Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
From Jeremiah 27:6-8:
- “Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and I have given him also the wild animals of the field to serve him. All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings will make him their servant. “It will be, that the nation or the kingdom which will not serve him, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and which will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine and with pestilence,” declares the Lord, “until I have destroyed it by his hand.
Was the government of Babylon corrupt?
Yes.
Did the government of Babylon serve as an extension of God's will?
No. This does not tie to how a corrupt government can extend a divine prerogative. It's one thing to state that it's in God's plan to have a corrupt government destroy itself; it's another to say "King Nebuchadnezzar's practice of execution is just and sanctioned by God."
So if I leave my newborn baby in an empty house with some money for groceries and no intention of aggression, that is morally acceptable?
It isn't necessary to leave any money, but yes, that would be morally acceptable.
The Bible is not purely collectivist. If we consider collectivism and individualism on a spectrum, a biblical worldview would fall somewhere in between.
No such spectrum is logically justifiable. There's collectivism; there's individualism. Sustaining this notion of "spectrum" is an oft used device for those who have no intention of resolving their logically dissonant notions. For example, when I read of those who claim that they're "mostly Libertarian," I make sure to highlight that no such description is consistent within the framework of Libertarian philosophy. In other words, one is either "all" Libertarian, or one is not Libertarian. And the reason is, the philosophy operates on a logically consistent premise which in order to sustain cannot be undermined. Individualism operates on a logically consistent premise. This premise is necessarily undermined by collectivism, resulting in the two being diametrically opposed. There's no nuance to it.
But either end brings one to an extreme view - which ultimately removes the inherent value of others.
Neither end is an "extreme." What you call an extreme is an inevitable and inescapable extension of a consistently maintained premise. The very philosophy that informs my objection, for example, to taxes is the same philosophy that informs my being pro-choice, my being anti-welfare, and even my being anti-government. Maintaining such a view does not ultimately remove the inherent value of others; far from it. It means one's not being reduced to a mere object in someone else's experience; that one can be the subject of his/her own experience and express his/her values as they see fit so long as they afford another the capacity to the same. And there's no greater value than that.
Your form of individualism removes inherent value from others because the only value they have is ascribed by the individual.
First, it isn't "my form." Every argument I render which expresses individualism is a logical extension of individualist premises. I haven't in any way transmuted them.
The only obligation I have is to myself; everything else is coercion.
Yes, and the obligation to do others no harm (as harm to another would undermine the very framework which informs one's "obligation to oneself.") Anything that would undermine the aforestated would be coercion.
And I don't see any other conclusion if you can argue that parents have no obligation to keep their children alive.
Obligation to and sustained by whom? I know you argue that God demands parents take care of their children, but despite my having a respect for religion, the belief in God, and the argument for God's existence, I am not particularly religious. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to accept my premises; nevertheless, I thought it useful to present a consistent secular argument which wasn't filled with attempts to undermine a zygote's/embryo's/fetus's being either a human or "a life" that is also based on a moral framework.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I noticed I forgot to tag you in post #313
It's all good. I was still able to notice that your post was a direct response to my previous statements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The responsibility of the government is given by God to the governing authorities, and that includes making laws and enacting justice. Since it is specifically given to those authorities, I wouldn't consider it a "divine prerogative." And corruption does not remove this responsibility. However, it usually leads to the judgment of that authority or nation. This happened to Israel (2 Kings 17:6-7).
But how can a corrupt government extend God's will? You can argue that all governments have a responsibility to do as God instructed but they don't. I'm not attempting to argue the merits of execution--that would be an argument for another thread--I'm arguing that the governments as they are and their discretion in practicing execution is not an extension of God's will because they are corrupt.
If we were talking about a newborn, I personally don't see the difference other than how long "physiological underdevelopment" will result in the death of the newborn.
That's an important distinction. Because one results in the initiation of aggression toward the newborn and the other doesn't. The initiation of aggression serves as a metric for moral culpability. By placing a newborn in a ditch, I am initiating aggression towards it. I have acted in a violent manner. On the other hand, if I leave the child to its own devices, despite the consequence being the same, i.e. the child's death, I have not initiated aggression. I have only not given it my help. Now forgive me for citing movie quotes, but I think this scene from the Dark Knight Trilogy, Batman Begins, best illustrates this point:
Ra's Al Ghul: Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?
Batman: I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you.
Batman would ultimately leave Ra's to die on the runaway train. The moral dilemma with which Batman was faced was resolved in his not "killing" Ra's, leaving Ra's to bear the consequences of his own machinations. In saying this, we should make two things clear: (1) I am in no way arguing that babies (born or unborn) are Machiavellian villains using high powered microwave emitters to evaporate Gotham's water supply in order to cover the city in a poisonous mist, and (2) I am in no way stating that a child's necessity in its parents providing it resources is akin to some evil plot. My point is that there's a clear distinction in moral culpability between killing (abortions which maim, destroy, and harm the zygote/embryo/fetus) and not saving/helping (abortions which merely expel the zygote/embryo/fetus) even if the consequence is the same.
But perhaps I am misunderstanding your argument. So where is it morally acceptable to leave a newborn if you decide you no longer want to expend time and labor to feed and shelter it? The ditch is obviously off limits.
The where isn't my focus. The point I'm attempting to illustrate is that no one is owed help--not even a baby. Any claim which attempts to establish an entitlement to the assistance of another will inescapably result in the coercive conscription of another into one's service. And I categorically reject this claim. (*Note: this is also one of the reasons those who identify as politically "left" or "democrat" are complete hypocrites.)
But our contention is stemmed from our conflicting moral philosophies. Your subscribed moral philosophy as it pertains to this issue is premised on, presumably, Biblical text--notably the Old Testament. While my subscribed moral philosophy as it pertains to this subject is based on individualism. The Bible is lousy with collectivist notions, so it's only natural that an adherent will propose arguments which are at odds with my individualist ones, and vice versa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Did God give Israel the power of the sword in the Old Testament law? Whose hand actually put people to death?
I'm not questioning who or what carries out the execution; how can a corrupt government exercise a divine prerogative?
I was using the term raise in a general sense to show that parents have a responsibility to their children.
Then your reference wasn't the best at demonstrating this.
If you don't like that, see Ephesians 6:1. Children have an explicitly stated responsibility to obey their parents.
It's not a matter of liking it. And I'm familiar with the text you referenced. I'm simply pointing out that your references did not support your statements.
So you agree the verse makes clear fathers have a responsibility not to abandon their children?
Yes.
Alright, so you don't see it as a morally wrong to nicely set the baby in a ditch?
But one is still placing it in a ditch, whether it's thrown or nicely set.
Just like nicely setting a baby in the ditch isn't "killing" it.
Because a ditch will kill a baby. Are you familiar with what's present in a ditch?
The dark path where you justify killing babies of any age,
I'm not justifying the killing of babies. Killing does not meet the description of the exercise I've stood behind. You're equating "leaving a child to its own devices" to "leaving it in a ditch." No such equivalence has been substantiated.
leaving your child out in a ditch to die is killing it.
I agree. So why are you equating my statements to "leaving a child out in a ditch"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you've never been born you can't die.All living tissue must cease living at some point.......Internally or externally.Your argument is silly.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So they're made up.
Of course.
Even corrupt people can make right judgements. Most societies understand rape and murder are wrong and will condemn them as such. Both citizens and civil authorities have societal responsibilities before God, and they will answer to Him for how they fulfill those.
But that's not the point. In Romans 13, rulers are to be extensions of God. Execution is described as a divine prerogative. Whether it's the "right judgement" is irrelevant.
Parents have a responsibility to raise their children (Deuteronomy 6:7)
That is not what the verse delineates. The verse delineates that parents teach the commandments to their children.
just as children have a responsibility to be obedient to their parents (Exodus 20:12).
That is not what the fourth commandments states. The commandment explicitly states that children should "honor" their parents; not necessarily "obey." In 1 Timothy Chapter Five Verse Three, it states, "Honour widows that are widows indeed." Surely this is not describing obedience.
Individuals must care for their household, which includes parents caring for their childrens' needs (1 Timothy 5:8).
This is in specific reference to fathers who abandon their wives and children.
"I wouldn't suggest you throw your baby in the ditch, but it's totally fine if you do."While this is an uncharitable summary, I don't think it is inaccurate.
It is not only uncharitable but also inaccurate. First I wouldn't be "fine" with it; Second, throwing one's baby into a ditch would be harming the baby. And I neither endorse nor promote the harming of babies.
But the fundamental issue seems to involve the first question: where do human rights come from? If the answer is reason, you just have to find a logical pathway to justify killing babies. Treating the parent/child relationship like a contract that can be negated is one way to do this.
Once again we've revisited this notion of "killing babies." I do not deny that there are methods of abortion which harm, maim, and destroy the zygote/embryo/fetus--and again, I condemn these methods. But expulsion is not the same as killing because the zygote/embryo/fetus dies as a consequence of its own incapacity. Furthermore, if we're going to characterize any dynamic between mother and child as "contractual" then both parties must be willing. The mother can exercise and communicate her will, the zygote/embryo/fetus cannot. And yes, any contract should acknowledge one's capacity to negate/withdraw; anything else would constitute a slave contract.
It may not violate your reason, but it will send you down a dark path.
A dark path? What dark path? Believing that a person should not be coerced in service to another is "dark"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
But where do the rights come from? Do I grant my own rights that others have the option to recognize?
They're concepts, so they're conceived, once again, as a result of analyzing our condition. Rights are not granted; they simply are a product of moral analysis and principle.
Government is an extension of God in the sense that God has established government to be a source of justice upon wrongdoers. But we live in a sinful world where that authority is often abused. The role of government in relation to the individual and the church has been a long-debated subject. I think the Founding Fathers established the best system to date, though it is not perfect. Our current government is corrupt, likely beyond being salvageable. Our people have abandoned God and are generally most concerned about their own personal health, wealth, and pleasure. And we are being judged for it.
So, a death penalty imposed by a corrupt government wouldn't be an extension of God, right? So why would one endorse any exercise of such a government? (Note: I don't endorse the concept of a death penalty; I'm only questioning your reference to Romans 13.)
I appreciate your consistency. But I fear for your soul if you can justify leaving a baby out to die because it can't survive on its own.
The baby isn't left on the dumpster because it can't survive on its own; the baby presumably will die because it can't survive on its own absent any participation of an individual willing to provide it sustenance. But you haven't really answered my question: why is the baby owed its mother's and/or father's participation in sustenance, or anyone else for that matter?
Now it's important to highlight this distinction: I am in no way endorsing or recommending that one not take care of one's child; but that's vastly different from stating that a child is owed its parent's care. And I'm trying to understand the justification of this debt a parent is alleged to have with respect to his or her child.
No I don't believe that would be murder. That being said, I can't imagine not giving my kidney if it meant saving my child's life.I think there are a number of category differences between the scenario and a normal pregnancy. A pregnancy is typically the result of two consenting adults who should know how procreation works. If a person is not willing to accept the responsibilities of parenthood, they should not be having sex. A normal pregnancy should also not cause much in terms of permanent adverse health effects.However, the scenario involves deviation from normal kidney function. Health failure is not the same as normal biological functions. Removing a kidney from a healthy person will probably not kill them, but it does involve risk in the procedure, as well as permanent adverse health effects.So the main difference I see is normal biological functions vs deviation from normal functions resulting in health failure.
The point of the hypothetical is not to parse between the physical differences; the point is to highlight the principle. For the same reason I would argue that under my hypothetical that I bear a right to my person, I would argue the same for a mother who considers abortion--strictly where the zygote/embryo/fetus is expelled. In each scenario, we both prioritize our preferences and intentions as it concerns our bodies, because it's our bodies. And even under circumstances where our children need/require the use of our persons, this "necessity" neither substantiates nor justifies the submission of ours persons in service to this need particularly against our wills. Having prior knowledge of the consequences of sex substantiates little to nothing because the very same thing could be said about me in context of my hypothetical. As a father, I should know that my child could suffer from any ailment, and having a child should mean that I'm willing to sacrifice anything, even a part of my person, to ensure my child's welfare. And even if I had prior knowledge of this unfortunate prospect, e.g. during a genetic counseling exam, would that mitigate my priority over my person? Would my daughter be owed my kidney then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Covid sometimes results in death and the vaccine virtually always prevents these deaths and prevents symptoms from occurring within people that covid enters.
Once again, this is impossible to determine because one would have to control for both the survival and death of the same participants in the same sample. That would mean that one would have to observe one's dying as a result of COVID and simultaneously having the prospect of this event counteracted by the vaccine, thereby resulting in their survival. May you please explain to me how one can die and survive? Any data from outside these samples will result in a fallacious ecological inference (e.g. Athias is 6' 9," therefore he's "likely" to be left handed.) And anything which would suggest that health was produced as a result of vaccination would be a post hoc fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Reason is something that humans do. So do I grant myself my own human rights based on my reason? Or does another human (or group of humans) grant me my human rights?
Reason, not whim. And its upon analysis of our condition, that these concepts are acknowledged. Neither an individual nor a group can "grant" you rights; they either acknowledge them, or they don't.
Correct. That verse establishes the death penalty as a just punishment for murdering an image-bearer of God. There are other verses to establish the role of government. Romans 13:4 would be one example of God's ordained purpose for government to "bear the sword." That is a much more in-depth topic though.
The death penalty ("the Sword") in that text is seen as an extension of God himself, because the rulers were seen to be an extension of God as well. Can you honestly state that this (these) government(s) (today) are an extension of God? Who makes the decision, the president or the pope?
Let's establish what you believe the responsibility of a parent is first. [It seems] you are saying that if 16-week-old fetus is removed from a mother's womb and left on a table to die, that is not murder. The fetus died because of it's inability to survive on it's own. Is that a correct analysis?
Yes.
And if that is correct, [it would seem that] if a parent decided to leave their one-year-old baby in a dumpster, that would also be acceptable because the baby is unable to survive on its own due to "physiological underdevelopment."
Exactly. And I've challenged before those who claim they are "pro-choice" to attempt to reconcile this dilemma. On what rationale is it acceptable to terminate a zygote/embryo/fetus and unacceptable to leave a baby on a dumpster? Some could argue that a baby once birthed is a citizen afforded the same privileges as you and I, but that would only pertain to documented births. Surely, they wouldn't argue that leaving a baby on a dumpster whether born in a hospital or not is acceptable. This is the reason I claim to argue a truly pro-choice position. Because regardless of the phase of development a person experiences, whether it is the zygotic or geriatric, I argue no distinction. That is, their parents don't owe them. Whether it is carrying a fetus to term, or letting her infant feed at her breasts, or purchasing a cap and gown for her son's high school graduation, or letting a 49 year-old son occupy the space downstairs, these are gifts, not obligations. Because she is submitting her body, her time, and her labor in service to the sustenance of her child.
But let's stress test the consistency of our respective rationales. First, a hypothetical. Suppose I have a daughter, and for whatever reason, she is suffering from kidney failure. The donor matching process is quite lengthy and her prospects appear bleak. It's discovered that I am perfect match, but I refuse to part with my kidney. It should be noted that up until this point, I've done everything I could for my daughter: keeping her fed, clothed, and sheltered; reading bed time stories; paying for numerous medical visits, etc. My daughter subsequently dies. So this begs the question: did I murder her in my refusal to part with my kidney? Or did I just kill her? Was it child neglect?
What if she were 27 years-old? Would any of my previous questions apply then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Reason. Morals/human rights come from an analysis of our condition, and thereby reflect our values.
As a citizen intervening, you are correct that stopping the murderer is my intent. But even if they are captured, execution would be a just punishment for murder. It is not repossession. It is justice. They have forfeited their right to life, and that can be supported biblically (Gen. 9:6).
That verse doesn't substantiate whose prerogative it is to dispense such justice. Presumably, it's God's. This neither justifies execution nor one's seeking to take the life of another, his crimes notwithstanding.
Are you asking why a parent has a responsibility to feed their toddler?
Among other things, yes.
Do you think a parent does not have that responsibility?
Not exactly. If a parent decides to raise their child, then there are inevitable responsibilities associated with that endeavor. My question is geared towards finding out the reason any parent would "owe" this responsibility to their child, which necessarily implicates that they're indebted to said child (though in reality, they're somehow indebted to the State.) What creates and justifies this obligation? The mother's carrying her child to term--is that not gift enough? (And note, I characterized it as a "gift" not as a "debt.")
The baby is not actively trying to threaten the mother's life so this is not an issue of justice. The baby isn't being punished. Both the risk to the mother and the child are factors to consider.
I wouldn't suggest that the baby is actively trying to threaten its mother's life. But whether its intent is verifiable or not, it doesn't change the threat it circumstantially poses. And since the risks concern the participation of its mother, particularly the submission of her womb, then why aren't her considerations given priority?
If the baby has a 0% chance of survival, but will kill the mother if brought to term, then that is an instance where killing the baby could be justified. But it is still killing a baby so it is not to be taken lightly. I cannot emphasize that enough.
And if it has, for argument's sake, a 60% chance of survival, does the mother merely standby as carrying the baby to term kills her?
If both baby and mother have a 50% chance of surviving, I don't think the baby should be killed. But these are the extreme cases.
So again, the mother must necessarily risk her life carrying a baby to term? And what I'm focused on is not the extreme cases, but the principle. If a mother prioritizes her own survival over that of her unborn child's, why would anyone else get a say?
The overwhelming majority of people kill their babies because they don't want the responsibility of parenthood, not because of personal risk.
Under the circumstances where the unborn child (zygote/embryo/fetus) is maimed, I would join you in condemning this act. But under the circumstances where it's merely expelled, then I'm going to reiterate that the zygote/embryo/fetus wasn't killed; it dies as a result of its physiological underdevelopment. If I were being honest, I'd tell you that I abhor the act of abortion--truly, I do. (Not that this at all qualifies the integrity of my argument.) But it's not the act I endorse, but the principle behind it, i.e. bodily autonomy which is an extension of individual autonomy. And, in strictly the case where the zygote/embryo/fetus is merely expelled (circumstances otherwise would dictate that the zygote/embryo/fetus is being harmed with intention) I take no issue as a matter of principle with this exercise as an extension of the mother's prerogative, which is to bear exclusive control over how she behaves her body, including the participation in a pregnancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So your argument is based on a fantasy world we don't and will never live in. Why bother?
Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Covid infection rates were generally skyrocketing logarithmically until states started to implement mask mandates and this slowed the infection and death rate from covid. As more people got vaccinated, this caused case and death rates to plummet but now they are on the rise due to vaccine hesitancy. But my state has eliminated virtually all covid deaths.
But that's not the point I'm making. My point is how does one control for both the survival and death of the same sample? In order to determine this, one would have to know for a fact that the contraction of the virus would without fail produce death, and that the vaccine would without fail counteract the aforementioned event. No information to this effect has been produced or provided. All these references can do is take information from different samples and produce fallacious post hoc arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Oh. This thread is a joke. I'm not gay.
I know. That's the reason I reciprocated with a joke of my own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Both mask wearing and vaccines have reduced the covid death rate.
This cannot be demonstrated. The reason is that one would have to control for both survival and death using the same sample. Otherwise, it's just a fallacious ecological inference much like the conclusions drawn from the statistics in Double_R's references.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't have a date and I'm scared of girls sperm jacking me so I don't want to date anybody. Plus I don't want STIs. Dating someone without having sex is merely a friendship. I'm fine with being friends with females, but I don't want a girlfriend.
It was a joke. The implication was that the reason you were asking "Who has the biggest dick on DART?" was that you were gay, and thereby asked an unusual question on an online platform in order to "get a date."
I was only kidding around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So you don’t think the US should have a military, is that correct?
The U.S. government? No. But that would extend to all governments.
Created:
Posted in:
It’s not 99% off the total deaths since the start of the pandemic, it’s 99% of Covid deaths occurring now, in a post vaccine world. Anyone who cares the slightest about reality would know this before arguing against the need for vaccines.Here, let’s try WebMD. Let me know if that’s too left leaning for you.
How does this change the argument at all? If we replaced the 18,000 with the 616,000 in the previous calculation, that would only be about at hundredth of a percent of the un-vaccinated populace succumbing to this virus. Let's assume that this trend of 18,000 deaths per month continues. And that it continues for another seventeen months (same as the time spanned from Dec 2019 to May 2021.) That would be 306,000 deaths over said span, which would still be 310,000 fewer than those who've succumbed thus far. If we add this projected number to those who've already succumbed, that would be 922,000. That still means 99.446% of the un-vaccinated would have survived this virus after being exposed to it for a period of 34 months (almost three years.)
And even this extremely "left-leaning" reference of yours demonstrates my point:
Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated.
The fact that 150 people died despite their being fully vaccinated informs this:
Vaccines have neither reduced nor prevented death.
===============
I don’t consider 1 out of every 300 people dying a completely preventable death to be ok,
You're appealing to emotion; I never said any number of people was okay.
your statistics are based almost entirely on the old strain. The new strain is far more contagious and far more deadly.
The death toll cited in your reference even if doubled wouldn't result in the amount of deaths thus far.
According to your argument, no vaccine in the history of mankind has ever been proven to work.
Yes, and your counterargument is?
The statistics prove it to anyone who actually cares about reality.
Which statistics are those? Any statistics you throw my way, I'll be able to deconstruct and rationalize them at a far better capacity than you've demonstrated thus far. But because you can't sufficiently make your point--because the statistics don't reflect your argument, not to mention your point being emotionally driven--you're going to impute ad hominems and put to question my concern on "reality."
Created:
Posted in:
If we deal with fundamental principles first, I think we can say that a normal pregnancy occurs as the result of consensual sex. If two people are having sex, they bear the responsibility if conception occurs as a result. And if you determine where rights come from, you probably know where responsibilities come from. I would say from God.you
So it is your position that God charges any woman of child bearing age who consents to the act of sex with the responsibility of carrying that pregnancy to term? And that this divine obligation should be reflected legally?
Yes, if someone is shooting up a Walmart, that person has immediately forfeited their life.
How has that person forfeited their life? Don't get me wrong, I don't have any issue with a person employing lethal force when it's necessary to effectively stop an act of aggression (i.e. shooting up a Walmart,) but the intent ought to be to effectively stop the act, not to "repossess" a life you have not given in the first place.
In general, I would say that if you have the ability to intervene in a situation like that, you would have the responsibility to do so. The full context obviously matters. But I also don't have the same responsibility to another grown adult as a parent has to their child.
Please elaborate on the responsibilities a parent has to their child and the reason or reasons parents bear this responsibility.
My statement was probably unclear. I was just citing the arguments people most often go to. I don't believe circumstances leading up to conception make a difference on moral obligations. If a woman conceives a child after being raped, I believe the rapist deserves the death penalty and not the child.The only exception I can see as possibly being justified would be if the unborn child puts the life of the mother in jeopardy. But those are the exception and must be approached individually based on the situation.
Why is it that a threat to her life is gauged as more significant than a threat to her person, her time, and/or labor? I have a presumption as to the reason you may think this, that is if I am to consistently extend your premise, but it would be best coming from you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm going to need a specific example.
I wouldn't know where to start. Are there any specific behaviors one could attribute to masturbation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps we could somehow communicate this to the pope.
This would presuppose that the Pope would interpret the story outside his papal prerogative known as Catechism, which isn't Christian at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is impossible to generalize this impact.Your mood and at least one of your primary motivation schemes (your model of sexual desire) are affected by your private habits.Your mood and your model of sexual desire affect how you interact with others.
I don't deny this. I'm asking can the influence be identified and pinpointed to masturbation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I believe that a mother is responsible to carry the baby until it is born without trying to kill it (or intentionally letting it die).
Why does the mother bear a responsibility to carry the baby until it's born? What creates this responsibility?
If the zygote/embryo/fetus is a life and it is intentionally killed with no just reason, that is murder.
I disagree. Is there a just reason to intentionally kill? Our dispute however is whether "intentionally letting it die" constitutes murder. So let me cite a scenario: if a man knocks on my door claiming he needs to enter my home because some raging psychopath intends to kill him, and I decided not to let him in, did I murder him?
Of course, the "no just reason" part is where we deal with the extreme cases like rape or medical issues, but those are special cases.
If extreme cases like rape and medical issues mitigate her responsibility to carry the baby until it's born, then can I fairly assume that your notions of her responsibility are contingent on the idea that she is responsible because she elects to have sex under circumstances where coitus is voluntary? That is, an action she herself controls?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Being unvaccinated does not necessarily mean you will certainly die.Firstly one needs to contract the virus.Then one might or might not die as a result of contracting COVID.Should one unfortunately contract COVID, a vaccine should increase ones chances of survival, especially if one is older and/or have a weakened immune system.
If one has a weakened immune system vaccines will do little if anything to help. In fact taking them could be dangerous to those with compromised immune systems.
You argument is unexpectedly illogical for some reason.
And yet, you will not explain to me what this reason is.
100% of people who have not contracted COVID, simply have not contracted COVID......In this instance, it doesn't matter if one is vaccinated or not
Exactly.
I'm still assuming that Trypanophobia is the reason for your illogic.
I'm not afraid of needles. And this is not an argument--not a substantiated one, anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Can you please explain your logic here. I’d especially love to know how you square this with the fact that about half the population is vaccinated and yet 99% of all COVID deaths are of the unvaccinated.
I have not been vaccinated; I have not died. Your ecological inferences are flawed. Try to understand your hyperbolic statistics. You said half the population has been vaccinated and yet 99% of COVID-related deaths are among the un-vaccinated. Let's for a moment indulge these statistics at face value. For example, the United States has a population over 330 million, about 210 million of which are adults. Thus far, there have been about 616,000 people who have died in the U.S. as a result of COVID--or so they state. 99% of that is 609, 840. According to the CDC, 165,637,566 people have been vaccinated which accounts for about 49.9 percent of the population. So, 50.1 of the unvaccinated would amount to 166,301,444. Now we take 609, 840 deaths of the unvaccinated, divide it by 166,301,444 of the un-vaccinated populace and multiply it by 100 to acquire the percentage. Do you know what that percentage is? 0.367%. Not even close to 1 percent. That means 99.633% of the un-vaccinated have survived after being exposed to this virus for almost two years.
Now there are studies that say that COVID deaths go as high as 900,000 in the U.S. Substitute this figure in the previous calculations and that would still mean that 99.464% of the un-vaccinated have survived after being exposed to this virus for almost two years. Your interpretation of your own statistics fail you, sir.
Furthermore, and this is important to note, vaccines inoculate; they do not cure, and they do not prevent. At the best, they help your immune system create the necessary antibodies. (Though the human immune system has demonstrated time and again that it's resilient enough to do this on it own.) And a simple grasp of logic should help one understand how its impossible to document a vaccine's "preventing death." First, with each individual, one would have to demonstrate that in the absence of vaccination, COVID would produce death, and that vaccination has staved off this prospect. And as I have stated, no such information has been provided.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So should the entire institution be put in jail?
No. The entire institution should be outlawed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
How exactly do I know that anything outside of my consciousness exists?
You don't. And existence itself is a concept given meaning by your consciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Should U.S soldiers be charged with murder too.
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Who has the biggest dick on DART?
Having trouble getting a date? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your all powerful, can you create a stone so heavy that not even yourself can lift it?If the answer is yes, then you are not all powerful because you cannot lift such a stone.If the answer is no, then you are not all powerful because you cannot create such a stone.
You haven't thought this through.
The presumption would be that God is capable of "lifting" everything. Another presumption would be that God is capable of creating anything/everything. So the argument that God being unable to create something he himself can't lift isn't a paradox of omnipotence but irrational. You're essentially asking: can God metaphysically act in a manner beyond himself? This is metaphyisical nonsense because the premise of the question itself already presupposes that which undermines the omnipotence of God.
Therefore it is impossible for God to be all powerful which would explain why he rarely answers our prayers, if he exists and is worthy of worship.
This is not a logically consistent extension of your premise. Omnipotence is not at all contingent on answering prayers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The idea that not killing a baby should be considered "mandatory childbirth" is crazy to me. How is not being able to murder your child somehow a violation of freedom?
Full disclosure: I endorse the pro-choice position. So the argument I'm going to submit will reflect said position. Though it is my intention to provide a more consistent argument that's severely lacking from others who share this position--usually the highly emotional "warriors" present and/or endorsed by the mainstream media.
I'm not going to argue that an embryo/zygote/fetus is not a human being given that this is categorically incorrect. Human Development as it is delineated includes for embryo/zygote/fetus, so excluding them is nothing short of arbitrary. Or at the very least, their inclusions would be no less arbitrary than our own--that is, our being "adult" humans. You characterized an abortion as "killing a baby." That would suggest that the mother and/or physician is directly responsible for the termination of the fetus's life, correct? But is this always the case? I'm not oblivious to methods of abortion which destroys and maims the zygote/embryo/fetus before expulsion, and I would perhaps join you in condemning this act. However, as it concerns the methods which expel the zygote/embryo/fetus in tact, can the same characterization be made--i.e. "killing babies"? In the latter's case, does the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's subsequent death result as a consequence of the mother's and physician's direct actions, or is it the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's physiological underdevelopment which renders it incapable of surviving outside of its mother's womb that causes its death?
Typically, I would presume a response in the vein that the mother bears a responsibility to carry the zygote/embryo/fetus to term. We first have to understand the nature of this responsibility and how it's established. And we do this by asking the obvious question: why does a mother bear a responsibility to carry her zygote/embryo/fetus to term? The two most prominent contentions I've had the experience to observe are as follows: (1) sex creates a contract which binds a mother to carry her fetus to term--a prospect she could have avoided had she decided not to risk pregnancy by having sex at all, and (2) the zygote/embryo/fetus needs its mother's womb to develop before being birthed, and as its parent, it's the mother's duty to provide said womb to the best of her capacity to ensure her child's healthy growth. Now the first is absolute nonsense given that the whole notion of a "contract" is just emotional projection given that neither mother nor zygote/embryo/fetus has entered a contract. Even if the contract is said to be between mother and society at large through referendum, the mother has signed nothing--literally and figuratively. The second one is a bit more nuanced. It however has a flaw, i.e. "necessity" being the establishment to a claim. The fetus needs the womb; therefore, it gets the womb, its mother's preferences notwithstanding? How is the zygote/embryo/fetus owed its mother's womb?
Let me ask you directly in order to avoid strawmanning you: what responsibilities do you believe the mother bears as it concerns her pregnancy? Why is refusing her womb to her zygote/embryo/fetus immoral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If 600,000 covid deaths are a tragedy that must be prevented like the 800,000 abortion deaths, why did conservatives tend to be anti mask (to reduce covid deaths) and to this day tend to be anti vaccine(which also reduces covid deaths).
Masks don't prevent death. Vaccines have neither reduced nor prevented death. So what is your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Male circumcision for curative purposes has had many advocates and adherents. John Kellogg, the founder of the Kellogg's cereals empire in the USA, viewed it as an effective cure for masturbation and the social ills that were said to accompany it. He advocated an unashamedly punitive approach:“A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.” 26 [**]Many sex therapists suggest masturbating regularly — whether you’re single or partnered.In addition to the physical benefits derived from masturbation, a boost to self-esteem coupled with relaxation can be great for your sex life.As for your libido, there’s some evidence that masturbating can help you maintain a healthy sex drive. For example, this 2009 study links frequent vibrator use to a high sex drive and positive sexual function, as well as general sexual wellness.
Let me rephrase: can the influence of one's masturbation and it's alleged impact on others be identifiable as a result of one's masturbation?
Masturbation is considered a sin in some religions. There are also many societal stigmas attached to masturbation: Some people believe women shouldn’t masturbate, or that masturbation is immoral.
This is a misinterpretation of the Abrahamic religions. It's not a sin to masturbate; the sin stems from not obliging by one's duty to impregnate one's dead brother's spouse. It centers on the story Onan who did not want to impregnate his dead brother's widow and thereby wasted his seed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So the fact that 99% of COVID deaths are among the unvaccinated is not evidence to you that vaccines are saving lives, and you believe based on evidence you didn’t cite (because there isn’t any) that vaccines are killing people.
You're the one who attempted to associate the government's attempt to encourage/mandate vaccination with its attempt to save your life. And evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines "saves lives" has yet to be produced. Evidence of deaths after the administration of the vaccine are easily available. You have a search engine; put it to use.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
It is, and you pretending it isn't makes it clear you are either dishonest or ignorant.
I have no need to deflect on a subject which I've broached--even here--before. Look through my past posts.
I spent years at university studying exactly this.
And this means what? I took courses on religion at University. That qualifies my argument no more or less than it does yours. Hence, I told you to "do your research," not "believe in my authority."
You, what? Read a few apologetics blogposts?
I don't read blogs.
Considering how you are unable to give any actual evidence or academic sources it seems likely that is the case.
"Unable" is not the same as "unwilling." I have no intention of having an "academic" debate on this. We're not in school. We're using reason, and logical construction with the application of dated information.
Let's start with the Norse, shall we? The Norse didn't write their own stories down, or, at least, it seems they didn't as we have no sources written by the Norse about their own mythology. What is essentially the only pre-Christian source we have comes in the form of Tacitus's 'Germania', which is not the most helpful of sources as it records some basic information but does the classic Roman Synchronism and thus we have to guess which gods correlate with the Roman gods that Tacitus used in his writings. We have basically nothing of their mythology here though.We don't really get much until Snorri writes the Prose Edda in about it in 1200CE, but he does the classic thing where he says the Norse gods are Trojan Heroes that fled to the north and were worshipped. He also wrote the Prose Edda for political purposes to unify Norway and Iceland, so there is going to be the absolute Christian and political bias involved in this first telling of the myths, and it was written 200 years after Scandinavia became Christian, so while they can be useful they also remain unreliable on some level.
What evidence do you have of Snorri's absolute Christian and political bias strictly as it pertains to the delineation of Norse mythology?
(Note, I accept arguments as evidence.)
We also have cave paintings from the Nordic Bronze Age (which lasted from around 1700BCE - 500BCE) that some archaeologists suggest depict Mjolnir and some that depict Skinfaxi (and other aspects that survived until it was recorded by Snorri and others), thus the Norse pantheon has roots to this early in time.If we wish to try, on any level, to connect this pantheon to anything earlier than this or outside of this we have to assume they adopted a lot of their ideas from Mycenaean Greece, who they traded with on some level, but at that point it would be an assumption that is impossible to support with evidence.
How is this any less of an assumption than alleging that someone's "Christian Bias" especially after Scandinavia converted to Christianity compelled one to misrepresent Norse mythology? Why is assuming that Scandinavians retelling and adopting the mythologies from Mycenaean Greece is any more of an assumption than your first one?
What makes the connection even more dubious is that the Mycenaean Greeks don't have any known parallels with these in their religions.
Not every deity will be depicted exactly the same when their stories are transmuted across regions. This is most apparent in Zeus and Amun-Ra, (which you still have yet to address by the way) Gefjun and Demeter and Perswa, etc.
The later Greeks do, but that would suggest that they would have gotten the idea from the Norse rather than the other way around.
Assuming of course, that the later Greeks didn't just transmute their telling from the Mycenaean convention, which wouldn't require the Norse to be the first tellers. And the Greeks weren't the first to come up with their mythologies.
Thus you would have to assume these mythological connections went from Sumeria to Scandinavia
No, one wouldn't. You left some connections out. Let's gauge your purported intense study. The Mycenaean were located in what's known today as the Balkan peninsula. What other mythologies had influence there? (Hint: I've already mentioned one of them.)
I would love to see the evidence of this.
I cannot give you evidence for a non sequitur.
I don't have time to do this with literally every religion,
What you have time to do is irrelevant. You either do or you don't, and if you don't, then don't mention it.
The Sumerians lasted from 5400 BCE - 1750 BCE, the religion having its origins in the earlier part of this or possibly stemming from pre-Sumerian mythos.Lucifer ultimately stems from the Canaanite god Attar and is associated with the planet Venus. Now, unless you wish to say any god associated with the planet Venus is automatically Luciferian then it is hard to go any further back than Attar, maybe Helel from a reconstructed earlier Canaanite myth but that is relying on reconstruction of a myth without much text surviving to know for sure of Attar and Helel are connected.So, can we somehow connect Helel as the inspiration of the Sumerian gods? Not even close. Canaan didn't even have much of any immigration into the region until around 4500 BCE! We don't even see records of what we understand to be the Canaanite pantheon until about 3000 BCE at the earliest.The only hope you have at preserving the idea that the Sumerian gods are derivatives of Lucifer is if you take any god that is associated with Venus as being associated with Lucifer, which gets you one, just one of the Sumerian pantheon, the goddess Inanna. Now you have the tall task of showing that every god from every pagan religions somehow stems from Inanna. If any of them stem not from Venus or Inanna then they are not 'Luciferian'.
No, the Canaanite God, Attar stems from Lucifer, not the other way around. Now earlier I stated that Lucifer was a trinity, albeit a sinister one. How did I describe it? Father God (Horned God) Mother Goddess and the Divine Child (i.e. "hermaphrodite" child.) Now from where does the term "hermaphrodite" stem? It stems from the greek god Hermaphroditus who was the god of hermaphrodites and effeminates. Hermaphroditus was also known as Erotes, the winged god of Love. Now if we analyze their Roman counter parts, the connection is visible. Who was the consort of Mercury and the mother of Cupid?
And yes, Inanna is an incarnation of Lucifer as well, most notably illustrated in the descent of Inanna when she comfronts her sister Ereshkigal in their conflict over Damuzid--though some tellings may replace Damuzid with his father Enki. These trinities reappear in every mythology. And the pantheons are just incarnations of Father God, Mother Goddess, and Divine Child.
By the way, before this gets lost in our on-going discussion, what kind of pagan are you, as you would describe it? Why do you wear a pentagram necklace?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
YOUR ACTIVITY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE IS SHAPED BY YOUR PREVIOUS INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER HUMANS AND ALSO SHAPES YOUR FUTURE INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER HUMANS (IN BOTH "POSITIVE" AND "NEGATIVE" AND BOTH "NEUTRAL" AND "UNKNOWN" WAYS)
Can the influence of one's masturbation be observed in the interaction with others?
*Note: I meant "Even masturbation?" as a joke, when I started, but I'm interested to see where this discussion goes.
MINIMUM WAGE IS A FACTOR WHEN THERE IS AN OVERSUPPLY OF LABOR, BUT NOT WHEN THERE IS AN UNDERSUPPLY
Minimum-wage creates an shortage/under-supply of legally employable labor.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Ah yes, the great deflection. Simply say "Do your research!" without providing the evidence.
It's not a deflection. The information is extensive. So I leave it to you contingent on your interest in the subject. If not, and you're just looking for me to compile information on yet to be defined metrics of "acceptable evidence"--it should be noted that arguments are forms of evidence--then that conveys enough to me about whether or not I'm willing to engage you seriously on the subject. I've already given you a nudge in the right direction (Amun-Ra and Zeus,) to which you have yet to respond; so let's see what you make of it.
Sorry to say that I have done my research and you will find it hard to find any way to show how these gods are derived from the Sumerian gods
It's not difficult at all, undermining your claim that you've done your research. If you did any research, it wasn't very much.
as there is too much missing information about the early pantheons in many cases
In reference to which information is that?
and will also find it impossible to show that the Sumerian gods are derivatives of Lucifer.
Do your research.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
BECAUSE THE MARKET REFUSES TO COMPENSATE RELATIVE TO RISK
Not true at all. The market typically compensates very well relative to risk. The issue is a substitution effect in the labor market. Wages are being bid down in order to compete with alternative and cheaper methods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
IS MASURBATION A HUMAN ACTION ?
Yes. So, how does this impact other people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
DOES HUMAN ACTION HAVE A CAUSE AND DOES THAT CAUSE ALSO HAVE A CAUSE ?
Yes, but how does this tie to masturbation?
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
All you have to do is do your due diligence in researching these ancient religions. In my early days, I did extensive research into the origins of Greek, Norse, and Egyptian mythology. Look up the connection between Amun-Ra and Zeus. And in Alexander the Great's victories, he would always claim that he was Zeus himself. So then explain why his image is associated with horns.
All of these pagan gods are just derivative of the Sumerian gods, which themselves are derivative of Lucifer.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I do not see how that follows, unless we go off the idea that all pagan gods (whether we go with the Greek pantheon, the Norse, etc.) are various incarnations of Lucifer, but that is something I feel requires one to presuppose a very particular view of Christianity as being true.
All of the gods of the Greek and Norse pantheon are derivatives of the Luciferian Trinity. As well as the Celtic gods, Eygptian/Kemetic Gods, the Sumerian/Semetic gods, etc.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I chose the name ironically. I'm a pagan and wear a pentagram necklace and so often have Christians accuse me of being a satanist and so chose the username TheMorningsStar out of irony from that
Then you are a Luciferian. Lucifer =/= satan. Satan is an incarnation of Lucifer, particularly what's understood as the Baphomet. But paganism would fall within Luciferianism as would Satanism.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
What exactly is 'being' and how is it separate from 'persons'?
I would suppose that being simply does not mean corporeal which is limited to physical constitution, where as a spiritual form is infinite. ∞/3 = ∞. So God/3 = God.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Just because my username is TheMorningsStar doesn't mean I know anything about Luciferianism, so the analogy does nothing to help.
I know. I was just teasing. Jesus also refers to himself as a morning star in Revelations.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The three are incarnations of the same being. Each incarnation has their idiosyncrasies but together they create the composite which is God. The sinister interpretation of this trinity is also reflected in Luciferianism, where the Father God (Horned God,) The Mother Goddess, and the Divine Child (hermaprodite child) create the composite/embodiment of Lucifer Morningstar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
EVERY SINGLE THING YOU DO IMPACTS OTHER PEOPLE.
Even masturbation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Almost no one on the left is pushing for socialism.
"Almost no one?" That begs the question: who are these "almost no ones"?
We’re pushing for expanding social programs to combat the fact that our country is growing ever more monopolized by the top one percent every year, a perfectly appropriate and rational response.
A socialist/left-wing talking point.
Or, do you see the fact that 3 individual Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of the country to not be an issue?
For argument's sake, how would this be an issue? Are you arguing that these three individual Americans have come across this distribution of wealth illegitimately/immoral/unethically? And if so, how?
Perhaps they just work 50 million times harder than everyone else.
Wealth is not a function of hard work; wealth is function of commerce generated. Hard work can lead to more commerce, but not necessarily.
But what does that even mean? "Trying to" is as phrase that points to motivation. Please help me understand how you make sense out of claiming that their motivation is to control you're life. What does any politician, who mind you will likely end up a private citizen themselves in the near future subject to the same"government control" you are asserting, get out of it?
Money, given that it's a universal metric for exchanged resources. Each individual is a resource. Controlling you, controls you as a resource.
"I'm not going to let the government tell me what to do"? Because that's what I hear everytime I hear someone talk about government control. We live in a society and societies have rules.
And why do the rules government impose as it concerns my life hold more weight than my own rules? Because it has 2.8 million armed stooges who wear the government's coat of arms?
Everyone wants to be able to take the car to 100 when they're in a hurry, but no one wants to drive on a road where other people are doing 100. That's the cost of living around other people.
If a person's driving 100 miles per hour puts people at risk, then that person will face the consequences of their actions independent of government.
Neither of those is what I did. You made a claim (Fauci said he was science), so I explained why your claim is nonsense (what Fauci actually said was that what he was relaying were the actual findings of science). And I did all that to get to the point... How absurd is it when the right makes health experts to be the bad guy, such that you invent attacks on them having nothing to do with anything they actually did or said?
Fauci appealed to his own authority, and you sought to substantiate it by claiming that he "meant" that his prescriptions were consistent with rigorous scientific standards. If that's what he "meant" then he could have said that himself. But he didn't. Because he was, once again, appealing to his own authority.
And I didn't say anything about democratic choices, you made that up.
Does this distinction really matter? Wouldn't "democratic choices" fall within one's own choices? If they're allegedly "too stupid" to make their own choices, why would they be any "less stupid" when making democratic choices?
The idea behind democracy is that we have our own lives to live.
Democracy is de facto elimination of dissent through majoritarian consensus.
I've got my own profession to study and worry about, so I don't have time to sit around learning about the latest study on the effects of mask wearing on COVID
And yet your ignorance has not stopped you from calling others stupid.
This is why our communities come together to select someone we trust to do the work for us and represent us in that decision making process.
Then your standards of trust leave a lot to be desired. You know what? Let me get your credit card number. I just want to make sure your credit score is where it should be.
Dr. Fauci has been the nation's leading infectious disease expert for decades and has served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
All irrelevant in verification and the determination of truth.
There is nothing partisan about him,
You don't know that.
you just don't like what he has to say so you take a page out of the Trump playbook and demonize him.
Mentioning Trump's name out of nowhere doesn't help the case that you're not partisan. Though, that doesn't matter much either. All that matters is that you're informed. And to your own admission, you're not.
Following the recommendations of science is not.
Science has no recommendations. It's not a person, despite Fauci's delusions of grandeur.
I’m not making that claim, and neither are the vast majority of people pushing for things like higher taxes on the wealthy. Attacking the system and attacking the people benefiting that system are not the same thing.
And which system is that? Capitalism?
Recessions demonstrate this best. When the economy takes a downturn, the best thing is for everyone to go out and spend. So what does everyone do? Stop spending, thereby causing the economy to crash. Each individual doing what’s best for them individually results in everyone getting screwed.
Modern recessions are not a product of Capitalism. Said recessions are the children of Central Banks and monetary policy. And no, spending to boost aggregate demand is a Keynesian delusion. Even in times of recession, there's some growth. The issue is that the commerce generated in periods of overproduction is not backed by any real capital, leading to rapid deflation. Let me illustrate this with an analogy: say, for example, my cousin comes to me and leaves a set of antiques with me that are worth 500 (note that I have yet to ascribe this number a unit.) My other family members catch wind of this and start leaving their precious items with me. They trust me to secure these items. Now as time goes by, my family spreads out, thereby creating some distance between them and me. Some of my family members would like to part with their precious items in trades, but there's too much distance between us. Rather than carry the bulk of their items, I create certificates which represents the value of their items, and mail it to them. In the advent of these certificates, my family members realized that their trades didn't have to be limited to just their precious items. As long as they can redeem the value of their items through these certificates, they can basically trade anything. This works well until I decide to print certificates regardless of the precious items I've secured. I even boast that I'm able to insure up to 250,000 (note again, that I've yet to ascribe a unit) in value of the precious items secured with me. Now my family members start engaging rampantly in spending and the initiation of contracts. Word gets out that I'm issuing certificates without the sufficient amount of precious items with which I previously secured them. Everyone panics and attempts to redeem the value of these certificates as best they can, even receiving less rather than nothing. Out of fear of losing the value of all of their items, they suspend all spending and initiations of contracts.
Now I ask you: in this analogy, did the problem arise because my family members had the capacity to trade and initiate contracts--even rampantly (Capitalism)? Or did it arise when I decided to issue certificates in spite of my stock of precious items (Expansionary Monetary Policy)? Would you encourage my family members to "spend more" or would you encourage me to re-index my certificates to accurately reflect my stock of precious items? You didn't get screwed over because "individuals were doing what's best for them individually." You got screwed over when the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and Franklin Delano Roosevelt eliminated the gold standard in 1933. Why you ask? Because that essentially made the U.S. populace debt-slaves. Instead of the money being redeemable with stocks of Gold, they are now redeemable with taxable human beings. This is the reason you're being encourage to "spend more."
The problem is the system. Especially as technology progresses and continues to interconnect us, capitalism doesn’t cultivate an environment where people are compensated for their contributions, it cultivates monopolization. Bezos didn’t invent the Internet, didn’t invent or make the products he sells, he didn’t pave the roads his products are delivered on. What he did was win the competition of delivery services, and for that he gets all the marbles. And while he takes him his prize, those who collectively contributed every bit as much as he has get scraps. That is what people like myself take issue with.
You soundin' really jelly, my ninja. Tell me something: did Bezos coerce the inventor of the internet, the engineers of the products he sells, road pavers, etc. to help facilitate the commerce his business generates? No? So what more do these people who collectively contributed deserve beyond what was stipulated in the contracts in which they willfully engaged?
We can for example disagree on whether mask mandates are beneficial, but to argue that this is just a power grab or that it will lead to oppression is absurd and it’s ignoring the entire issue at hand.
You're right--the oppression is already here. And it has been for centuries.
Created:
Posted in:
“the government” just wants to control our lives.
The government does want to control our lives; that's its purpose.
Is the idea here the democratic politicians pass, say a mask mandate, not because they believe masks will help slow the spread of the virus but because they get a hard-on being able to make people do something they otherwise wouldn’t have done?
Is there no utility in controlling others without the immediate allusion to sexual gratification?
Do they walk into a grocery store and see everyone with their masks on and boast to their wives saying “see, I did that”?
I don't know; you'd have to ask them.
Is there anyone on this site who can explain the rationale here?
A controlled populace = a compliant populace.
And BTW, people are often too stupid to make their own decisions. That’s just a fact.
Making one's own decisions is absolutely in no way contingent with DoubleR's standards of stupid.
Whether government should step in is another question, and it’s situational. This though has little to do with the narrative that government just wants to control your life, unless by that you mean government wants you to stay alive, which is a pretty terrible argument against government.
Your rationale is flawed. There's no empirical evidence that a COVID-19 vaccine has saved a life. *It's a method of inoculation* There is evidence that COVID-19 vaccines immediately after administration have led to death. So in accordance with your rationale's logic, the government wants you to die.
Fauci was saying that the points he is making are consistent with science, so to disagree with one is to necessarily disagree with the other.I’m not surprised however that such a statement would get twisted and then turned into a right wing talking point against Fauci. Because health experts are the enemy now, that’s how ridiculous the right has become.
Science is not synonymous with Truth.
Created: