Total posts: 2,627
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Oh has he? I only looked at the 2 debates and 4 forum posts. It seemed like a pretty small smattering of activity. Should've thought to check comments (and votes, probably). Let me see...
Yeah... so reading these comments isn't exactly filling me with faith that he's really a Christian. He acts more like a flamebaiting parody of a Christian. But oh well. Who am I to say. Don't know him.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
He is not a troll, he has been on MANY forums
Can you blame me. Looks like he signed up recently and this is his first post. And he came right out of the chute flamebaiting. My cynicism keeps telling me that usually means one thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
keith usually knows a good bit of what he's talking about. He's annoying like that. One day I'd like to take him out of his comfort zone of knowledge and thrust him into something totally out of his element. Like make him sing karaoke. Or maybe force him to go on Dancing With The Stars. At gunpoint. I assume everyone who goes on that show has to be forced at gunpoint.Keith doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't really understand our faith, so him claiming that Paul and John differed is a matter of his faulty interpretation not reality.They were both Orthodox Christians with common faith.
Created:
Yeah I try to never put the word "Jews" in all caps. But that's just me.
I'm guessing troll account. You don't really sound like a Christian to me. I've never heard a Christian brag that they remade God to suit their fancy. That would be absurd to them, and they'd think it doesn't show proper fear of the Lord.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
They would say the bible says it, I believe it, and thats that!
Yep. Cannot count the number of times I've heard that.
OrI believe in Jesus Christ and that's that!Maybe ignoring their own interpretation of these things!Well, Jesus Christ left a church. The beginnings of which are accounted in The New Testament. The Church is still around today in The Orthodox Catholic Church.It isn't that we de-emphasize the Bible. Quite the contrary, we revere it as a holy icon. We love the bible. We kiss the bible even. We do everything in a very biblical way. Protestants tend to(I have to say tend to, because there is no unified protestantism) overemphasize the bible. They do this because they reject The Church!
To be honest, in America most Christians don't even seem to be aware of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The church foremost in their rejection is the Catholic Church. Can't really blame them for not liking the papacy. It practically deifies this one man sitting in a gilded palace. Though the current one seems to refuse to stay in the gilded palace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Well, it isn't the authority of men to begin with. The Holy Spirit is with the church. The faith isn't really in men.But if the protestant says they have no faith in men, what they are really saying is they have faith in man. Themselves!Just them, the bible, and their interpretation.The Orthodox Catholic Church wrote The New Testament and determined its canon. We are the church. The bible is a part of our Holy Tradition, it isn't the source.The church didn't wait around for 300 something years wondering what to do before The New Testament was compiled. No, we knew what we believed before.And if you were to go back and pluck a Christian out from those ancient times and plop them in an Orthodox Church today, they would know exactly what was going on, even if they didn't speak the language.You can't say that about any protestant church, and you can't even say that about The Roman Catholic Church.
Girls, girls, you're all pretty.
No, that's actually a nice one with the "they do have faith in man, themselves" thing. Don't know how they'd respond to that. Probably deny that their faith is just in themselves and insist their faith is in God. That's what all Christians always insist.
This doctrinal de-emphasis on the Bible is so weird to me. In America it's just the Bible, the Bible, the Bible. Only the Bible. There's just no getting away from it.
But information has to come from somewhere, some source, so there's always going to be a question of which sources have authority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
An inconsequential lettter by Paul such 2 John as was in but anything eviating from Paul's theological positionAn inconsequential letter by Paul such 2 John as was in but anything deviating from Paul's theological position
No, I got the deviating. It was more the wording. But I have nothing really to add to your point about the New Testament. It agrees with my preexisting knowledge on the subject, though I have not done near as much research on it as you seem to have done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So basically "My religion is the one true religion and all the others are wrong." What I like about that is how I've never heard it before.
I can certainly see the appeal of a single, central church -- one God, one way, one church -- and the appeal of believing in an uninterrupted succession. But are you really surprised that Protestants are reluctant to follow the authority of mere men? That's all an orthodox church is. Protestants believe only the Bible is God's word, and mere men do not have the divine authority to tell them how to believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Yeah that's my bad. I was going off this:I was thinking of the nt.
The authors of the Bible are not still around to tell usI doubt they'd all agree if they were around.
I need a bit of an assist with this:
An inconsequential lettter by Paul such 2 John as was in but anything eviating from Paul's theological position
Created:
Posted in:
The authors of the Bible are not still around to tell us, and simply reading their words is not enough to eliminate all gray areas and wiggle room.I doubt they'd all agree if they were around. I think the nt would be even less consistent if deciding what was canon was not in the hands of Paulines. i think only James represents a non-Pauline perspective.Ja 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.I think that is shows a very practical, this-worldly attitude that is more Judaic than the more abstract and next-world orienation of the Hellenised Paul. James emphasises works for their on sake - Paul emphasises faith as the key to personal salvalation.The rabid anti-semite Martin Luther hated the book of James and called it an epistle of straw, but (as is plausible) james was the brother of jesus it might be closer to what Jesus actually taught.btw ML was not a nice person. He wrote of the Jews"Jews are a base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth. They are full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."That was 400 years before Hitler!
Par for the course when you've got a text composed of a bunch of different books cobbled together from a bunch of different authors over a period of thousands of years.
Martin Luther seems to be a celebrated figure in America. I think his fans like to remember his stance against indulgences more than his stance against Jews.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I like the interpretive individualism of Protestant thought, with the emphasis on anti-authoritarianism and believing what feels right to you rather than what a mega-church says is right. And I like the practice of baptizing when you choose to be saved rather than at birth, before you can make choices.I don't think you are right about 'the interpretive individualism of Protestant thought'. Catholicism recognises two sources of religious authority - the Bible and the Church . Protestantism tends to 'scriptura sola' so the protestant church has no power to add or take away from what is in the text.What protestantism does not do is give individuals the right or power to interpret scripture as they see fit. Under protestantism there is a correct interpretation and determining the correct interpetation remains firmly in the hands of the Church, not the individual believer. The only difference is that the Cathlolic church does not have justify everthing with chapter and verse as it claims to have independent authority.
Sorry, but what Roderick said pretty much agrees with all my experience with Protestants. If sola scriptura meant that Protestants could not have interpretive differences about scripture, there would be no denominations at all.
In attitude I have found that Protestantism overwhelmingly exalts the personal relationship with Jesus, and in that way I think it does tend to dignify the individual's experience of faith. They're still going to disagree with each other, and they're still going to think they're right and others are wrong, but my experience just does not support the statement that Protestantism gives no right or power to the individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
"I predict that in the future... there will be people with different ideas! Beware them! BEWAAAAAARE..."
That was just something Paul wrote anyway. But in all seriousness, Christians ignoring the original meaning in favor of eisegesis that conveniently condones their lifestyle is definitely a thing, so I won't say Paul was wrong about the problem. The issue is always who gets to decide what the original meaning was. The authors of the Bible are not still around to tell us, and simply reading their words is not enough to eliminate all gray areas and wiggle room.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That is a very protestant idea, but it is not what we Orthodox believe.
Nor Catholics, I presume. Personally I think that it's just self-evident that the Bible is open to interpretation.
I like the interpretive individualism of Protestant thought, with the emphasis on anti-authoritarianism and believing what feels right to you rather than what a mega-church says is right. And I like the practice of baptizing when you choose to be saved rather than at birth, before you can make choices.
But I also like the more educated self-control of the orthodox churches, where you'll rarely see religious snake handling or two-bit televangelists or Christian Science organizations telling people to stop using modern medicine. The price of freedom of thought is you are free to be more ignorant.
Created:
Posted in:
I think being accepting of a plurality of denominations is basically being accepting that the Bible is open to interpretation. Which I would agree with.
As long as there are atheists and secular left-wingers, it won't surprise me to see Christians generally getting along.
Created:
Also since my posts have been deleted from Catin's topics I don't thing she should be posting in mine.
News to me. I don't even remember you posting in any of my topics recently.
But out of respect for your wishes I will now leave the thread.
Lololol I'm totally joking, I ain't goin' nowheres. Tough titty.
I know my spiteful insolence and total disrespect of your desires will make you glow with the fiercest pride.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I sincerely hope, Castin, that you have not based your response only on what you read on this thread.
Nah, I googled it first and looked at a few other articles echoing the story. It seemed like an obscure piece of news that would probably only be covered by obscure sources. But my effort ended there, I'm afraid. I am quite guilty of not doing really exhaustive digging.
I am surprised that people are - apparently -willing accept nonsense at face value.
Well, nothing about the story really jumped out at me as obvious nonsense. It seemed quite plausible to me that a community in our Christianized western society might consider banning symbols from an archaic pagan religion they don't care about simply because of evil by association, without really caring about the significance the symbols have to a fringe minority of modern pagans. But then, I live in America.
Created:
I'm sick of hate groups ruining cool ancient things.
It's bold-faced suppression of religious freedom, no two sides to it. They might as well just say "we only care about major religions, only they have rights."
The funny thing is that outlawing those runes would probably do more to make people associate them with hate groups than if the government had just ignored them. Banning a thing can increase its publicity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I once heard someone say the main thing that separates us is that we're the only animals who can tell stories about all the others.Is our knowledge of good and evil the main thing that sets us apart from animals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
While people can have faith in science (I do), science is not faith based. It is evidence based. It doesn't require ardor or faith. It requires empirical proof.The everyday matters of science can be verified and repeated empirically. The question of origins/beginnings is another matter. No one was there to witness the universe come into being or life arise from supposed nonliving physical matter alone. Since you can recreate origins you have to interpret the evidence. How you interpret it depends on the slant you start from. As I have said many times (using a Ravi Zacharius argument), atheists, agnostics, Christians all have a religious view in the sense the all three try to explain life's ultimate questions such as What are we, why are we here, how did we get here, what difference does it make, and what happens to us when we die.Thus, I would argue you have religious faith in this sense and faith in origins since science is interpreting data from long ago without being able to witness, verify, or repeat the origins. It builds on a particular model. In the past, many of the models have been replaced with a different paradigm. Thomas Kuhn has documented some of these paradigm shifts.
100% certainty does not exist, of course. We can never truly know. But for me it's that science makes good guesses and religion makes bad guesses. Even science's theories on the origins of life or the universe are based on evidence. More evidence than religion can typically provide.
If asking human questions is your only qualifier of what is religious, I suppose I can see how science might qualify for you. But I think that's an incomplete description of "religious." For science to be religious I would expect it to involve worship, claim the existence of deities, ask you to rely on faith, tell you what to do/how to live, or make value judgments about what is right or wrong. Religion is a big word with a lot of baggage. I'm not sure you can justly equivocate the two simply because humans have used both of them to pursue existential questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
This is a part of the Bible that's a mystery, but with many valid links to consider (symbols of snakes used in different religion cultures down to the medical field, Reptilian Complex, etc. ).A key ingredient of the serpent in the Garden, and today's deadly snakes is that there's no appeal to human morality or sanity. When a human commits a horrific act, we wonder why. We may appeal to their sanity and lack of human compassion. When a snake attacks a human, the snake is the equivalent of a movie monster for the person being attacked. There's no appeal to reptilian compassion. There's no negotiating with a snake that of course doesn't communicate with us intellectually, just as the serpent in the garden was not one to negotiate with, but who did communicate intellectually with Eve. While we may not know exactly what that serpent was, there's a considerably valid lesson to be learned from that given account whether it was conveyed literally, or symbolically.
So you interpret the snake as a stand-in for amoral animal behavior? Our base instincts?
Created:
Posted in:
No. Like many before him, he is merely donning the cloak of Christianity because it is culturally convenient and politically advantageous.
I suspect many of his Christian supporters are quite aware that he is no model Christian. They support him anyway, probably because many Christians compartmentalize their politics and their faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WisdomofAges
Are you physically capable of making a post with no caps?
Indulge my curiosity.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
You forget flavour, favourite, savour, valour, and spelling grey with an e instead of a.
Well, adding all of those to my wall of spiteful repetitions would probably have taken up most of the page. Would you say it'd be worth it?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I am suer you already bsh1 doesn't want it because it would cause mobs or something so I guess you would have to make a convincing argument to him or debate him if you really feel like you have the better position if that is allowed. I would like a public ban log myself but guess it would be too much hassle for Virtuoso and bsh1 to deal which is why they are opposed to it and of course mobs starting to form insulting banned members or who were not permanently banned but I don't really see that problem when I insult people who don't understand what they are talking about.
What about a public ban log that listed recent bans and offenses, but no usernames? Might be a nice balance between transparency and privacy. People should easily be able to put together what offenses go with which recently banned users, but you're still not displaying personal names on a public "wall of shame."
Virtuoso has actually been in support of a public ban log for a while. But there's been concern that it would encourage public shaming, as you mentioned, and compromise the banned member's right to serve their ban quietly and return in relative privacy.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Not knowing what 'being a dick' is is being a dick. I'm banning you from the non-existent (and never will exist) kpdebate.org.But i'm adding extra rules: you can be banned for spelling 'lose' as 'loose', using the wrong form of there/their/they're, and omitting the u in colour.
You had my 100% support until that last one. I suppose you'll want me to put a U in armor and honor too. Pah. I'd rather die.
Pure spite:
color armor honor color armor honor color armor honor color armor honor
color armor honor color armor honor color armor honor color armor honor
color armor honor color armor honor color armor honor color armor honor
color armor honor color armor honor color armor honor color armor honor
Yeahhhh. You like that, keith? Rub that all over ya. Let it sink in.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I did, that's my bad. I forget some people aren't as familiar with these details.
I'd use one of those general notice things and say "X is banned for being a dick. Anyone who disagrees can PM me and I'll ban them too."I rather it be "A broke X rule and refused to change his way which is why A is permanently banned."
A public ban log -- something saying "A broke X rule and was banned" -- has been something we've gone back and forth on from the beginning, debating the pros and cons. The mods recently put the matter to a vote, iirc. It didn't win by a wide enough margin. I want to say like 55% of the votes were for a public ban log and 45% were against it.
I would much rather we had one. I've grown weary of the cries of tyranny and conspiracy every time someone is banned without the reason why being plastered on a billboard or something. The unknown always makes people suspicious.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
it's even worse than that - the present system is something out of Kafka or Orwell - after a few days you notice X has gone quiet, only to find "X has been made an 'unperson' - do not ask why".The only privacy being protected is that of the banning decision process.
Every banned member gets at least one hour to post a protest thread telling their side of the story. If a banned member does not choose to create a protest thread in this time, doesn't it seem reasonable to assume they did not want their trouble advertised to everyone? And shouldn't the mods proceed accordingly, in respect to their wishes? Some people want everyone to hear what happened; others don't want to be a public spectacle.
If bish and Virt were just protecting the privacy of their banning process, I imagine they would never allow banned members to shout their defiance and criticism from the mountaintops like that. It's a terribly impolitic policy that invites constant scandal and headache; no Orwellian government would ever permit it. They also probably wouldn't let us freely post moderator PM's whenever we want, without even having to ask permission.
I think they're quite willing to have their decisions exposed. They're just often too discreet in the name of privacy, and it can come across looking shadowy and sinister to some people.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
You can ask bish in a PM, and he'll tell you.So it's not private.
That's why I said "at least to the extent that bish doesn't want to publicly advertise" it. He'll inform you in a discreet PM, but he is against putting it on display or yelling it through a megaphone.
Originally his convictions about member privacy were such that he didn't even have a "PM me and I'll tell you" policy. He relaxed his stance on that at the appeal of myself and others.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
It's reasonable to have some indication that a user has been banned, just so members know when they're talking to someone who isn't here anymore. But why the user was banned is considered private information to the banned user, at least to the extent that bish doesn't want to publicly advertise the dirty details for all to see. But the information is still available on request. You can ask bish in a PM, and he'll tell you.
It really is amazing how people can turn a dinky internet forum into a sinister Orwellian dystopia or Game of Thrones. We all have a flair for the dramatic. Maybe we should be honest with ourselves and admit we all just secretly want more e-drama.
Created:
-->
@coal
It's a good question. Ideally there would be a desirable balance between quality and practicality. At the very least, I'm sure the volume of rules often discourages new prospective voters. The more work voters have to do, the smaller the voting pool is. That's bound to be true on any debate site.
There have been many times I decided not to vote because I wasn't up for all the work. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's anything we can do about that without degrading important standards that are there for good reason. For instance, in order for your vote to have been acceptable, we would have to start allowing people to vote without addressing any specific arguments.
Apologies -- you did clearly say you were not objecting to that mod action. To answer your actual point: I fear there might not be a way to be a "casual" voter, for lack of a better term.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
That is to protect the privacy of the banned user.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I can often still see where the ads are as blank boxes. But yeah, you were right. Not this time, it seems.
Lol. Screenshot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
The horror.Eye gouger: if requested by a participant in this thread (and if he decides it to be so)- Ramshutu will designate particular debate “eye gougers” - which are debates that are particularly complex or long. Any vote on an eye gouger debate will earn an additional 10 points, regardless of position.
This was forbidden in the Geneva Conventions.
Created:
Posted in:
I just checked, and I'm not seeing the ads at the bottom of the page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
As a debate outsider who dips a toe in now and then, I can definitely say I didn't find Type1's debates enticing. They actually made debate seem less appealing to me and made me less interested in participating.The thing about spammed debates is that while they are annoying, they do serve a purpose in enticing people to actually participate in debates by believing they are essentially free wins... Then those same people who got the free wins try doing debates of their own that are superior and better organized in terms of content and structure. Some of the first debates I did on DDO were ones I took just cause they looked pretty easy, and that led to me making tons of them myself later on.However, there are people so tremendously idiotic that they make tons of debates and do poorly on all of them repeatedly (Type1). I think Vi Spex on DDO made nearly a thousand debates with a vast majority of them being complete nonsense or got no votes and nothing was ever done about it even though he basically clogged the open-debate-section with pure sh*t...... Some people in this thread have proposed a cap limit of 3 debates at a time, I would be a little more lax and put it at 6 debates at a time, then if someone really takes it too far or spams a bunch of stupidity their rights could be further restricted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Do you mean no more than 3 at a time for each user, or a 3 debate max applied to the whole site?I’d go further and say no more than 3 debates at a time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Free debate and formal debate are definitely very different environments. But the majority of debate on the internet is free debate. Informal argument.
In a formal debate you're not defending your personal identity, you're playing a game. In free debate you're defending your personal identity. And wherever people are defending their personal identities, there will be shitstorms and stubborn refusal to change.
Plus a formal debater has to actually research their stance, examine it critically, get informed. I have no problem believing that process results in more, "Hey, I didn't know as much about this as I thought I did, I think I've changed my mind."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingArthur
Mere lyrics should never be MeToo'd. Only acts of sexual abuse should be MeToo'd. But I take it you think that kind of music breeds a culture of misogyny and objectification that makes fertile ground for sex abuse?I think music lyrics definitely get a pass. A lot of music objectifies women and treats them like conquests, sex objects and things to be left alone and picked up at the singer's leisure. This has been going on for decades and has skated under the radar of the MeToo movement so far.Country, Hip Hop and Rap are all major offenders in this area.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Yes, but this still doesn't explain the discrepancy.It is unwise to expect fairness from a mob.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Titanium
I'd accept any method the IPCC researched and approved, really.Hmm what would you say if I said there are cheap simple solutions to reverse global warming without reducing carbon emissions at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Why does Youtube keep taking them down?I think you'll find this interesting. This guy is a really good at what he does... he had 20 other videos youtube keeps taking down. He's a beast in analyzing criminal minds and interrogation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I mean, that's how OJ got justice...through a civil suit which he lost that then pressured him to go do something dumb like get caught threatening a person with a gun. There's multiple ways the law can get you.
True, though I hope we can agree that it falls terribly short of true justice.
And all Smollett has to pay is $130,000. I think OJ had to pay more than $30 million. If Smollett loses his civil suit, I don't expect we'll be seeing him in the news threatening anyone with a gun.
At least in OJ's case the prosecutors actually tried.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If there's enough to find him liable there was enough to find him guilty. Harrumph.They should be able to win the civil suit, as it doesn't matter if he is guilty or not of the hoax. They only need to prove that he was liable for the hoax.
Seems like a fine line in the eyes of the public, at least. He'll fight the civil suit tooth and claw. It's just as much of a threat to his public image.
I want them to outright reopen the criminal case against him. And unseal the records. That was another thing, the judge who handled his case ordered all the records permanently sealed, so the public will never see the full weight of the evidence against Smollett. It's like someone cleaned this up and swept it under the rug so neatly.
But I suppose double jeopardy would apply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
The prosecutor, Kim Foxx, was in contact with the suspect's family while the case was going on, exchanging personal texts with them.
I guess his family was also friendly with the Obama administration, because a woman who once served as Michelle Obama's aid reached out to Foxx on the Smollett family's behalf.
I'm hearing that, at the family's behest, Foxx also asked police chiefs to hand the case over to the FBI. Maybe trying to get it out of the hands of the local PD, who were all uniformly certain of his guilt? I don't know, I need to hear more information about that one.
But in general it's looking like she was too friendly with the family. That's why she said she would recuse herself. Then later the prosecutor's office said she only meant recusal in a "colloquial" sense, not a "legal" sense. Baffling.
Created:
Posted in:
Now I'm hearing that Kim Foxx sort-of-but-not-really tried to recuse herself earlier in the Smollett case. Wtf. If she felt she couldn't be impartial, why did she stay on the case? Can she be objective or can't she? If there was any doubt as to that, why was she part of the decision making process?
And as expected, Smollett has refused to pay out the $130,000. They're demanding that he pay them back for a fake crime he won't admit he faked. Signing the check is admitting his guilt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
"Well it was only his first offense" just seems like a pretty weak salve for all that. Idk, maybe this is why I'm not a litigator.Well... in something like 95% of cases people take plea deals. He likely had a really good lawyer that got him out of this one. I didn't know he is still denying it... i sorta want to take back what i said. He likely does deserve at least jail time to scare him straight (pun? maybe). The law just works in mysteries ways man... actually, no, the law favors those with lots of money and good lawyers. It's kinda sad. I hate it more that he's making money off all this junk... so, his plan ultimately worked. It's additionally sad this world favors the psychopaths and narcissists.
It's not that this ended in a plea deal. It's that the terms of the plea deal did not hold him accountable in any way and favored him so disproportionately.
A plea deal is supposed to be a compromise. What did Smollett have to compromise on? $10,000 and two days of community service is nothing. It's absolutely nothing. He makes more than that amount per minute on Empire. She basically just let him off scot-free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
It's ridiculous. Mayor Rahm Emanuel has said that the city is sending Smollett the bill for the investigative work in the hoax, which is $130,000.I don't know how Smollett can recover his career after this entire situation. Although Trump weighed in on the matter via a Tweeet saying that he's going to have the FBI, etc probe the matter as well, Emanuel made clear that Trump's involvement and commentary of the situation is not welcomed and that Trump helped create the toxic atmosphere that allowed Smollett to think he could get away with staging a hoax.
He's up for an NAACP award, actually.
Smollett is nominated for the 2019 NAACP Image Awards, scheduled for Saturday. Six-time host and "Black-ish" star Anthony Anderson told Variety on Wednesday that he hopes to see the controversial actor there.“I hope he wins," Anderson added. "I’m happy for him that the system worked for him in his favor because the system isn’t always fair, especially for people of color. So I’m glad it worked out for him."
*eye twitch*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
He didn't learn shit, I'm afraid. He's still demanding an apology from the police and the mayor for their terrible persecution of him. He's still playing victim. He's still insisting that two completely fictional white guys in MAGA hats perpetrated a completely fictional hate crime on him. I don't know how he can learn any lesson when he won't even admit he did anything wrong.
He lied, he schemed, he made it harder for victims of real hate crimes to be believed, he poured gasoline on the fire of a country already riven by racial and political divisiveness, he wasted time the police could have spent pursuing real crimes, he handed racists all the ammunition they'll need for years, he did all of it just to greedily advance his career, and he's not the least bit sorry.
"Well it was only his first offense" just seems like a pretty weak salve for all that. Idk, maybe this is why I'm not a litigator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I think this is supposed to be like asking "What's the point of happiness?"No. I would have asked - ' what is the point of happiness' if that is what I wanted to ask, Castin, my old mate.
My guess is that the point of paradise is happiness, and lack of want or pain.
As for what happens next once you get to heaven: aerobic spin class.
Created: