Athias

Do you think that LGBT will accept pedophiles?

You know that you are only made of atoms, don't you?

Racial hatred of White people has been called into question recently after poll showed alarming results.

Black Americans were asked to agree or disagree with (1) It's okay to be White, and (2) Black people can be racist, too.

BLACK AMERICANS ONLY:

"It's okay to be white."53% agree, 26% disagree, 21% not sure

"Black people can be racist, too"76% of agree, 27% disagree, 8% not sure.

(tweet referencing the poll) Rasmussen Reports on Twitter: "BLACK AMERICANS ONLY: "It's okay to be white." 53% agree, 26% disagree, 21% not sure "Black people can be racist, too" 76% of agree, 27% disagree, 8% not sure." / Twitter ;

(subscriber-walled origin) Questions - Okay To Be White - February 13-15, 2023 - Rasmussen Reports®

This shocked and upset people like cartoonist Scott Adams, who wasn't expecting to encounter such racial hatred of White people (you can see his shocked reaction here) Episode 2027 Scott Adams: AI Goes Woke, I Accidentally Joined A Hate Group, Trump, Policing Schools - YouTube . This inspired him to write a Dilbert comic that got him kind of cancelled Dilbert comic strip dropped after a racist rant by creator Scott Adams : NPR .

What do you think?

Is it okay to be White?

The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established,

but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link,

because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities.

Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link.

Long thought to have some sort of hereditary link, a group of scientists have suggested that homosexuality is linked to epi-marks — extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed.

"There is compelling evidence that epi-marks contribute to both the similarity and dissimilarity of family members and can therefore feasibly contribute to the observed familial inheritance of homosexuality and its low concordance between [identical] twins," Rice notes.

Rice and his team created a mathematical model that explains why homosexuality is passed through epi-marks, not genetics. Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce. But because these epi-marks provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation."

Though scientists have long suspected some sort of genetic link, Rice says studies attempting to explain why people are gay have been few and far between.

Attraction doesnt seem like a choice. I mean, if it was a choice, person could change it any time a person chooses. However, it just seems impossible to change an attraction by choice.

Acting on an attraction is a choice, of course. Therefore, when homosexual man chooses to act on his attraction, that is choice.

Now, Bible tells us not to judge, not to seek revenge and to love everyone.  That is what The New Testament is about.

That doesnt mean that we cannot tell homosexuals who engage in homosexual acts that what they are doing is wrong and that God will punish them for it.

Attraction is not a choice. Action is.

There are ample explanations on the internet that you could research. https://lifehopeandtruth.com/life/plan-of-salvation/holy-days-vs-holidays/sign-of-jonah/3-days-and-3-nights/ or https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/crux.cfm is another.  

Personally, I don't think it was ever meant to be a literal understanding. It was more of a dictum. See Hosea 6:2 or the Midrash teaching on Genesis 42:17.   The point is Jesus died, and was buried. And then rose again from the dead. 

I'm not sure of your point.  The church has celebrated from very early that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, or as it is sometimes known, the 8th day. 

Well again, yes you are wrong.

Like most religions back then - the lunar calendar was supreme. Every religion pretty much celebrated on that date.  Hence, why I say coincidence. The Christians followed the Passover date.  Just because you have gods venerated on the same date does not invalidate the Christian teaching. Your reasoning is arrogant and presumptuous. 

Nothing you have said proves your point.

Your argument seems to be - all of these previous religions celebrated on this date, therefore everyone after the event is simply following.  That is very weak and thin. 

And while the papacy might have weird ideas

Who says there is no biblical stipulation? 

Some people do this - so what?

Not all, and probably not even most. 

And so that is why we need to explore it thoroughly. 

I'm not catholic.

I have researched widely.

I can see your research is distorted and incomplete. Perhaps you should read wider.

Overall, Friedman believed that the government's focus on criminalizing drug use was not only ineffective but also a violation of individual freedom. He argued that individuals should have the right to make their own decisions about drug use, as long as they did not harm others in the process.

 “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer.”

“the law holds that it is better that 40,000 guilty guns escape, than that 450,000,000 innocent guns suffer.”

Which came first the Pagan or the Christian?

And so surprise surprise J became a symbol of resurrection.

And now we have consumerism, rebranding Easter and selling us a different message.

Happy Chocolate Egg Weekend Athias.

Jesus died, I think most likely on Friday, the day before the weekly Sabbath.

It is possible that he died either on Wednesday or Thursday since that week also contained a different Sabbath, that of the Passover.  

Jesus rose from the dead either on Sunday morning or Saturday. The disciples attended early Sunday Morning and it appears Jesus was hanging around at the graveside. 

No, you are incorrect.  This period of time is to do with Christ dying and being raised from the dead.

The fact that other religions celebrated their gods at the same time is nothing more than coincidence.  Just like my birthday being on the same day as my cousins is nothing more than a coincidence. 

And while it is true that the Catholic church celebrated this celebration at the same time and perhaps brought other pagan celebrations into join with it, possibly the work of the empire state system rather than the church, it doesn't reduce the Christian celebration one iota.

And while I do find it offensive that so many people label it Easter,

Nevertheless, most people in the society we live would are not church people who would not understand Resurrection Day but would know it as Easter.

Yet no church that I am aware of would ever see it as anything other than the death and resurrection of Christ.  

This argument is not including any rape, or [incestuous] incidents, only consensual sex incidents protection or not. 

It's good because there are only two days to go until Chocolate Egg Day.

It does seem odd that the holiest day of the year for the Christian, Good Friday, which remembers Jesus, dying on a cross, is called good.

Surely it would make better sense to call it Black Friday whilst celebrating his resurrection on the Sunday.

I am not asking this question because I don't know the traditional church explanation, I am asking to begin a dialogue with people who might also have asked this question.  

Donald Trump, 2005: “I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”

There is a montage out there that shows a lot of his hair sniffing and groping too, but don't know if it's on YT or not.

This guy is clearly a disgusting person but maybe that's why his base loves him.

Word

No one’s rights are absolute.

In a large, complex society, there will be conflicts.

That must be adjudicated somehow.

Well, then you are an extremist, and unfit for the society we live in.

That’s a straw man.

Imagine this that Justin Bieber visited the Holocaust museum and wrote in the visitation journal that "Anne Frank must have been a Belieber." True story

Maybe that's because bans never worked ever on anything. if people really want something and have the means to get it, they will. I'm sure Soros has a few nukes tucked away just in case.

You don't have to be, they wrote the scripts for your conditioned responses.

I’m likening your conditioned responsesto the conditioned responses of Ivan Pavlov’s dogs,'

so yeah, indirectly, I suppose I am.

It is not a "right" if it's subject to exogenous limitations. When the right was established there were no exogenous limitations attached to it. It was only later that people with no regard for the constitution or peoples rights were they added. There were no restrictions on owning a firearm. It "WAS" a right that was taken away.

You put "Love Yourself" by Justin Bieber in Rhythm & Blues. Lol

Here we go again explaining, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the thousandth time....

Or we could just sit still when the execution squads go door to door because of "trust."

Oh pulease, do gun people actually think about what they say or is it all just the NRA's Pavlovian trained dog replies?.

A firearm is a single purpose tool,

and that tool is designed to do one and only one thing, kill,

calling it the "ordinary civilian use of firearms" is a lame intellectual dodge of the issue, nothing but a distraction. 

Do you seriously believe it shouldn't matter how such a tool is used?

Generally speaking, it is unlawful to kill people,

and that's the only thing a firearm does

you really can't connect the dots as to why the vast number of illegal deaths merits consideration? 

I'm thinking that trumps  the rights of the hobbyist who loses his right to target practice, or hunt,

or whatever legal use that the gun culture is saying is worth so many thousands of lives. 

The fact is, the  real "ordinary civilian use of firearms", the reason people buy them,  is they want to have the ability to kill someone,

The real question is:

Why do you think about black-washing anime characters?

It's a mystery.

Self explanatory, what do you think about black-washing anime characters?

Personally I believe it's taking away the representation of Asian culture. It doesn't matter how much you want to see someone who is of color.

A common character I see that is black-washed is Izuku Midoriya, also known as Deku. He is a character from My Hero Academia and the protagonist.  'Everyone' seems to get offended when someone white-washes a character but not black-washing? They all tend to turn a blind eye. Funny.  You will most likely not see anyone make a part two of any movie from the main character going black to white. Everyone would go nuts. "Oh my god, they are racist, they made him white in movie two!"  

What's the difference? If you take away someones representation but get offended at the other you are a hypocrite. 

What's funny is that an engineered virus killed more people than all the nuclear bombs and guns in the last century, But we can skip over THOSE controls....

Yes I have.

You asked why you shouldn't be allowed have weapons of mass destruction

I gave a very clear and sensible reason why not.

You were just too busy about your all caps'ing and bolding to read it and understand it. 

Because people being allowed to own weapons of mass destruction means their use. No matter how you plan or promise to use them, you can make no assurances about the next guy.

Your belligerent style of writing matters not a fuck alongside that reality. 

Share suggestions or favorites you have. I may broadcast a link if I feel like my content is worth viewing by others

I have very clearly answered your question.

So Athias thinks we should all have nuclear bombs.

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/press/releases/2019/Juli/homicide-kills-far-more-people-than-armed-conflict--says-new-unodc-study.html

Just for fun.

In any situation where a death would not have occurred if not for the presence of a gun, how do the decisions of those involved grossly supercede the presence of the gun?

No.

Is that enough clarification for you to address the question?

That's irrelevant to what we're talking about.

You asked me if we blame the car in auto accidents, I pointed out that we do in fact recognize the role an automobile plays in car accident deaths.

Our attempt to minimize this includes requiring licenses before we permit someone to get behind the wheel.

I didn't "create" the scenario.

This actually does happen in real life

5 year olds getting stabbed or choked to death by another 5 year old doesn't.

Because killing someone else with a knife, bare hands, or pretty much any other weapon takes effort and intent.

With a gun all it takes is carelessness.

That's why we treat these things differently, or at least we would in any other situation, except when it's a gun.

You are overgeneralizing our position.

Everyone has the right to bear "arms."

Does everyone have a right bear any weapon whatsoever? If the answer is no, then you have to decide where to draw the line between arms which are permitted and those which are not permitted.

A nuclear weapon? No. A tank? No. Where then?

They allow maniacs to kill many people in a short period of time.

They should be outlawed outside the military. Law abiding citizens could still arm themselves with non-automatic weapons. Why is that such a terrible idea?

It is a weapon designed to kill human beings being used often and with great success to kill human beings. Why should I trust you to own such a thing? Why should your society pay the obvious horrific cost of your being allowed to own it? 

I believe I pointed out that an abnormal behavior is only considered a mental illness when it is followed by negative life consequences. You then went on to say that being rejected is a behavior and then you went into depression which is not a behavior whether it is classified as a mental illness or not. I think our communication with each other hasn't been clear and my method for clearing up misunderstandings is apparently not very good

Sadness and grief is not a behavior, it is something you experience. 

If a toy is shown to be involved in excessive choking incidents, we recall the toy. No one would argue this is "holding the toy accountable".

As I already explained, no gun safety advocate pretends that gun deaths occur without a person somehow involved. But gun advocates love to pretend the gun is not part of the equation.

Let's try a simpler version; if it were legal for me to own a nuclear weapon and I purchased one, then used it to destroy my entire city, would you argue that the millions of deaths which resulted were merely "a person killing people" or would you recognize that the presence of a nuclear weapon was the problem?

Yes, that's why we require people to get drivers licenses before they can legally drive

because we recognize that the danger posed by having the wrong person behind the wheel of a car is far greater than the person by themself.

You act as if the scenario I created is entirely made up with no connection to reality. It's not. Children do end up getting their hands on guns and accidentally killing others.

That aside, the purpose of any hypothetical is not to paint a picture of the world, it's to test one's logic. If the logic of "guns don't kill people" held up then there is nothing to pin as "sophistry".

This is really simple; in this scenario a child is dead whereas without a gun in the picture today child would be alive.

The conclusion is simple; guns do kill people.

You can make whatever argument you want to pretend that's not actuate, but you would have to abandon the same basic logic you would apply to any other scenario.

Psychology often looks a soft science in a number of areas to me (Currently), but,

rejection is not abnormal behavior.

Mass murderer has a gun = bad for us

Mass murderer doesnt have a gun = now we are safe

People have historically demonstrated that knives, bombs, cars and poisons can kill plenty of people even if you somehow succeed in removing all the illegal guns.

These same nutjobs will then say 'give them any weapon they want, they will kill anyway' not realising someone can kill a lot more people with a gun than with a knife or baseball bat.

No one is claiming the gun should be held accountable.

The idea being pushed by this talking point is that the presence of guns is irrelevant, if someone ends up dead only the people involved should be factored into the equation.

In this scenario, without the gun being in the picture, no one ends up dead. Do you deny this? Would you argue that the child shot to death would have ended up dead another way regardless?

6 Black Men vs 1 Secret White Guy,

Though I 'think the white guy sounds a bit white to me, may be because I 'watched the video.

In the video he talks of how he was adopted and where he grew up.

'But, if physical tendencies occur, so would psychological one's is my view.

Women and men, are pretty different they say,

The abnormal behavior usually needs to be followed with negative effects on the patients life to be considered a mental illness.

I would say gender dysphoria meets this requirement, but was removed from the DSM for political reasons. 

Attempting a more serious conversation than some recent threads...

I have a question for every 2A advocate who has uttered these words;

A five year finds a gun that was stashed away, decides to walk over to the playgroundold and play with it. Three minutes later a child is shot to death.

Question: Was that child who was shot to death killed by a gun or killed by another child?

Still, if a race can all share 'roughly the same color and voice, as three people argued,

I don't see why they couldn't share psychological tendencies as well.