Total posts: 855
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
THe question of why is there something rather than nothing has fascinated humanity forever, and still no good answer to it.
I agree with the analysis that any claims about how the universe began fall into one of three categories:
- The universe is eternal
- The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)
- Something caused the universe to come into being.
Option 1 violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. Option 2 violates reason. That leaves option 3.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Why do you think you need 2-year safety data on mRNA vaccines?
Because gathering long-term safety data is standard protocol for evaluating new vaccines of any kind. Two years is a relatively short time for such data.
Unless of course you’re trying to tell me that, somehow, for some reason you think mRNA vaccines can cause major or significant immediate damage to the human body which then doesn’t produce any symptoms for up to 2 years?
Can you provide empirical evidence that mRNA vaccines do not cause any adverse effects up to two years after being administered? This seems like a reasonable request for a brand new technology in terms of widespread use in humans.
It seems sometimes “the gubernint” arguments treat the government as one guy that can magically make things happen without any other involvement of anyone else.
Given that Biden is trying to enact massive vaccine mandates without any laws passed by Congress, I would say that one guy is making quite a bit happen.
We can agree that forced sterilization an obviously bad thing, right? That’s your whole point.But to do something that bad requires the people in power to not think it’s a bad thing, the people carrying out to not think it’s a bad thing, the people supporting the government to not think it a bad thing; or the military or police who are enforcing it on threat of violence to not think it a bad thing.
You are assuming the government would consider compulsory sterilization to be bad. But let's say government officials are convinced that overpopulation will significantly increase the climate change death toll. They may see it as a public good to save lives through mass sterilization. It wouldn't be the first time that a country has done so. What specific U.S. law would prevent them from using the same compulsory methods for sterilization that they are currently using for vaccination? What would prevent the government from requiring federal employees to be sterilized as a requirement for work if it will help lower the climate change death toll?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
What planet are you on where you think that mandating people take a safe and effective treatment for an infectious disease, that has been uncontroversial for 200 years, and has almost no negative consequences or impacts to the individual being vaccinated
Could you please cite 2-year safety data for any mRNA vaccine used in humans in the last 200 years?
I mean seriously, one won’t happen because of the other because they are completely and fundamentally different things on every level.
I never claimed that. What I said was that we are empowering the government with the authority to make sweeping mandates in the name of public health and safety. Government officials have claimed apocalyptic outcomes in the near future due to climate change. Whether such fears are legitimate or not, if the government decides overpopulation will significantly increase the death toll of climate change, it seems logical they would enforce some type of compulsory sterilization. Unless you think that this has not happened in other countries before...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Do you believe that climate change is an imminent threat that will result in a significant human death toll in the next few decades? At least, significant enough to warrant the need for immediate action to try to mitigate the effects of climate change?
Do you believe overpopulation is a significant contributing factor that will accelerate and/or amplify the harm caused by climate change, thus increasing the death toll?
If the answer to both is yes, then why would you be opposed to some form of compulsory sterilization to help mitigate such a catastrophe? Do you want more people to die?
We could even just make sterilization a requirement for federal employees, and some other private companies as decided by the government. That way we're not actually forcing people to be sterilized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Then don't be surprised when the government mandates sterilization as a mitigation strategy. We are quickly empowering the government with the authority to take such actions when "public health and safety" is at risk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Are you making a comparison to a situation where everyone who refuses to "get to the lifeboat" will almost certainly die?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You stated:
A major reduction in human population wouldn't be a bad thing.
You also stated:
"Massive human death" is not a good thing for humans.
If a major reduction in the human population is not a bad thing, which seems to imply it is a good thing, then why would massive human death (a major reduction in the human population) be a bad thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
No worries. I was intentionally a bit subtle in my use of sarcasm. But your criticism of being Marxist propaganda was spot on in what I was going for. I thought this remark was particularly accurate regarding their hypocrisy:
Curious how those who declare the need to de-populate the Earth of humans are the last to join the forced extinction line. Huh. What, not in your back yard, but everyone else must? Sorry, your alarm is just a little self-serving.
I only hope these vaccine peddlers realize that they're paving the way for future atrocities like these and worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
If you start out with a bad premise, I don't see how youre going to end with a valid premise. Surely, you wouldn't waste your time on something obviously dubious.
My intention was that upon reading the entire post, one may come to realize that I was not actually warning about climate change or overpopulation. I was also not making a serious scientific assertion. Though I was intentionally somewhat subtle, so it would be understandable if that was not immediately apparent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm curious, if massive human death is a good thing, why shouldn't the government expedite the process in a more efficient way? Why wait for a natural disaster that may or may not happen?
It also seems you should be anti-vaccine since that supposedly preserves human life, further contributing to overpopulation.
It also seems you should be anti-vaccine since that supposedly preserves human life, further contributing to overpopulation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ah, sterilization isn't drastic enough. You want to see massive human death through more catastrophic means.
You never know...Perhaps GOD will come back and sort it all out.
He will.
"the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction"
--2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Someone doesn't understand how science works:Absolute certainty is not a science thing.You lost me with the first statement.
So should I assume you did not read the rest of the post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
No. I actually believe that sterilization is good to an extent. Though, it should be voluntary instead of mandatory.
And what happens when voluntary sterilization is determined to be insufficient to mitigate the climate catastrophe according to the experts? Should it then be forced?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm sure that "The World" will be fine.It's the sustainability of humanity at current levels with current demands, that is the issue.A major reduction in human population wouldn't be a bad thing.
So you support such a sterilization campaign?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
from what hes posted before i think hes trying to explain how the left will turn the us into a totalitarian marxist regime using weaponizing theories like CRT which will lead to totalitarianism, something along those lines
The implementation of mass sterilization as a logical conclusion to climate panic seems pretty totalitarian to me. And the same logic being used to try to implement vaccine mandates could be applied to such a policy proposal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
RationalMadman is correct that my post was intended to show the sinister rationale behind the current vaccine mandates. But I also hoped to show that the same logic used to justify vaccine mandates can and will almost certainly be used to some extent in the future. And it wouldn't be the first time a country has done so.
I am glad to see such strong opposition to this type of policy proposal though.
I am glad to see such strong opposition to this type of policy proposal though.
Created:
Posted in:
We know with absolute and omniscient scientific certainty that, like, the world is going to end in 10 years if we don't address climate change. As with Socialism, past predictions only failed because the methods have yet to be correctly implemented as we are now capable of doing. Paul Ehrlich has made it clear that overpopulation is accelerating this inevitable climate catastrophe.
Mass sterilization must be implemented on a global scale to mitigate the danger of uncontrolled population growth. We can offer financial incentives to encourage compliance. Compulsory sterilization is far from being a burden for those who readily comply. Unhindered participation in a safe society is the just reward for such voluntary acquiescence.
But that will not be enough to avoid the coming catastrophe foretold by the great climate prophet AOC. For those who resist - the unsterilized - compulsion shall act as both a pillory and a noose. The safety of those who make sacrifices for global climate justice must be protected by shaming, ostracizing, and eliminating the unsterilized from society.
Access to goods and services must be restricted for the unsterilized. Public education requires proof of sterilization. Interstate and international travel will no longer be available to those who do not comply. In hospitals, we must also de-prioritize the unsterilized. We cannot waste precious resources on those who fail to see the vision of our collective future.
The unsterilized also pose the threat of impregnating those in the general population. Until we achieve the necessary levels of safe sterilization as determined by the experts to prevent overpopulation, we cannot go back to life as normal with the looming threat of climate change. We must build facilities to house the unsterilized until they are no longer a risk to the greater society.
Every day that we do not mandate sterilization, we are increasing the climate change death toll caused by overpopulation. We can no longer allow the illusion of personal liberty to perpetuate this injustice. Compulsory sterilization must be implemented now.
It is for our safety.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
There is no point in having a Constitution if politicians get to decide when they do or do not have to obey it. If it is acceptable to you for the President to violate one part of the Constitution, then it is the President who is the law of the land. You can no longer appeal to the Constitution for any guaranteed rights because it is ultimately the President who decides when those rights are valid based on "public safety."
Let us not so quickly forget cases like Korematsu v. United States that were deemed necessary for public safety. It may have seemed prudent at the time, but I hardly think you want to live in a country where unconstitutional decisions like these can be made, even if they are based on precedent.
If you truly believe the President's decision is unconstitutional - even if you perceive the threat to be great - you should be fiercely opposed to such a decision. Otherwise, you are appealing to tyranny for the imposition of policies upon the American people. Tyranny is not a weapon that can be controlled by the people, but many will only realize this after it is too late.
Let us not so quickly forget cases like Korematsu v. United States that were deemed necessary for public safety. It may have seemed prudent at the time, but I hardly think you want to live in a country where unconstitutional decisions like these can be made, even if they are based on precedent.
If you truly believe the President's decision is unconstitutional - even if you perceive the threat to be great - you should be fiercely opposed to such a decision. Otherwise, you are appealing to tyranny for the imposition of policies upon the American people. Tyranny is not a weapon that can be controlled by the people, but many will only realize this after it is too late.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If I'm not mistaken, they are not using mRNA vaccines in China. While there would still be a lack of long-term safety data, that would make a difference if they are using a more traditional vaccine with a weakened virus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So the left is filled with hypocrisy. Got it. Thank you for finally making that clear as opposed to talking about the toppling western civilization and totalitarianism.
This was my original comment:
- Don't expect hypocrisy to stop the Left from their crusade to topple Western civilization.
It should have been abundantly clear from the beginning that I was criticizing a willingness to use hypocrisy. This is different from being filled with hypocrisy. I am unsure then where the confusion was. Should I try to reiterate my point with smaller words?
But here were your questions following that clear statement:
- Could you please explain what “topple western civilization” means?
- Now can you explain how individual liberty at risk of being toppled?
To then turn around and criticize me for talking about the toppling of western civilization after specifically asking about what I meant by "topple Western civilization" is an interesting approach in your rhetoric.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You’re using big words but saying nothing.
I answered your questions exactly as you asked them. I can use smaller words if you would like.
You responded to a post attacking the left mostly by straw manning it to suggest that it believes among other things that opposing same sex marriage is hate speech, and your response was to imply that this somehow fits into a greater plan to topple our civilization.
My original intent was only to make a comment about the willingness of the Left to engage in hypocrisy in order to fulfill their goals, not to expound upon the current revolution happening in our society.
Can you please explain that in more than one sentence?
I already used three sentences to explain it:
- The political philosophy and moral values of the West (albeit a somewhat vague term) that America was founded upon are in the process of being deconstructed and dismantled. Things like individual liberty and inalienable rights would be included in "Western civilization." This dismantling is paving the way for a collectivist totalitarianism.
I used each word intentionally to convey my point. Sometimes big words are the best choice to accomplish this. If you don't like my answers, perhaps you need to ask different questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
dude this is what you do most times i argue with you especially on systemic racism you either pivot to something else (i.e. critical race theory)or you call totalitarian marxism (i.e. CRT or any narrative pushed by the left you don't agree with) rather than attacking the point.
What did I pivot from, and what did I pivot to? I was asked a specific question to which I responded with a specific answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Thanks for that. Now can you explain how individual liberty at risk of being toppled?
Totalitarianism and individual liberty are incompatible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Could you please explain what “topple western civilization” means?
The political philosophy and moral values of the West (albeit a somewhat vague term) that America was founded upon are in the process of being deconstructed and dismantled. Things like individual liberty and inalienable rights would be included in "Western civilization." This dismantling is paving the way for a collectivist totalitarianism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We agree that you have no foundation to tell anyone not to engage in bestiality, pedophilia, or rape if they want to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You implicitly agreed when you delegated your sense-making to the holy scripture (deuteronomy twenty seven).Now you are locked into finding a distinction between the two admonitions in the same holy text.
By rejecting God, you have implicitly agreed to abandon any foundation for morality other than personal opinion. That means you cannot say bestiality - or any other depraved and wicked behavior such as pedophilia and rape - is an action people should not engage in if they want to.
You have also implicitly agreed to abandon reason by denying the undeniable existence of the God who created the entire universe.
Now you are locked into trying to find purpose and meaning in a purposeless and meaningless universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You did it again. You are answering a question I did not ask while ignoring the question that I did ask.
My question:
Where did I agree that bestiality is exactly as bad as contempt for parents?
Your response:
The exact same phrasing "cursed" is used to condemn bestiality and parental contempt.And by the way, "honor your mother and father" also appears to share equal gravity with "thou shalt not kill" in the decalogue.Your holy scripture seems to lack some fundamental precision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Where did I agree that bestiality is exactly as bad as contempt for parents? I asked a specific question and you responded by making a false assertion that didn't actually answer the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You do an excellent job at answering questions I don't ask while ignoring the questions I do ask.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
First, social justice aims for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.I don't accept rather than. Justice wants improvement in both. I don't see how you get to more equal outcomes in a fair and reasonable way without improving equality of opportunity.
To clarify, I meant that social justice aims for equality of outcome as an end goal. You can seek to improve opportunities without seeking equality of opportunities. Unless you believe that both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are achievable end goals, social justice cannot aim for both as a result.
No. I think of communities as a mix of race, gender, and many other groups.
Right. And social justice focuses on equality of outcome between those groups. This is the basis of issues like the gender pay gap - equitable outcomes between various groups. If men make more money than women as a group (a disparity), that is viewed as injustice.
It might be nice to strive for communities that are more alike in opportunities and outcomes but to enforce equality would not be fair or reasonable and therefore not just.
You may have to clarify your definition of equality.
When has this ever been true anywhere ever? This sounds very like the Fox News Strawman Socialist and unlike any social justice movement I've ever heard of.
Socialism is essentially an economic strategy that involves a total redistribution of resources. Social justice involves the equitable "distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society." So redistribution is not mainly about economic strategies, but equalizing power dynamics in society.
Here is a prominent example of this redistribution that is worth the lengthy quotation to see the use of social justice language (italicized), from New California law mandates racial diversity on corporate boards (usatoday.com):
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law requiring publicly traded corporations headquartered in California to appoint directors from underrepresented communities to their boards, the first law in the country to dictate the racial makeup of corporate boards....“When we talk about racial justice, we talk about power and needing to have seats at the table,” the governor said during a press conference on Wednesday....“The new law represents a big step forward for racial equity,” one of the bill’s authors Assemblyman Chris Holden, a Democrat from Pasadena, said in a statement. “While some corporations were already leading the way to combat implicit bias, now, all of California’s corporate boards will better reflect the diversity of our state.”Holden says research shows that public support for social justice often does not lead to lasting reforms needed to boost hiring and retention....In 2022, boards with four to nine people must have at least two members from an underrepresented community and boards with nine or more people must have at least three. Companies that don’t comply could face stiff fines.Underrepresented communities are defined as people who identify as Black, Latino, Native American, Asian American, Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Natives.
The article goes on to cite racial disparities among company executives and board members. And the purpose of the new law was to address those disparities, and to redistribute power in the form of board membership positions from the advantaged group (whites) to disadvantaged groups (non-white). This is racial equity and the enforcement of equality of outcomes.
This is also not a Socialist strawman from Fox News. This is straight from the Governor of California. It is a redistribution of power to achieve "justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society" (i.e. social justice).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I wouldn't be so cavalier in defining social justice as to equate it with Socialism. But your understanding of the phrase is important when considered in the context of your question from post #3:
Why would any good citizen be against social justice?
I think you would agree how one defines social justice is crucial in being able to answer this question. It is also important because you seem to be using the phrase inconsistently, but that is yet to be determined.
There are two distinct features of social justice, at least as it is most commonly understood, that would be helpful to clarify.
First, social justice aims for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
Second, based on phrasing such as "community level" justice, I assume you would agree that social justice focuses on groups (such as race or gender) rather than focusing on individuals. That would mean that a focus on equality of outcomes is based on group outcomes, not individual ones.
Injustice can be identified as disparities that exist between groups. When a disparity is found, justice demands we redistribute wealth/privilege/opportunity from the advantaged group to the disadvantaged group.
Have I misrepresented your understanding of social justice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The first result when searching "social justice definition" into Google is:
- justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
This is also the typical meaning among proponents of social justice. Do you disagree with this definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
How exactly are you defining social justice? And is there a difference between justice and social justice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Liberty is vague... may I assume that you are anti-freedom?The pursuit of happiness is vague....may I assume you don't advocate the Declaration of Independence?Believing in social justice means believing that society works best when society is fair and reasonable. I think America was invented to promote social justice and that you're not really on board with the American project unless you think American society should be fair and reasonable.
Isn't the Declaration of Independence and the American project fundamentally a product of white supremacy? How can a racist system invented by white men for white men promote social justice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Don't expect hypocrisy to stop the Left from their crusade to topple Western civilization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You didn't answer my questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Do you perhaps see them as wastes of time that amounts to nothing substantial or are you just openly homophobic, or what?
By homophobic, are you implying I have an irrational fear of homosexuals?
I mean, animals can't consent to human sex, just like why pedophilia is incorrect(Children can't consent).
So consent is the only issue with bestiality? Meaning if animals could somehow consent, there would be no longer any moral barrier from having sex with them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you agreeing that the Bible considers bestiality an immoral act to some degree? Because the fundamental issue is if bestiality is immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
1. Because God says so.
2. Because it goes against the natural order. Sex is reserved for a married man and woman - a human man and woman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Bestiality is not condemned because of the pain or discomfort caused to the animal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're overlooking the foundation, the moral bedrock.
Determining if something is immoral is more foundational than determining how immoral something is.
Does the holy scripture perhaps explain when and where it is appropriate to inflict pain and discomfort on other living creatures ?
How is this relevant to the clear command not to engage in bestiality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, there appear to be some subtle, yet rather important distinctions between degrees of "immoral" and I'd like to make sure we're all on the same page.
The original question was question whether bestiality is immoral or not. If we agree that it can be categorized as "immoral," then the degree of immorality is irrelevant. We have already answered the original question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Can you be slightly more specific ?
Why? Even if it did somehow require equal punishment under the law, that wouldn't change the fact that bestiality is immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
They should both carry equal penalties under the law.For example, video of children speaking ill of their own parents (or even parents in general) should be censored in the same manner and with the same urgency as bestiality.
If you have read the book of Leviticus, you would know what a ridiculous statement that is - if you are seeking to apply consistent principles of textual interpretation of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If they are both considered morally evil, then what point are you trying to make?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The fact that we are having a dialogue shows me you understand at least the most basic principles of textual interpretation. Do I really need to explain things such as definitions, grammar, and authorial intent for you to understand what I am referring to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Consistent principles of textual interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's nice to know that the admonishment against bestiality is condemned with the exact same gravity as parental contempt.
That depends on how you understand the term "cursed." The point is that bestiality is clearly condemned. But it doesn't take a biblical scholar to see the depravity involved in humans having sex with animals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm just curious if that "black & white" status is based on some coherent-moral-principle (CoMoPr) or just more of a "gut instinct" ?
- ‘Cursed is he who lies with any animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ (Deuteronomy 27:21)
"Lies" is a euphemism for sexual relations. No gut instinct is necessary to consider bestiality a black and white issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Under what specific criteria do you believe it is immoral to harm an animal ?
As I said previously, it is difficult to place black and white categories on the immorality of animal abuse. We must handle situations as they arise.
However, bestiality is a black and white moral category. It's a wicked degrading act.
Created: