogma often mistake gnostic text for doctrine and dogma)
the cornerstone of gnosticism is the individual experience of "direct knowledge"
there are no priests or prophets
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
i'm pretty sure this is just a provocative thought-experiment
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
every citizen should receive either direct or indirect benefits from their government
that's the whole point of having a government in the first place
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Also, if you’re willing to expand your point in this direction, the question I have is: where does it end? If contribution or lack thereof should dictate whether someone gets access to their voting rights, then anyone who dodges the tax system should be subject to the same standard. Just because subsidies and welfare checks are more obvious doesn’t mean that the buck should stop with them. Of course, now we’re getting to the point where the vast majority of people, up to and including most if not all job creators, wouldn’t have a voice in elections. Still, if the goal is to not be arbitrary in this, then that’s a necessary consequence.
this would also seem to exclude elected officials and those employed by branches of government, like the FAA and post-office
and probably corporations who receive the majority of their funds from government contracts (like lockheed-martin)
Created:
-->
@Lemming
You deal in facts as you see it,They deal in facts as they see it.
AXIOMS
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
True not all atheists think that way.Then you’re not talking about atheism.
bingo
Created:
Posted in:
You're free to be a liar too cuz everybody knows it's not the goddamn people who like to eat steak out protesting in front of places that sell steak. It's not people who like to eat fish putting up signs about Jeffrey Dahmer eating fish is like eating a human. So you go ahead and lie like the rest of them it's okay we really don't expect anything else from you people.
uh, wow
i don't personally know any of these people, and i think that's the point
not all vegetarians ARE EXACTLY THE SAME
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Make no mistake, the poor already have virtually no representation in government. Do we want to expand the influence of the rich by excluding millions more?
100% THIS
Created:
Posted in:
Funny comparing atheists to vegetarians cuz they both go around basically looking for people that engage in an activity they're not interested in engaging in and telling them they're f****** assholes for it.
i've known a few vegetarians personally, and i've never heard any of them call other people "f***** a******"
i have seen them incessantly harassed by self-described "carnivores" though
Created:
-->
@imdancin
The mother is the danger to the child who can't speak up as he/she is being killed.
imagine living in a country where, if your child reported that you spanked them, the state would be obligated to place them in foster care
Created:
-->
@imdancin
But then the pro-choice/abort side uses careful language to sound more kill friendly.
doesn't it seem a little strange to you that the "pro-life" team is also overwhelmingly "pro-war" and "pro-death-penalty" and "anti-welfare" and "anti-LGBTQ+" ?
doesn't it seem a little strange to you that the "pro-choice" team is overwhelmingly "anti-war" and "anti-death-penalty" and "pro-welfare" and "pro-LGBTQ+" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
Not accepting A as true isn't the same as accepting Not-A as true.
exactly
it's like claiming "all non-stamp-collectors don't believe exactly the same things, therefore their non-habit of non-stamp-collecting is an incoherent non-worldview"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It's been my experience that Vegetarians love to show up to religious threads. They get to have their say. They get to destroy their opponents. They get to prove how cool they are in the world of philosophy.
But this is why I say they are cowards. Because they are afraid to reveal what they believe. For instance, what do Vegetarians believe?
Nothing. One common doctrine. Don't eat meat. An argument based on a personal preference. That is it. Nothing else. We are not allowed to know what else they believe - because there is no common factor.
Hence why Vegetarians are COWARDS. They criticize - but without fear of being criticized. That is not criticism. That is safe ground. Bogus. really.
Are there more doctrines for the Vegetarian than don't eat meat? No. nary a one. LOL! laughable. And weak. Cowardly really. there is no other words that can account for this state of being. A worldview - that is not really a worldview - a position - that is not really a position - a statement that allows no criticism. Imagine if we tried to apply to that any religion? It would be laughed out of the stadium. that is why the Vegetarian is cowardly. One rule for them.
My view is that only people with worldviews should be allowed to contribute in a religious forum. A Vegetarian ought be rejected unless they can provide a worldview to be considered. Unless this occurs - then there is no basis of comparing and contrasting. There is no basis for conversation.
Unless an Vegetarian is able to come up with a worldview - then the Vegetarian's opinions ought not be welcome.
We should not be permitted to criticize others unless we have something alternative to offer. Vegetarians have nothing to offer - of their own admission - so why ought we subject to ANY of their criticisms. By admitting they have no other doctrines, they admit they use religious doctrines to live their lives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
What 'qualifies as a race?
some think it means skin color
some think it means culture
some think it means language
some think it means religion
some think it means the relative geographic scope of your great grandparent's birthplace
in the united states, they send you a piece of paper every ten years
and you get to self-define
and there is no guideline included
and there is no cross-check verification
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
wouldn't punish people for criminal and wrong actions of corporations
it seems pretty obvious they do not punish corporations for criminal action
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
you quoted in my text and didn't care to speech about anything else in it.
that was the specific claim i found interesting
Created:
-->
@Novice
This is great. I am glad to see attempts twoards illegalization seeing as abortion should be illegal from conception.
prepare to be giddy
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Would that baby be arrested for trespassing?
that would be a decision for the land-owner
unless of course there was a city ordinance against camping in that area
in which case, it would be up to the discretion of the neighbors
but they'd likely be more inclined to help an infant than an adult (because of human instinct)
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
They do significantly more for our institutions than anyone else for making them possible to exist.
including union-busting
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Pro Life view,A baby, moments from being born, is a member of society,
Pro Life view,
a homeless person is a criminal if they setup a tent on public land
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I don't think that Pro Lifers want a future without privacy,
both republicans and democrats have been moving towards a "zero-privacy" goal-line
the fact that no meaningful reforms or prosecutions have resulted from the edward snowden revelations demonstrates public complacency on the subject
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Take Typhoid Mary,
great example
(IFF) there is strong evidence that an individual is a danger to society (THEN) that danger must be mitigated
this is within the scope of the function of government
Created:
-->
@Lemming
i very much appreciate your perspective on this situation
the "abortion = murder" is actually quite a compelling argument to most
but it's hard to "dial that back" at all
so i guess we should all settle in
for a future without privacy
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Yet most of the argument on the site that I've noticed, has been Pro Choicer's saying killing a baby moments before birth is fine.
i think the pro-choicer argument is "abortion is terrible and shocking and disgusting"
but
the choice is 100% the mother's choice
the government
and your neighbors
have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS telling a pregnant woman she is somehow FORCED to carry a pregnancy to term
the government is ONLY supposed to resolve disputes between citizens
if your neighbor has an abortion, it causes you no HARM - - it does not make the woman "a danger to society"
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I still don't see the need for in-vitro fertilization?
4 million IVF births a year in the united states alone.
it's a fertility treatment for couples who are unable to have an "unassisted" pregnancy
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Maybe we don't need in-vitro fertilization?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports about 4 million births per year in the U.S., meaning 1 to 2 percent of all U.S. births annually are via IVF.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Who else is interested in overturning Roe V Wade?
only the "pro-life" + "abortion = murder" team wants to change the status-quo
Created: