Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
In fact a part of Trump's platform called for increasing legal immigration.
Trump’s 4 years in office was a full on assault on all immigration. He even railed against “chain migration” which is oddly how his own in-laws got into the US.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How does it feel to be a proud footsoldier for the exploitative rich elites?
It never ceases to amaze me how the party of tax cuts for the rich managed to get their base to think the problem is all those elites on the other side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
You have a lot of good points, but I take issue with your insinuation that the left and the right are just two sides of the same coin when it comes to their belief in conspiracy theories.
The right has been taken over by a belief that Trump really did win the 2020 election but it was stolen by democrats who didn’t bother to retain their own seats in the House or pull a few more in the senate. The left has been taken over by a belief that women and minorities are still fighting back against discrimination. These are not remotely similar.
You also seem to misunderstand what people are talking about when using the term “systemic racism”. The simplest way to explain it is the fact that black people as a community are at the bottom of our society when it comes to any wealth metric is not a random result, it’s the result of hundreds of years of policies and practices within the US.
College legacies are a perfect example. One study I read showed that you were twice as likely to get accepted into an Ivy League school if your parents attended the same school. But go back to the 50’s and many of these schools didn’t allow black people, some as recent as the 70’s, so which race would you predict would be more prominent with regards to college admissions today? It’s not random.
It’s not that white people are conspiring against black people or other minorities, even if that is some of it. It’s that black people as a community have been disadvantaged. We live in a capitalistic society where wealth begets wealth, so giving one group a head start will always lead to that group maintaining control for a very long time to come.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
If people never hear extremist arguments, they will never be able to be persuaded to be extremists.
But those arguments are out there whether DART allows them or not. The difference here is that this site provides a great opportunity for them to be refuted.
I believe it was George Carlin who said “never argue with stupid people, they’ll bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience”. I love this quote, but I disagree. I’d rather gain that experience so I can beat the stupid people rather than running away from them. After all, if I can pin point exactly what it is that’s wrong with their arguments and phrase it in a simple way then I can better help the next would-be stupid person from falling into their traps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Do you believe there is some kind of progression to God’s existence? Yes or no?No
If there is no progression then there are no thoughts, no actions, and it cannot cause anything. All of these things require its state of existence to change. For example, to make a decision is to begin by existing in a state of being undecided and progress to a state of being decided.
A state of non progression is to be infinitely frozen in time. That is mutually exclusive with any of the normal traits associated with a god.
Your question is all about semantics.
No, it’s about basic meaning of words. You’re making an argument while disregarding that the words you are using if taken for what they actually mean contradict each other. If it’s being misunderstood then that is exactly why we have to go through this exercise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Obvious dodge. You know what I am asking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Anyone want to venture a guess, particularly considering how the President conducted his campaign of similar avoidance?
Probably because he’s busy doing actual real work, not tweeting about what he just found out on Fox and Friends.
Would you be more satisfied if he held press conferences without answering a single substantive question and instead calling anyone asking him a tough question “fake news”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
C: The first point in time must be dependent on something external
Do you believe there is some kind of progression to God’s existence? Yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The point is, Gods defining characteristic necessarily belongs to SOMETHING. Because if this trait, independency, doesn't exist, then the existence of something dependent doesn't make any sense. The only way to claim that something independent doesn't exist is to claim that NOTHING exists.
If anything could exist independently then everything could exist independently.
Can you demonstrate that the universe’s existence is dependent? If not, how does this play into your argument?
God has no beginning, and the law of causality doesn't require him to have a cause.
Is the universe subject to causality? Not that which exists within it, but the universe itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
HUMANS are not "good" or "bad" in-and-of-themselves.
It was about as simple a question as I could possibly ask and you still find a way to take issue with it. I see see no point to this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You are making things unnecesarilly complicated.
No, you’re not paying attention. I’m not talking about the universe or multiverses, I’m talking about anything that exists. If you can disregard causality for one thing then you can disregard it as a law, therefore there could be infinite “Gods”, which would seem to undercut what you’re calling God.
To claim that all things have a cause is nonsensical -- how do you explain the laws of logic, do they have a cause?
The laws of logic do not exist. They are descriptions of the limitations of things that exist.
There are still only two candidate causes for reality
This is the fundamental flaw. Reality encompasses all that exists, so when you claim God exists you are simply saying that reality includes God. The idea of something causing reality amounts to arguing that existence was caused by something that doesn’t exist.
If you disagree then define reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, I understand that this is a matter of opinion. I am asking you for yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Either the chain of causes is eternal, or it isn't
You ignored my point that there doesn’t have to be one chain.
My point was that if you believe something can exist (or “start”) without a cause then you do not accept causality as a law, and if you do not accept it as a law then God is no longer required.
As stated earlier, eternal universes have no bearing in reality, the idea is impossible even in principle.We have now two options:Finite universe with a causeFinite universe without a cause
You have no basis to make this claim. The concept of an infinite universe is hardly any worse than the concept of an uncaused cause. The simple fact is we don’t know since both of these options contradict our understanding of the only realm of reality we have access to and yet we apparently can’t think of an alternative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Just a reminder of what left wingers alleged about the election in 2000.1. The voting machines were rigged.2. The supreme court was in the winner's back pocket3. There were active conspiracies by street cops to close roads and make it more difficult to get to voting stations.4. The media was complicit in stealing the elections.
They weren’t using voting machines in 2000. The issue was the hanging chads, and that was certainly legitimate.
The Supreme Court stopped a recount in progress to hand Bush the win. I’m not saying they were in his back pocket, but the argument is not on the level of what’s going on today.
The other two sound nuts, but I doubt they were even considered widespread by 2000’s standards.
Americans are the only ones naive enough to believe they live in an actual democracy
Please explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Why is a theoretical first cause not subject to change?If it was, it would not be the *first* cause objectively. For an objective first cause, it must be unchanging.
That’s not an answer, you’re just repeating your claim.
Suppose God is the first cause... that would simply mean he exists without anything else causing it. Why would his existence then be limited to a state unable to change?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
We know that a chain of causality exists, and have three ways of explaining it:
You missed choice number 4; an option we have not thought of.
There could be multiple chains of causation started by multiple first causes. Nothing in your argument precludes this and in fact you cannot dismiss this while being logically consistent. You either accept causality or you don’t. You can’t claim Thing A exists without a cause and then claim nothing else can because that would violate causality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
There’s no question that there was fraud and let’s just say bending of the rules out there, but that’s true of every election and will always be. A critical eye is definitely healthy, alleging a nationwide conspiracy to install the loser in office is an entirely different thing. We can’t haves discussion about the former until we definitively move on from the latter.
The voting process does certainly seem to go smoother in rural and suburban areas, that is a major part of the problem but all that shows is that left wing politicians are at a disadvantage. One guy in Atlanta live streamed his wait on line, took him 12 hours. I’ve never seen that in the suburbs.
I wasn’t paying attention back in 2000, but it seems to me that although both sides complain about illegitimacy, they’re on completely different grounds. The right alleges that the left does not follow the law, the left alleges that the laws themselves are the problem. These are not the same thing. I’m sure there may have been some on the left in 2000 claiming actual fraud but it was nothing like today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
God has no beginning and ending because God does not exist within a linear time frame, rather a static Reality where God begins the processes of bringing things and events into existence.
This is a logical contradiction. A static reality would have no movement, no progression. Beginning a process by definition requires progression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I don't find it despicable that Trump was saying the election was stolen. I have not seen the same classified documents as him. I am not sure what classified documents CNN saw where they felt justified to call him a liar. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't.
I’m taking this as your genuine position, correct me if I am mistaken.
Agnosticism on this issue amounts to willful blindness. The question isn’t whether it did or did not happen beyond a shadow of a doubt, it’s whether the allegation that it did happen is reasonable. It’s not. Not only is there no evidence of it but despite one party in this country engaging in a nationwide effort to find it they could only come up with easily verifiably false allegations of dead people voting, blatant lies about voter machines, and hundreds of affidavits claiming to have seen something that looked suspicious.
The default position is that our fellow citizens acted lawfully, especially when there is a whole system of checks to ensure this be the case. If there’s no valid argument that the law was broken in any significant example never mind some nationwide conspiracy, then calling the person who repeatedly alleges it a liar is perfectly reasonable.
I found the rest of your post spot on though.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
but this convo is about Andrew Cuomo and the double standard of Democrats.
That’s absurd. Democrats up and down the board are either denouncing Cuomo or calling for his resignation, and the “biased left wing media” is talking about him frequently.
When was the last time you heard any republican denounce any fellow republican over sexual assault allegations? Trump has 26 accusers, how many hours of coverage did they get in total over on Fox or any of the new right wing propaganda networks? Now compare that tiny number to Cuomo’s and tell us about these double standards.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You mean Joe Biden and Kamala Harris right? The latter which called to impeach Kavanaugh in 2018 but is silent on Cuomo.
Neither Biden or Harris said that. But anyway, right on queue...
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yeah, queue it up. Most of those liberals were women, themselves.
If you have nothing to say in response why bother?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I didn’t say anything about quantifying it. I asked you if there is a difference, and if so, what is it? It’s a very simple and straightforward question.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Whatever happened to the dying poundmetoo argument: believe the women?
That’s not a liberal argument. No one is really saying all women should be believed, we’re saying all women should be heard.
*queue the video montage of the 0.01% of liberals who said somewhere on tape “believe all women”*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think that most people who do "bad" things also have "bad" intentions?
In most cases probably. In some cases no. People do things that result in bad consequences all the time, discerning their intent is entirely case by case and follows the same rules of evidence as anything else.
Do you have an answer to my original question on this? I notice that every time I try to slow this conversation down and ask really basic questions you respond with questions or manage to take the conversation of course.
Please provide a direct and thoughtful response to the original question otherwise I see no reason to continue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Let me ask you... do you believe there is a difference between a bad person and a person who did a bad thing? If so, what is that difference?Phenomenal question
Great, so do you have an answer?
Is a "bad" person capable of "good" deeds?Is a "good" person capable of "bad" deeds?
Yes to both. We judge individuals based on the totality of their actions with regards to their intent. Why does intent come into the equation? Because there is a difference between someone who does a bad thing on purpose vs. someone who does a bad thing by accident. Or, at least I used to think we could all agree on that...
Impulse control is quantifiable and is a primary predictor of anti-social and aberrant behavior.
Yes, it is also a skill that can be learned. Therefore the difference between someone who suffers from impulse control has a path to improvement. Someone who acts badly with malice and forethought has no path because they don’t want one.
Just because the program isn't INTENTIONALLY unfair, this immunity to INTENTIONALITY does not mean that the computer program IS ACTUALLY AND OBJECTIVELY FAIR.
That depends on how you are determining what is fair. The program calculates based on the premises imported into it, so late payment will cost you X amount of points no matter who has one. Whether X is fair is an entirely different question.
I fail to see how this relates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How does "ordering food" increase the penalty for "eating food" when "ordering food" itself is NOT punishable at all when the "food is NOT eaten".
It doesn’t. If the crime was never committed there is nothing to punish. As far as why it matters whether there was intent, we just went through this.
Let me ask you... do you believe there is a difference between a bad person and a person who did a bad thing? If so, what is that difference?
I used to think I could predict someone else's actions by their intentions alone.
Predicting actions had nothing to do with this. Our conversation is about whether we can tell someone’s intent, and whether intent matters when judging someone’s actions.
You then went on about how you go about loaning things away. That had nothing to do with my question. I would all them again but you inadvertently answered it...
It's easy to think that people who disappoint you were never sincere in the first place.But experience has taught me this is not the case.
How do you know this? Judging ones sincerity is judging ones intent.
How is my example disqualified as "just semantics" and your example (which is functionally identical) is somehow immune to the exact same objection.
You are equating two things that are very different by calling them the same thing. That’s like equating a bank robber and a shoplifter cause they’re both thieves. I call that semantics, you can call it something else if you like.
This was in reference to my pointing out that Person B acted purely out of his circumstances. I was talking about immediate circumstances. The day to day things that change on a dime, like the route you happened to be walking. You then equated that to person A’s circumstances, as in his position in life and the environment he lived within. Those are entirely different things. The former tests your impulses, the latter tests your character as a human being.
Why would premeditation INCREASE punishment?
Have you never done something in the spur of the moment and immediately regretted it? Have you never taken time to think about something and then realized whatever you were thinking is a bad idea?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Person (A) also committed the robbery (or more likely burglary) purely as a result of the circumstancessurrounding them. Had an opportunity not presented itself to them, the crime would have never been committed.The key difference here is that person (A) planned out their heist presumably with the goal to mitigate potential harm to bystanders and bank employees if for no other reason than to increase their perceived chances of not being eventually captured by the authorities.
This is just semantics. Everything we do can be said to be a result of our circumstances, they don’t apply equally here.
The list of things that needed to line up for person B to commit the crime is long. The day he was having, the route he happened to walk, the guard sleeping, etc. None of these things made any difference with Person A. He would have committed the crime anyway. These two are not the same.
Isn't it obvious that someone who is able to demonstrate restraint and actually takes the time to think about something before they do it, isn't it obvious that this is behavior we should generally encourage in our citizens?
Of course it is, that’s why the crime is not excusable regardless of whether it was premeditated.
I'm not sure you can distill someone's "core values" simply by observing a single snapshot of their life experience.
That’s the whole point. For Person B this was just a snap shot. For Person A it wasn’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There are so many likely exceptions to your food based example.
The number of possible exceptions is completely irrelevant. What’s at issue is the likelihood that any of these exceptions apply. What continues to baffle me is how you keep stretching to find any examples to hold up as if that negates the point here... the intent was clear.
The fact that some people lose their appetite is irrelevant. My wife does this to me all the time, she asks me to heat something up for her and then she ends up not eating it. But so what? It is still clear that she intended to eat it when she asked for it.
I just don’t get it. Do you really live your life never thinking that you know someone else’s intent? Do you not question when someone acts uncharacteristically nice to you and try to figure it out? If someone asks to borrow something from you, do you not consider whether you think they plan to give it back? Do you trust anyone in your life? If so, what is trust if not a high degree of confidence that someone else has good intentions? This is as basic as human interaction gets. It’s nearly impossible for you to have any working relationship with another human being if you don’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I would really love to hear your response to post #50
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) which of these hypothetical crimes is more of a danger to the public?
We don’t punish crimes, we punish the people who commit them so your question is logically fallacious. The question is; which person is more of a danger to the public.
Answer: Person A
Person B is of course a danger as he demonstrated, but the difference is that Person B committed the robbery purely as a result of the circumstances surrounding him. Had an opportunity not presented itself to him, the crime would have never been committed.
Person A however ensured that the crime was committed. The status of the guard was irrelevant to him. He would not have allowed months of planning to go to waste.
(3) are we really trying to punish people for thinking ahead and NOT being impulsive?
Yes. The fact that someone thought ahead tells us a lot about their character, which tells us allot about the level of danger one presents to society. Person A had months to think about it and never pulled back, this shows that it was not a mistake as could be argued with Person B, rather this was something that Person A demonstrated to be in alignment with his/her core values as a human being.
Again, both of these are bad. No one is saying that Person B gets off the hook. Person A might get 20 years while Person B gets 15. The point is that they’re not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That’s why you cannot threaten someoneThe government threatens people all the time and it's not criminal.
You really do see the government as a person huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Perhaps provide a couple examples of things you would determine to be hate speech to give me a better idea of what exactly you want to ban.
My personal take is not to criminalize hate speech directly but to make it so that one can be held accountable for the actualized impacts of their speech of it meets the criteria. Trump and Jan 6th comes to mind, although that would be different from hate speech and a tougher case criminally than politically.
I’m not really advocating here, for all I know it may already be law. I’m just wondering what the issue is that has people up in arms and responding to arguments I don’t find have any merit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It blatantly violates the First Amendment, which has pretty much been universally agreed upon by the Supreme Court Justices.
The first amendment has been widely acknowledged to be no defense against language that harms others. That’s why you cannot threaten someone or why you can be sued for libel. Hate speech is not much different, in this case it’s not the idea of banning it that is problematic but its improper application. What I don’t understand is why then do you spend your energy attacking the former rather than the latter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING.
Let’s try something simpler. If I order a pizza, and then when the pizza came I ate it, could you say with reasonable confidence that my intention for calling the pizzeria was to eat pizza for dinner?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe most people intend to act out their intentions.
Correction: *all* people intend to act out their intentions. That follows from the definition of intend.
It’s like you are trying so hard to deny the ability to tell someone’s intent that you are willing to deny a tautology.
In your personal opinion, what percentage of the human population has managed to manifest their conscious intention to be happy and comfortable?
This isn’t relevant. You’re talking about achieving the desired results, not acting upon their intentions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It was just an example.
The greater point is that you are once again appealing to a standard of absolute certainty. Just because you cannot be absolutely certain doesn’t mean that you cannot be reasonably certain.
Do you believe that people normally act out their intentions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
One of my main GENERAL objections is to the idea that humans should pursue "objectivity".Humans are fundamentally and purely SUBJECTIVE.
Do you believe 2+2=4 to be a subjective statement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, I see. Speech that supports ideas that will lead to the starvation of millions is fine to you.
What an absurd strawman.
I made no comment on how I felt about ideas that lead to starvation because it is not relevant to this thread nor to any point I have made.
I was pointing to your error - conflating the banning of speech with the banning of ideas. You can think about bombs all you want while sitting on a plane, that is not the same thing as yelling “bomb!”.
What is your issue with fighting back against hate speech? Perhaps we should start there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you trolling? This video is a literal parody of your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Evidence of action is demonstrable.Evidence of intention is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft
Nonsense, and I sincerely doubt you apply this thinking towards any normal function of your every day life. Imagine your girlfriend tells you she plans to have lunch with her ex boyfriend. She gets ready with a full face of makeup, lingerie, expressive perfume, and leaves the house with condoms in her purse after making a reservation at a motel. Will you really equate deducing her intentions with witchcraft?
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
You never did say that he doesn’t know where he is, but you did suggest that it would be shocking if he did the state of the Union speech. This is what I’m talking about. He gave a speech just a few days ago. He was perfectly fine. He gave a full interview last week. He was perfectly fine. But none of this matters. However literally you express it you portray him as someone who needs to be supervised and is just steps away from being admitted to a nursing home. That is what I find absurd and honestly quite irritating.
I understand that people use certain drugs, not only is there no evidence Biden is on any but more to the point it’s just used as an excuse. He grants a 45 min interview where he stutters once or at some point forgot what he was saying and it gets played on a loop on Fox News. If he gives a perfect interview then he was obviously on drugs. Whatever fits the narrative, that’s what it is. You say it’s obviously just being done for the cameras. When will we ever see Biden if not on camera? It’s an unfalsifiable caricature.
In the previous post I was referring to Trump. He without question showed significant mental decline but I was referring to your general attitude towards him. Aside from whether you approved of his crassness and narcissism, were you concerned about his mental fitness for the job?
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
No one is denying that Biden gaffes often, and has without question lost a few steps from even just over 8 years ago when he debated Paul Ryan. But considering that he has always been a gaffe machine and has struggled with stuttering his entire life, his decline is not far from what we would expect of any man approaching 80.
It’s not the recognition of this that I object to or even the insinuation that he may be suffering from the early stages of dementia, it’s the absurd notion that he “doesn’t know where he is” and that his campaign is hiding him from the public. It’s just plain stupid.
Smear campaigns work and this is yet another example. Biden will go out and give an interview sounding perfectly stable, perfectly coherent, and very knowledgeable, but people like yourself ignore it and reference the cherry picked highlights while claiming his coherence must have been the work of conspiracy or drugs. He goes out and does multiple public interviews and events, only for you to claim his team is hiding him from the public. Its unfalsifiable.
And since you claim that no campaign has ever done so much to keep their candidate from going off script... have you already forgotten the previous president? I’m curious if you have the same attitude towards him.
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I think biden when he goes in public is pumped with speed to even look coherent. The guy is clearly on his deathbed with dementia.
Do you have any evidence or rationale to support this, or is constant repetition on Hannity good enough?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Not sure where the confusion is coming from. You say "hate speech" is speech that leads to violence against people. I'm asking if an idea has historically lead to death and starvation, should it also be banned from advocacy, or do you put an arbitrary rule of "might cause violence" on speech?
My description of what qualifies as hate speech was a response to the OP, not an all encompassing definition to be held to. I think the context of the discussion should have made that clear.
This is a debate site, if you’re looking for a definition I’m sure google would be a much better option.
Are stupid ideas that lead to mass starvation 100% of the time also banned? Or is that fine?
No. We’re not talking about ideas we’re talking about speech, particularly speech directed towards a certain group.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you determine what I was thinking at the time?
With evidence, just like anything else.
The fact that we can never be absolutely certain as to what someone was thinking is not an argument, the same holds true for anything else. Video footage of a murder could be faked, pictures could be photoshopped, finger prints could be planted. That’s why “beyond a shadow of a doubt” has no place in our justice system.
Trump made clear in that phone call that he was looking for 11,780 votes, the exact number he needed to pull ahead. That right there says it all. Even if he sincerely believed the election was rigged that’s no defense because he demonstrated that his intent was not for Georgia officials to determine to the accurate number, just the number he needed to win.
If there were any such thing as a neutral, objective observer, this would be a no brainier.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure he does. He has already suppressed the CDC's science on schools by claiming CDC doesn't know anything about what they are talking about regarding schools.
Just accepting your characterization as fact for the sake of argument... claiming another agency doesn’t know what they are talking about is not “suppressing ideas”. But if you really believe that then you must have been in a constant state of outrage over the last 4 years.
Government is a monopoly because they have Authority to destroy their competition like the CDC and other political threats.
Government isn’t a business. It doesn’t have competition. What are you talking about?
CDC provided a solution. Government cares about preserving political power over doing the right thing.
What are you talking about? Government is not a person. “It” does not care about anything. “It” does not have political power.
Please explain what you think a government is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Are stupid ideas that lead to mass starvation 100% of the time also banned? Or is that fine?
I’d be happy to answer your question... as soon as you can tell me what this has to do with this the topic of this thread or with anything I have said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Questioning authority today makes you a traitor and a pariah. Most people are just going to give up and let the government do whatever.
Questioning authority is the right of every American, claiming that makes you a traitor is just plain stupid. What does get you treated like a pariah is when you pretend you’re asking questions while really just spreading conspiracy theories. And in that case it’s not the government that holds you accountable, it’s your fellow citizens exercising their first amendment right to call you out on your BS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Isn’t that what you are trying to prove to us?Good question.
This reminds me of Matt Slick’s TAG argument where he began with the premise “everything that exists is either physical or mental”, this was supposed to lead us to God. But when someone asked him “so what is God?” his answer was: Neither.
Either causality applies to everything or it doesn’t. One cannot argue that it applies to everything “except the thing I’m trying to prove” while claiming to be logical.
Created: