Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"Propriety" is your personally preferred latitude in any particular event or action; principle is fundamental.
great point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's also a common vehicle for those who seek to be socially correct in the eyes of a certain conservative haut monde.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Granted, I don't think calling someone a racist dehumanizes them
then, pray tell
what exactly is the point of such a designation (in your personal opinion) ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
so he cannot be called someone who committed perjury and obstruction of justice.
you can certainly make note of the fact that they were "impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice"
but strangely,
infidelity is NOT a federal crime
and this is fundamentally distinct from the question of self-identification
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid or Europid, Europoid) is an obsolete racial classification of human beings based on a now-disproven theory of biological race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Compared to the general public’s enthusiasm for ancestry testing, the reaction from scientists has been considerbly more lukewarm.
great point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
can we agree on what qualifies as a "good reason" to hate (dehumanize) someone ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
It would not change the end result
wait,
now you want to remove "motive" completely ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
and yet he was impeached for
perjury and obstruction of justice
Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (first article, 228–206) and obstruction of justice (third article, 221–212).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
My favorite food was not chosen by an objective/rational process, but choosing my favorite food isn't really the problem facing us.
your food preferences and your efforts to procure sustenance have moral implications
nobody has an "objective" opinion/preference/process
everything you call "rational" is in pursuit of some goal
we are capable of trading short-term pleasure/gain for longer-term pleasure/gain
but we don't often take action with the specific goal of making ourselves miserable and our lives feel meaningless
we do often call it "noble" to "sacrifice" our own (short-term) preferences for some perceived "greater good" or for a loved one
but even that is still fundamentally selfish and motivated by emotion (not "pure reason")
Created:
-->
@sadolite
"some more than others" That's your perception speaking
if you ask ten thousand business owners in india "does bribing government officials increase your likelihood for success?" and 75% of them say "hell yeahz"
and
if you ask ten thousand business owners in singapore "does bribing government officials increase your likelihood for success?" and 95% of them say "hell noez"
you probably have a much fairer system in singapore
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And the civil war was about states rights (to allow slavery for example)the two are not mutually exclusiveThe civil war was about states rights in the same way that Playboy Magazine is about art.
federal law was ONLY ever supposed to regulate INTER-state commerce
attacking states for breaking away from the union would be like russia attacking former soviet-union states for breaking away
or the european union attacking member-states who wish to withdraw from their union
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Its "your perception" that govt officials aren't receiving bribes and favors, that doesn't mean it isn't happening. All govts are oligarchies controlled by a few.
some more than others
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think that Jenner is particularly media shy.If one doesn't want people to know and consequently express opinions....Then one should keep ones gob shut.
just because one person decides to "go public" about how they "self-identify" doesn't mean the entire world is "fair-game"
and
it does nothing to change the fact that it is still their own choice and their own choice alone what they choose to call themselves
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
In order to truly tax the rich, all income taxes, including capital gains, would have to be abolished and replaced with wealth taxes.
it makes more sense to tax property than to tax income
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
aren't all (functional) forms of government essentially collectivism ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Misusing a word like racism under such circumstances, can be more telling of the person using it, than the one it is directed at.
in my experience
the accuser receives the overwhelming benefit-of-the-doubt
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
and yet through killing many people based on race there is no reason to doubt he was by definition racist.
perhaps that wasn't the only reason they had for killing people
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Calling someone a racist for acting racist, isn't very different from calling someone a Methodist for devote attendance at a Methodist church.
which you are generally going to know by ASKING THE INDIVIDUAL
it seems extremely unlikely that you would hire a private investigator to observe my physical whereabouts
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
We can't function as a society without ways to identify people; such as me calling you Brual, or you calling me Barney.
we refer to each other by our respective self-identifications
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Calling someone a racist for various racist actions, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a basic descriptor.
it's not exactly a "basic descriptor" if the entire definition is not QUANTIFIABLE
what we're dealing with here (namely "motive")
is beyond our epistemological limits
for example
i have personally had conflicts with my neighbor
luckily, we are both "of the same skin-tone"
but if my neighbor happened to have a different skin-tone than myself, we could each be accused of "racism"
not all conflicts between people of different skin-tones constitutes "racism"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And the civil war was about states rights (to allow slavery for example)
the two are not mutually exclusive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I'm curious what are everyone's favorite ways to determine if someone is (or is not) a racist?This keeps coming up in so many discussions; and while I doubt we'll ever have true consensus, I am interested in seeing the variety of answers.
only people who self-identify as "racists" can be called "racists"
in the same exact way that only people who self-identify as "methodists" can be called "methodists"
is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone for the color of their skin ?
or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone for their religious (or lack of religious) beliefs ?
or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone for their political (or lack of political) beliefs ?
or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone because of the clothes they wear ?
or is it somehow "more evil" to hate someone because of the food they eat ?
perhaps we can narrow this down a bit
can we agree on what qualifies as a "good reason" to hate (dehumanize) someone ?
aren't these all examples of ad hominem attacks ?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Maybe a gigantic government having too much power,Worries people more than a 'small group of humans working issues out together.
yep
Created:
-->
@imdancin
And the Bible is clear as to what sin is. His morality never changes. Every word of God proves true (Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17).
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament?
pretend they don't exist
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
I would say there are about 5 different versions of socialism
on the scale of a single family
isn't socialism-collectivism the norm ?
aren't all forms of government essentially collectivism ?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
All social systems are essential the same anyway
HOLACRACY
Created:
-->
@sadolite
What's your point?
well, when you said,
"based upon their perceived levels of public sector corruption. "
this is actually quite a good indication
for example,
government officials are not going to receive nearly as many "bribes" if nobody knows they are willing to accept "bribes"
Created:
-->
@sadolite
"based upon their perceived levels of public sector corruption. " So in other words, if you can appear to not be corrupt the CPI will give you a good score. "Science"
in the united states it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE that a large "campaign contribution" will buy you not only "access" but can even land you an ambassadorship
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Socialism is a specific political theory.
i'm pretty certain there are quite a few different versions of "socialism"
Created:
-->
@imdancin
God’s moral will for marriage is one man and one woman joined together for life.
Abraham had multiple wives
not to mention King David
and King Solomon
Created:
-->
@imdancin
Understanding the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant law
i thought "morality" is supposed to be objective and never changes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I think it's permissible to kill a fully grown adult human if it's living inside of another person's body that doesn't want it. A good percentage of the population believes it's permissible to kill a human just for walking on someone's property against their will let alone inhabiting their insides.
great point
Created:
-->
@imdancin
When you post something that concerns the Bible will you please post the scripture number so we both can be on the same page. Thanks.
The basis for punishment of stoning specifically for adultery is clearly provided in Leviticus (20:10-12) which reads: "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, even with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and adulteress must be put to death...." Further, in Deuteronomy (22:22-24), it is stated that, "If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you should take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death."
notice this only applies to the man if and only if the woman in question is either married or pledged to be married
Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin.
“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Created:
-->
@imdancin
Don’t you think punishment is necessary and rational in a civilized society?
the only valid justification for the state to kidnap someone and hold them prisoner is to mitigate an eminent threat to other citizens and or their property
it's the same justification one might apply to capturing a rabid dog
"punishing" a rabid dog is more than pointless, it's obviously cruel
if the threat is mitigated, no additional "punitive" measures are called for
afterall,
if they're going to suffer for all eternity in a lake of fire, why would we need to heap any additional pain and or suffering and or discomfort upon them at this point ?
why would we stoop to their level ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
may not have entered by "intrusion."
in most cases there is an "unexpected" aspect to the pregnancy, which strongly implies the sperm and subsequent blastocyst qualifies as "uninvited"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
i just called to say i don't want to talk to you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Now let me ask you: what would your position reflect if for example one were to maul and utterly batter someone before expelling them from one's home?
i actually knew an individual who killed a man with a steak knife
the killed man was an uninvited intruder and tried to run away
the individual i knew, chased the intruder down and stabbed them several times in the back, outside of their home
the police told my friend later that if the "suspect" had been killed inside the home, my friend would not have been charged with murder
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
and its being inside another person does not change that it can be done harm.
it's a matter of jurisdiction
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Legislation of citizenship is arbitrary,
perhaps technically "arbitrary" but there is a very broad and historical consensus that citizenship begins at birth (and upon receipt of a birth-certificate)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
But if we were to indulge any legal consistency, then yes, primarily harming the zygote/embryo/fetus wouldn't be much different than harming a newborn, infant, or toddler.
except for the fact that they are not a citizen
and they are 100% inside another person
Created:
-->
@Reece101
When it comes to oligarchical legislative influence America is second only to Russia, Putin being the biggest oligarch.
yep
Top 10 Least Corrupt Countries in the World (CPI 2021)
- (tie) Denmark - 88
- (tie) Finland - 88
- (tie) New Zealand - 88
- (tie) Norway - 85
- (tie) Singapore - 85
- (tie) Sweden - 85
- Switzerland - 84
- Netherlands - 82
- Luxembourg - 81
- Germany - 80
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I mean oligarchs having control over legislation. It’s antithetical to the democratic will of the people. There’s a reason many politicians avoid talking about policy when they would rather talk about culture war bullshit.
well stated
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nothing truly socialist though.
do you think it might be fair to perhaps consider them "more" "socialist" (than the united states) ?
Created:
-->
@imdancin
And we see the chants from the radical pink abortion loving people to allow all abortions because it’s her body, her choice and no one else, even the living human child inside her matters?
(IFF) you consider abortion a moral issue (THEN) you can rest easy knowing for certain that your god of choice will punish all violators
self-ownership is sacrosanct
legal scope does not include all conduct that is broadly agreed to be immoral
for example, the holy scriptures recommend the death penalty for WOMEN (not men) who commit adultery
do you personally believe this holy death penalty should be codified in modern legal systems ?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Is this reasonable from an atheistic standpoint? How is his view anything but subjective since he needs a true, fixed, unchanging point of reference for something to have objectivity?
if christian morality is so "true, fixed, and unchanging" why don't all christians agree that divorce = adultery ?
Created:
-->
@imdancin
I also don’t believe someone can claim to be an atheist because they have to admit they just don’t know.
everyone agrees that a "first-cause" is a logical necessity
if you want to call this "first-cause" "YHWH" that's your choice
i prefer NOUMENON
also
most people who self-identify as "atheists" have the same "lack-of-belief" that you have regarding gods such as NANABOZHO and PANGU
for example
you have no obligation to "disprove" the "existence" of NANABOZHO and PANGU (because that would be technically impossible)
in the same way, an "atheist" has not obligation to "disprove" the "existence" of "YHWH" (because logic tells us you can't prove a negative)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
and I personally and on principle reject such methods.
but would you consider it a "legal matter" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
parents owe their children nothing. Their time and labor are gifts, not debts.
great point
Created: