Total posts: 3,943
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Sorry to hear about your cousins health, it sounds that you two are close.
I'd argue for the genetics angle as well, just some people's bad luck, despite their effort.
Though there's many health issues, which effort 'does win.
Created:
-->
@Marauder
Oh, Ben Shapiro's old enough now. 37years old, minimum 35years old.
Probably not electable though, I'd think, for various reasons, even if he managed to get a party nomination.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I did think it was satire, but even for atheists, they sometimes like to assert what their action 'would be, in a hypothetical.
Just budgeting one's money, and making effort to save, makes an individual more wealthy than a theoretical neighbor. Who eats out every day or few, buys too much clothing, new cars, a guitar they never play.
Though I don't think I'd call 'that person rich.
Stocks can result in vast funds, I suppose.
In which case, scripture 'still applies, whether Matthew 19:24 or Mark 12:41-44
The Widow’s Offering
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
Not trying to tell people they ought be religious, or more aware and giving to their community.
Just happened to come to mind, sparked by the subject.
If one wants a modern pop culture version, it's the same bent as
"With great power comes great responsibility". - Uncle Ben
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If it floats your boat.
Quote, just came to me mind, Matthew 19:24.
For at face value, it seems true enough, that when someone focuses on profits in life, they lose focus on other parts. Other humans for example, society, religion. Though these 'may be in their mind, they may give to charity, fund politicians, the rich often seem to focus on themselves more, hence they've often their excess of money. A first priority.
Still, if I had a method of acquiring money, I'd likely be such a fellow myself, ah well.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Honestly, the topic had me stumped for a bit, as I'm not very familiar with politicians, until they come the forefront.
I suppose Ron Paul, wouldn't have been bad, though he's 88 years old now, not that age automatically disqualifies someone, but at a certain point, it becomes a negative factor to consider.
I'm not wild about his son.
Mitt Romney and Andrew Yang, wouldn't be bad, 'maybe.
Though I'm not 'sure about Yang's experience, or platform.
Romney though, has earned some credit with neutrals in his disagreement with the Trump pandering, if only the Republicans would make use of that.
Bernie, could have done a better job in how he sold himself, presented his views.
I didn't think he was a Communist, but his Democratic Socialist label, just rolled off the mind poorly.
Condoleezza Rice,
Though I didn't much like the George Bush presidency, she seemed capable in her job, diplomatic with people.
Hasn't had 'much criticism that I've heard.
And I 'do like candidates that have familiarity with the office of the presidency.
I liked Hillary Clintons familiarity with the office, as well.
Though I suppose some people's support of Trump came from his 'unfamiliarity.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Condoleezza Rice.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
It's a fair point, for you to make.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Again, my bad for my own boo hoo comment, in another topic.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Matthew 19:24
New International Version
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I'm not saying America is a paragon of virtue, in the past 'or now.
But, humans and nations being what they've been, I don't think we've made a bad showing of ourselves either.
As you say, "Revenge, usurpation, grave defilements are all common themes of history." - MarkWebberFan
Really just a bit of sleep deprived, and unwarranted snappishness on my account, I suppose. Towards drlebronski.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Mathematics?
1 and 1 fit perfectly into 2.
2 and 3 fit perfectly into 5 and so forth.
Exactness?
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Bollocks.
I don't mind a bit of awareness of one's countries misdeeds, but I dislike the bleeding heart angle many people go for.
Oh my ancestors the white men were so terrible, we should all feel so guilty, boo hoo.
Look upon the history of man, and it's the same story, good and bad throughout.
Barring some technical semantic nonsense,
And going into a religious tangent,
Never was there a man free of sin.
Anyway, as though the Native Americans were some peace pipe smoking pacifists, 'nonsense.
They were human as everyone else, killed, enslaved, destroyed entire other tribes, raped, pillaged, and plundered.
Boo ho-
Grrr, stop it Leaning.
You're ranting too much.
. . .
I'm not ashamed of my ancestors, I take them for what they were.
I appreciate what in the present day, I reap by their seed and effort.
. . .
Also your strokes 'claim too much, while explaining too little.
When you speak of the Pilgrims, Native Americans, Columbus.
It 'reeks of white guilt, and a lack of understanding of historical context, perspective.
Just my opinion though.
. . .
. . .
Sorry about the boo hooing, and sarcasm, that was uncalled for, for me to speak that way.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Honestly, 'many of your threads share the 'same 'thread, so to speak.
Be easy enough to just tog someone on one of the threads you 'already have about capitalism.
And bring up the question of enhanced, replaced, or be kept the same.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
I dunno, lot of people seem to use Amazon, in any case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
It helps to give something of your own, otherwise I think people often feel 'put upon.
To the topic though,
Was the Iraq war justified?
No.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Sure, but so what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Body language, differences in grunts, experimentation, invention.
Wild speculation on my part.
Created:
Posted in:
Odd, I thought I recalled there being a 'lot more orange on this site.
To the point that found it glaring, Annoying, Irritating.
But now that I look at the color scheme again, DART 'isn't as orange as I remember it being.
Hm, Maybe the color scheme changed when I wasn't paying attention.
That or my memory is corrupt.
Either possible.
. . .
Well that's an improvement, either way, in my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
True, but I don't know much about China.
Though the 'main party is the Communist one, has always sounded to me,
I was under the impression that there exists other political parties in China, as well.
Though I imagine they are 'highly controlled by the main party.
Though maybe saying 'anything anti-communistic, puts a blotch on ones record, with their social credit tracking system.
. . .
Though in fairness, We've had censorship in America,
And a form of online social credit in individuals online activity.
It's 'common for companies to look at prospective hires Facebook account, and various other social media.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
How many of you have come from a religious background?
Yes.
And what was this background?
Christianity.
And what convinced you to become an atheist?
I don't currently recall.
Though I was not so much convinced to 'become an atheist, as my perspective had changed over time, and thus I was better 'classified as an atheist.
Was it a journey or an epiphany?
Likely both, I don't 'think that who a person is, what they believe, 'tends to change in an instant.
Even if they have an epiphany or several, it's often just another bit of information, to add to a question.
Did it cause problems with your family or partner at the time?
I've not bothered to discuss the subject of my atheism with any of my family, but my first brother.
Hasn't caused any problems.
And are you still connected somehow with the people from your old religious affiliation?
Never really went to church enough to form connections with anyone.
Still connected with my family.
One meets acquaintances, friends, coworkers, in life.
Their labels of religious beliefs, or labels lack of, have not been 'key, to whether I liked them or not, considered them worth keeping in contact with, or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Easier to look for debates that interest one, and keep the 'spirit of said debate.
Than to 'lure people to a debate one creates themself, and they keep to the 'spirit of said debate.
Sometimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'm for free speech,
And 'also for organizations firing people, for acting in a way not with said organizations values.
Though it bothers me.
Personally, my response to the kneeling on the field, would have been to not renew my contract with said players.
Well, maybe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I'd think often, government, whether Communist or Capitalist, just claims that the government owns said resource, in the name of the people.
Then institute fishing laws, regulations and fines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
@badger
Well, in Capitalism, something can be monopolized, overexploited, at the expense of everyone else.
Or neglected, at the expense of everyone, because no one or everyone owns it, but there's no law that forces them to take collective responsibility.
Is 'that the "tragedy of the commons" for Capitalism?
Though, what do you mean by the "tragedy of the commons"? for Communism?
I'm assuming you too are talking about the two different political systems, rather than the aspect of communism that might exist within Capitalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I like it better than the rabbit, profile picture, he had previously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I 'think I'm pretty neutral,
Towards atheists, theists, the religious, areligious.
I suppose I dislike anti-theists, and anti-religious, a bit.
I don't really pay any attention to anti-atheists, or religious extremists, I suppose.
Perhaps if I knew more of them, I'd dislike them more.
Just a generalization though.
As I think about it, I see exceptions and contradictions, with other views I have, of groups, individuals, systems.
. . .
Anyway, there's more to groups and individuals, than the definitions of atheist, theist, religious, areligious, anti-atheist, religious extremist.
Case to case basis, better than generalized opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
@badger
What is the "tragedy of the commons"?
Odd phrasing to me, somehow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Do you mean that in the sense of near everyone having 'access to the internet, implying the internet has a communist nature, or,
That if you 'weren't for Communism, your government might suppress your ability to access the internet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
The meaning of symbols can vary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
If I was starting a 'new country, I 'might have an interest in Communism.
Which, to my primitive definition, is the means of vital production being in the people's hands.
As I live in a country 'currently capitalist, I'd prefer to keep things as they 'are, capitalist.
Though I would not mind people organizing to found new ventures 'within said country, that were Communist.
Nonprofit Communes for example, that contained trade schools, somewhere to live, and basic farm.
That people who were down and out in life, had somewhere they could go other than being homeless, learn job skills, have food,
Then leave.
Or 'Communities, the Amish aren't Communist I take it, but 'do seem to have a very connected community, from what I've heard of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
If I was black, And lived in a city where the majority of the population was black, I would likely want it removed. But if I was white, Had ancestors who were confederates, If I had an appreciation of my forebears and how many of them fought for state rights, For blood, Kin, Land, Country. Then I'd want them up. I do support local communities doing what they want, In either direction, Though I may not agree with what they choose.
Created:
Aloha!Recently, as I have been moderating the site, I have noticed that there has been some confusion as to what counts as a call-out thread. I am posting this to clarify the issue for site users. A call-out thread is, per the COC, any thread "in which a purpose of the thread is to attack another user."The definition of a call-out thread means a few things in practice. First, it means that not all threads calling people out are call-out threads as the COC defines the term. If I create a thread saying, "Calling Out Castin," and then in the thread I say only complimentary things about her, I have not created a "call-out thread" as the COC defines it, and so my thread has not broken any site rules. The COC certainly does not prohibit saying nice things about other people. Second, the call-out thread, in its purpose, OP content, or title content, must constitute a personal attack. Threads criticizing or parodying other users are not necessarily call-out threads. Not all criticism or mockery rises to a level which is actionable under the COC.Therefore, a call-out thread is a thread created for the purpose of personally attacking another user. It is not a thread created for complimenting other users, nor is every thread that has something negative to say about someone a call-out thread.Hopefully this adds some clarity to the issue.- Bsh1
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
In defense of drlebronski, the debate that Bones was referring to was It is a fact that 6mil people died in the holocaust (debateart.com).
Which isn't much more abnormal than someone creating a debate arguing against flat Earth, as there exist people who hold such opinions.
Additionally Bones troll comment, could have been referring to his 'own argument in said debate, example
My opposition asserts that it is a fact that 6 million people died in the holocaust. Not 5,999,999, or 5,999,998, but 6 million on the dot. Therefore there burden is not to prove that approximately 6 million people died in the holocaust, but that it is a fact that 6 million people died. This is a near impossible assertion to uphold. - Bones
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Here's some quotes by you on his debate, RM
"Delete this debate" - RationalMadman
You make a demand.
"Obvious why" - RationalMadman
Without explanation.
"Fuck you and whoever takes Pro" - RationalMadman
Insult drlebronski with the F word.
"If you aren't advocating for racism, don't give racists a platform to do so." - RationalMadman
Apparently make an assumption that he's advocating racism. But your 'fact in this case is mistaken.
. .
Then you block him.
Then you post he changed his position in the debate, without mentioning he changed the title as well, meaning he was 'always for blacks not being inferior to whites.
This user just changed the debate to be 'not' and changed his position to Pro. - RationalMadman
In this comment he says he is Con, proving he is just trolling - RationalMadman
Claim that he's trolling, and again misrepresent his change from Pro to Con, by your leaving out the title change.
Paranoidly claim he's trying to call you out and frame you.
of course he is, my comments said whoever takes Pro is a problem. He switched it around and made this callout thread to frame me. - RationalMadman
Despite to my eyes, it just being him looking for answers on what he did or said wrong, supposedly to correct his own behavior, or at least be aware of it.
. .
'My facts are fine, I think.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
In either case, Pro or Con, since the titles were switched, he was on the side of people saying blacks are not inferior.
I don't see the issue.
You blocked him, and he was confused, wondering what he'd done to deserve such a cold shoulder.
Not really wonderous for a person to wonder why someone blocked them.
As is your wont, I thing you're making too much of a minor situation.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If you look at your history, you can see that the title was previously,
"Black people are inferior to white people"
When he was Con.
He changed the title to,
"Black people are not inferior to white people."
And thus changed his position to Pro
I don't think he's trolling, myself.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Why hate them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I didn't say that.
I refer you to my post #22
Please be specific.
Differences in people, results in different rights.
Let's suppose you said,
Dwarfs are valid and deserve the same rights as any other American.
Well, no they don't.
If they're too short to ride a carnival ride, they aren't allowed to ride it.
Let's suppose you said,
People with color blindness are valid and deserve the same rights as any other American.
Well, no they don't.
Certain jobs 'require color vision.
Let's suppose you said,
People with bad eyesight are valid and deserve the same rights as any other American.
Well, no they don't.
You have to pass a vision test, to become a pilot in the American Air Force, as far as I know.
'Which Rights?
Please be specific.
If there's a military war and a draft, do you think women are going to be 'equally represented on the frontlines?
What does it 'mean, to have equal rights?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I have a complaint about people who oppress gay and trans people. - drlebronski
That's 'very vague.
Since you still avoid the question im now going to assume that no you dont think they deserve equal rights - drlebronski
'Assume.
In post #23, you said,
gay people deserve the right to marry - drlebronski
Well, you gave 'one right.
That they 'already currently have in America.
Though really it's semantics, marriage.
Some people insist a pencil is a pen, if they have enough influence in a country, well, then the definition of a pencil, changes to pen.
Marriage is between a single man and a single women, says some people's definition.
Other people have 'different definitions.
In post #30, you said,
If a company wont let a gay person work there because they are gay the gay person cant do anything about it - drlebronski
"In 1994, the ENDA only made it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees based on their sexual orientation. By 2007, discrimination based on gender identity had been added to the law as well.[17] In 2015, a broader bill, the Equality Act, was introduced in place of this."
In post #30, you said,
if someone goes up to a gay person starts calling him slurs like F*gg*ot and other words that gay person cant do anything about it. - drlebronski
Too bad, I say. People get insulted in life.
In post #35, I gave my opinion that transsexuals ought not be accepted into the military currently.
Due to the current difficulty of integration, deployment, medical costs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
'You brought up the topic, implying you have a complaint.
Do you not have a specific complaint in mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Give a 'specific right, that you want to know whether I think gay and trans ought have, and I'll try to answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Never!
Muhahaha,
Well, least not 'this moment.
Heh, seriously though, ask me if I think gays or transsexuals ought be able to vote in America, I suppose I'd say yes.
That fact that you bring up the topic,
gay and trans people deserve rights - drlebronski
'Implies to me, that you think there are rights they do not have, thus I ask 'what rights are missing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- Are you pretending to be ignorant or are you avoiding the question? - Yassine
Partly 'genuine ignorance, partly avoiding the question, partly disagreeing with the question itself.
- The question is about equality before the law. Do you believe queer people should have the same rights straight people have? - Yassine
If you have a specific law or example, I'll 'try to answer it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I'm asking if you support homosexuals & transexuals equality before the law? - Yassine
Straight, gay, or trans, we all have a right to a day in court, I imagine.
Are able to own property.
Are able to vote.
gay marriage, trans marriage - Yassine
I'm not sure what to think of the institution of marriage anymore, in modern America.
Is it about a people recognizing a sacred bond, in accordance with their faith and traditions?
Is it about what benefits by law and recognition of two individuals shared rights between each other, by law?
I'm pretty noncommittal on the subject of marriage.
gender preference - Yassine
What do you mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- So you don't believe in Equality? - Yassine
Depends what one means by equality.
Hence when drlebronski posted "Gay and trans people are valid and deserve the same rights as any other american"
I asked him which rights in particular?
- What do you believe in regarding homosexuals & transexuals? - Yassine
If some guy or girl walked up to me and said he was gay, I'd say okay, and not think much of it.
If some guy or girl walked up to me and said they were transexual, I'd say okay, and not think much of it, Except maybe make a note, to to not be attracted to them. Because of my own preferences in other living people.
If someone who was gay wanted to join the military, I'd probably just say okay.
If someone who wanted to undergo transsexual surgery, wanted to join the military, I'd probably say, that it's a bad fit.
If someone who was gay ran for mayor, I'd want to know their platform.
If someone who was transsexual ran for mayor, I'd want to know their platform. Though I'd still think, transsexual? Well that's odd.
If someone claimed their kid was transsexual, but the kid didn't have any odd genetics.
I'd probably say NO, wait until they're 18, then they can make such a decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I think that differences between individuals, whether 'what they are, or actions taken.
Results in differences in how they are perceived, acted towards, what they are abled by law or institution to 'do.
Do you not support equal rights for homosexuals & transexuals?
Is too broad a question for my liking, though I may be overthinking it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
So you don't believe in equal rights for homosexuals & transexuals? - Yassine
I don't hold for equal rights between myself and my 2nd brother, as he's stolen from our house before.
So he's supervised when visiting, while trusted family members are not supervised.
Depends on context and specifics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Yes.
Since I hold that people are different, by what they are, what actions they take, how society views certain states of being or action.
Discrimination occurs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- The incestuous, the epolygamous & the pedosexuals & zoosexuals deserve the same rights as any other American too.
Well, maybe not the 'same rights.
I would like that they have 'some 'sort of rights though.
Created: