Athias

I'd prefer to say, charge of their guardians,

Than slave of their parents, myself,

We restrict children from certain pursuits,

Encourage directions,

'Force directions,

So long as it's not so extreme that society disagrees, what's the issue?

By restrict certain pursuits, I mean children are given curfews, restricted from associating with certain people,

. .

By directions, I mean we indoctrinate our children, 'even the hands off free range parents, I'd argue, doing nothing is a choice, if one chooses to live in a certain area, say certain ideas, molding is occurring.

. .

Force directions, school, timeouts, spankings in some families.

I'm a bit leery of a kid choosing their sexuality, at the point of surgery,

,

Might be I'm making an unconnected argument,

But if a kid is old enough to chop their d*** or t***s off,

Then wouldn't they be old enough to consent to sex?

Which I've always argued against in the past,

And still do now.

Someone at the age of nine can't and shouldn't make a decision to transition to the different sex, and irrevocably change themselves forever. They haven't fully developed and are making a decision based off of what they think is right, but their brain isn't even halfway developed fully yet. The human brain doesn't fully develop until the age of 25. 

Yes, I am saying children are property of the parent.

Let's look at an example:

If a child says to their parent that they want to cut off their arm, because they tell you they don't need the arm. Well, you as an adult know very well that they do indeed need the arm and you try to explain to them that doing that would harm them, and they would regret it later.

Same thing with transitioning. A girl might think that she is a boy, so she goes to her parents, and says I want to get rid of my uterus and have a penis. You as an adult know that that couldn't harm them and that they could regret it later.

I was born a biological male, and when I was young, I wore all kinds of dresses and skirts to play dress up with my sister. But now that I've matured, I realized that if me or my parents had transitioned me to be a girl, I would have regrated it. 

Good night.

PS.

Assuming that you do vote.

Do you therein feel a sense of inclusiveness? 

Well, the answer lies in the question.

The former is the majority will of the people and the latter isn't.

Though whether or not either the former or latter decision is the better in the long run cannot ever be judged.

And the basic idea of the system allows for the decision to be challenged after a fixed period.

Such a system would still require administrative and legal governance.

Though your previous questioning only asked how I might feel a sense of inclusion in a governmental process.

I'm not saying that I would want to challenge the current system.

As I've stated on previous occasions, I have a social niche I am comfortable with, and successive governments have not affected that comfort.

Hence, I do not feel the need to vote.

Ok but would you agree that a nine-year old doesn't have the metal capacity to make that type of life altering decision.

Like I know that when I was nine, I still believed with all my heart that Santa Clause was real, but he really isn't.

If I was nine years old, and I believed with all my heart I was a girl, then do you think that even if I had the right resources and money, I should be able to medically transition to a girl?

Government by referendum, whereby all major decisions are voted for by the people and all majority decisions are unchallengeable for a fixed period.

As it stands a vote every five years just for a parliamentary representative is simply a powerless and meaningless notion of inclusion.

1. What is the "other side" of white supremacy? Anti-White Supremacy? See how ridiculous that sounds. Feminism is the ideology. You can either be an adherent or not. Non-adherents do not need a  term of description outside of a personal statement of "I don't believe in ___ ideology."

I don't label myself as "anti-greek religion" or "Anti-authoritarinism" or "anti-cucumbers" just because I don't like or adhere to an ideology or thing.

I think we have enough bullshit language in our speech that hardly helps in clarity and only causes confusion. It becomes so easy to set up straw man arguments using this silly idea. For example, if I am anti-authoritarianism, does that mean I am against authority figures?

Saying that you are anti-feminist could be mis-construed as being "against women", when you just may not agree with how current feminist ideologies want to help women. Again, hardly seems helpful in serious discourse.

2. There is a difference between, disagreeing/opposing a view point and shutting it down. The former gives reason, engages with the other side and quite honestly, expands the knowledge of the other side and even your own views. The latter is rude, usually poorly informed and hardly leads to a better understanding of the other side or your own view.

And this is a failure of society. Your statement just acknowledged that votes took precedence over rational discourse. Democracy does not run on mindless votes. It runs on making educated, rational and moral political decisions. This is why America is where it is now politically and socially.

I think Feminism is not and cannot be exempt from this scrutiny.

I think that if you steal, you should be evaluated by the law and be given an appropriate punishment. This is not a scientific statement, but it is not dogma either. It is a value judgement. One that many believe to be correct because we can all argue that not doing so is morally unjust, causes harm to others and their property etc etc. I believe that women should be able to go to school, learn to read, marry whoever they want. I don't think it is dogmatic to say so. I think there are very good reasons to not only believe but do so. I am not merely asserting this idea. Just like the former value judgement being some sort of social, moral and political philosophy about law, rooted in reason and arguments, so do I think that women being able to go to school, learn to read and marry whoever they want is a sort of social, moral and political philosophy rooted in reason and not mere assertions and dogma about women, that you should just accept because I said so. I think reasonable, rational people can see why I said that those things should be done in society.

There are many sensible, brilliant, moral women who are capable of doing certain jobs in our society and they should be allowed to pursue their own happiness, wealth and dignity equally by being contributing members of our society. They should help society build and grow to it's full potential. As humans we should have the opportunity and liberty to do so. If a woman wants to help people who are sick to the highest degree, she should be able to devote her life and mind to medicine if she so desired. That is a noble thing to do. If a woman wants to promote justice and protect those who have been done injustice then she should be allowed to be a lawyer. If a woman wants to live with her husband and nurture their children because that is where she feels fulfilled, she should do so. If women do such things, they will help and not destroy our society. That is a fact.

Because British society is such that Parliamentary Politicians are merely the puppets and administrators of a Monarchic system.

The Monarchic system being an unelected and little changing aristocratically led establishment.

That's not to say that in terms of social stability the system does not function in the best interests of the populace.

Therefore, as I see it voting serves very little overall purpose other than to distract people's attention every now and then.

If one finds one's social niche and is content with it, then a different group of Parliamentary wannabees aren't going to make a great deal of difference.

Yeah, and not collecting stamps is a hobby.

That's me.

I never vote.

Well, I voted against Brexit because I thought that it was an unnecessary faff.

But I haven't voted in a General Election for, probably 40 years.

So, I will gladly accept your compliment.

Thank you.

@Athias

just let go of witch, they'll lose power just ignore

You're the one posting inaccurate information on a public forum

if you don't want people to call you out on your stupid shit, then don't fucking post it. 

Thor has nothing to do with Valhalla and you'd have to die in battle together and even if you died in battle there's no guaranteed go there so you're a freaking idiot.

A test of American integrity.

Wall to wall coverage on MSNBC for 6 years and counting.

So all you guys who said Trump is irrelevant and in the past, now what do you say?

Republicans created this monster. It’s up to them to do something about him.

What do you think comes after death?

Bonus question: If someone told you that you had 3 days to live, would you be ready to die?

@myself

I know I'm being a hypocrite thanking Vici and Best.Korea for defending me and then turning around and insulting P.W. and Athias. for the record, I think Athias is just as "immature" as myself.

Because those to whom you refer have consistently demonstrated an incapacity to allow sound argumentation to prevail; it is more convenient for them to express how they feel, rather than express how well they can argue. Ultimately, they do themselves a disservice.

@Athias and @Polytheist-Witch

Athias, try finding your dad at the milk store

How the [H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks] did this turn into a series of insults?

I think theres no such thing as "transgenderism" and the "gay agenda."

I am actually Non-Binary. I think non-binary = trans.

I suppose you are right, there is a "gay agenda" of sorts. basically its just us trying to get like, oh i dont know, maybe some RIGHTS or something small like that.

what some conservatives think the gay agenda is like "the GaYs want to TaKe OvEr ThE wOrLd" or something.

By definition, everybody is a sociopath, because we only do things to benefit ourselves.

specifically for trans people, I want the right to healthcare back.

I'm assuming that Vici's is fake too.

And I also assume that someone as erudite as yourself realised that I was not being serious.

Because the Bible blatantly states it. "Some regard one day above another and others regard all days alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind."

One person who sets aside one day instead of another is free to do so as long as a day is set aside. That is what the Bible says, so that is what I believe.

I ask this because though I identify as a feminist,

I notice many women like myself who do not seem open to the idea that feminism may be incorrect

(it isn't)

but instead resort to a shutting down of opposing arguments from the other side.

Telling people to "stop talking" hardly seems productive in the current culture wars. It seems dangerous and antagonistic to other truths we hold as well, not just feminism but the freedom of speech. Disagreement and even offense cannot be grounds to dismiss speech. Simply because someone is offended that I consider their religion to be oppressive and misguided is not reason for me to stop talking about it or possibly have a healthy rational discourse/disagreement about it. The same would apply to discourses on feminism.

Feminism falls under gender studies which falls under the social science of Sociology. There are criteria to determine if an idea is scientific or not. In particular, an idea/theory must be falsifiable.

and I don't think feminism is some dogma to be believed in.

I think there are facts to be assessed that will give people good reason to believe it and even if it isn't accepted by someone, at least I know that I was rigorous and thorough in my beliefs.

Should feminism be falsifiable?

servey: Who am I the alt of?

Athias.

Was I correct?

Oh.

It was just that you were both born on the 1st of January 1930.

Mods are only human.

In Romans 14:5 it says we are to he fully convinced in our own minds which day we worship on. Paul then continues by saying whatever day we choose to make holy for God, that day is fine.

The translation you chose KJV makes it even clearer for Colossians:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days

So we have complete freedom fo choose if we want to celebrate holidays or sabbath days. 

First off, I never thought Id live to see the day that I met someone who cited Philip Schaff in a conversation with me. I'm a huge fan of his work. I haven't read everything so I can't unilaterally endorse everything he's written. But I've consulted his encyclopedia of religion and I have been meaning to get around to the book you just cited. I love his work on translating the church fathers.

The Bible actually allows believers the freedom to worship on whatever day they choose:

16Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. - Colossians 2:16-19 NASB95

Paul also repeats this idea here:

5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. - Romans 14:5-9 NASB95

So Christians do have liberty to choose which day to regard as the Sabbath.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

If I remember right, that debate was just minutes away from ending with zero votes, so that judgement was super hasty.

Well if you have actual documented proof that Constantine instituted pagan beliefs I would love to read them.

spiritual beliefs and practices other than those of Judaism, Islam, or especially Christianity.

The Sabbath

The Jewish Sabbath (from Hebrew shavat, “to rest”) is observed throughout the year on the seventh day of the week—Saturday. According to biblical tradition, it commemorates the original seventh day on which God rested after completing the creation.

enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as dies Domini, but as dies Solis, in conformity to his worship of Apollo, and in company with an ordinance for the regular consulting of the haruspex (321);

He enjoined the observance, or rather forbade the public desecration of Sunday, not under the name of Sabbatum or Dies Domini, but under its old astrological and heathen title, Dies Solis, familiar to all his subjects, so that the law was as applicable to the worshippers of Hercules, Apollo, and Mithras, as to the Christians. There is no reference whatever in his law either to the fourth commandment or to the resurrection of Christ.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3075-constantine-the-great-should-not-be-considered-a-mainstream-christian-because-he-was-actually-a-heretic

• here is a debate that lays it out pretty well
  

Do you have any primary sources on this?

I have heard this argument before and seen it debunked before

but I have yet to see any actual historical documents on it from his day.

Cult: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (Merriam Webster's online dictionary).

Spurious: outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : FALSE (Merriam Websters online dictionary)

The Catholic Church has a history of teaching heresy, and still teaches heresy, about the Pope, fasting, church authority, and church history and many foundational beliefs about Christianity.

For starters, the Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Pope is the head of the church.

As the Catholic Apologist website Catholic.com explains:

We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts: (I) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and (2) that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship. [1]

This has major Scriptural problems for clear reasons, mainly:

"For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body." - Ephesians 5:23

He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. - Colossians 1:18

"and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;" - Colossians 2:20

But they also inaccurately claim that Peter is the foundation of the church:

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same (N~D); this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term “rock” as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church.[1]

There's one problem with this... Peter himself never even claimed this about his position in the church:

4And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by people, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For this is contained in Scripture:

“BEHOLD, I AM LAYING IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNERSTONE,

AND THE ONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME.” 7This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for unbelievers,

“A STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,

THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE,” 8and,

“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”; - 1 Peter 2:4-7

Here Peter himself calls Christ the cornerstone of the church. If Peter believed he was the foundation of the church, then why call Jesus the cornerstone? It is because Peter knew that Jesus, not himself, was the foundation of the church.

Moreover, Paul also calls Jesus the foundation of the church:

10According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each person must be careful how he builds on it. 11For no one can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. - 1 Corinthians 3:10-11

So both Peter and Paul agreed that Jesus, not Peter, was the foundation of the church. This, therefore, means the Catholic Church believes heresy about Papal supremacy and Peter's divine placement as the foundation of the church.

But not only do they err in papal supremacy, they also do not adhere to church tradition regarding sola scriptura.

Catholic.com explains:

A Catholic would not use the term sola scriptura—which is historically contentious and highly prone to misunderstanding—but he certainly can agree that the basic facts of the gospel and how to respond to it can be derived from Scripture. A Catholic would add that these facts need to be understood in the light of Sacred Tradition and that the Church’s intervention may be necessary to make sure they are understood correctly.[2]

Here, again, Catholics invent their own doctrine that simply was not to be found when Christianity was founded.

In Against Heresies, a work that Catholics have extremely high regard for, Irenaeus, who was an actual student of a pupil of John the Apostle, says that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority for doctrinal matters:

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? - Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 4 paragraph 1

So in the case of disputes, Irenaeus makes it clear that the early church sought THE WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES to settle them before any sort of oral tradition. They didn't rely on oral tradition to interpret these writings. They went to the writings themselves and interpreted them on their own merit.

This is a fact that is also confirmed by Clement of Rome, who lived at the same time as the Apostles. Catholics also believe he is the second Pope after Peter:

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” - Epistle To The Corinthians, Chapter 42

So here Clement states that the order of authority in the church is first God, then the Apostles, and THEN the deacons and bishops. So it follows from this that the writings of the Apostles, by the Apostles' very nature of superceding those left after them, supercedes the teachings of those who followed them.

This is why Irenaeus says that the church first consults the writings of the Apostles when controversy strikes. So the concept of Sola Scriptura is actually the true tradition.

Catholics also teach many other peculiar beliefs such as prayer to the saints, abstaining from meat, and other false doctrines that are not to be found anywhere in the early Christian writings as proper doctrine.

Therefore, the Catholic Church is a cult.

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/pope

[2] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-exactly-do-you-mean-by-sola-scriptura

I really don't give a shit if the spread is fast or slow, wearing a mask while infected around your compromised mother is a dumb idea

I don't think so. Hygiene is surely important and a foundation for good health. But so is a practical science.

Vaccines are a very practical science. 

There's something awry in your philosophy. 

I'm glad for your good health, Athias. I do not wish it otherwise. 

Or I could pray and wash my hands and avoid cooties. A funny little Master of the Universe. 

I like how you read a statistic that doesn't exclude old fat people with deadly co-morbidities and thought for a millisecond that the statistic could possibly apply to you.

No it doesn't. I don't know how you read that unvaccinated die at a rate 10 times that of vaccinated and think you'll be just fine so long as you wash your hands. 

That sounds like a mental illness to me tbh.

It's a big scary world, Athias. 

What's the hygiene practices? Just for fun. 

1. Wash one's hands regularly (I usually wash my hands about five times a day.)
   
2. Avoid touching bodily orifices with soiled hands.
   
3. Bathe and shower regularly.
   
4. Brush your teeth.
   
5. Consistently disinfect surfaces you regularly touch.
   
6. Wear clean clothes, as well as sleep on clean sheets and bedding.
   
7. Eat healthy
   
8. Exercise regularly.
   
9. Keep your fingernails short, and if you don't, make sure you clean under them regularly.
   
10. Try your best to take in a lot of sunlight.
    
11. Consume foods and beverages rich in both Vitamins C and D.
    
12. Properly groom one's hair.
    
13. Avoid sharing cups, bottles, straws, etc.
    

Would have made a whole lot of sense. 

One factor for the ridiculously higher rates of death in America from all viral sources, not just Covid, is this stupid idea that good hygiene, a healthy diet, and exercise can be discarded in favor of medicine. A idea most certainly planted by the pharmaceutical companies.

Do you by any chance have OCD?

Dumb luck, obviously. 

It would not suggest to you that perhaps you should take the vaccine?

This is pure nonsense.

So it's entirely meaningless that the unvaccinated have died at a rate 10 times greater than the vaccinated?

The truths you hold affect me.

You and your antivaxxer friends may well bring back polio.

I'm suggesting that you go to college and study virology if you want to have opinions on viruses.

Otherwise your "facts" are dangerous nonsense.

I would generally discourage consulting anyone but a doctor about health needs. 

I pulled the John Hopkin's data myself and built all sorts of graphics with it. I found that the unvaccinated were 10 times more likely to succumb to covid 19. Googling it I get figures like 11 and 14 times more likely.

One thing for American gun ownership, antivaxxers will need shooting dead in the street if the Black Death ever comes back around.