Plisken

Two arguable reasons for a No Vote (which is also a choice) come to mind that may not be immediately popular in a society ruled by democratic aristocracy.  

1.  Reserving the voting ethic to a higher standard than you were able to commit in the respective election.

2.  The options available do not presently meet an acceptable standard of consent.

What do you think of Agnostica if they are a girl, perhaps Athias for a boy?  

Yes, they necessarily believe in a race and that it is inferior with respect to their dating preferences to act upon that belief accordingly through discrimination on the basis of race. 

Could you please expound on that?  It doesn't initially make any sense to me.

I need you to elaborate on what exactly you think has been claimed if you want my input on what may help you understand what has actually been claimed.  I am not aware of what people are purportedly claiming about the bible.  Its a long book.  

I'll just write this down I guess and yiu can take it for what its worth.  This thread is generally dedicated to the idea that saying "God doesn't exist" may be indefensible.  This may not be true technically, since you can write the letters down, make a definition based on unicorns and leprochauns and than prove that you are the original person who made that fake god up....that is defensible, depending upon context and the bear you are defending against.  It's easily dismissable though because for purpose in an intellectual conversation pertaining to the real world, the actual meaning if you will, is not confined to the limits of your perspective unless perhaps your perspective is one with....  

This thread serve's as an illustration of evil that can result from breaking the 2nd commandment.

God is one, not the Christian god.  Whatever you are thinking when you say "the Christian god", it's not what a follower of Christ is referring to with a capital G.  You need to understand that, God is one, or Mopac's christain views may go right over your head.  I'm not particularly interested in a conversation chain, just writing a quick reference in the case you should determine that it''s convenient for your perception to reflect reality a little more precisely : ) or perhaps something held in higher regard than mere convenience.

 God is one, not the Christian god.

How did you come to the conclusion that it is our universe and not yours if you can't verify your observations of colaboration?  

What does "holy" mean to you?

Actually, if you are interested in knowing, I probably shouldn't define it.  Its not practical to limit it to what you can realize on your own.  The ultimate reality just is, if that might begin to convey the totality.

5.  The consideration of appropriate function in this setting was with respect to banishment only, nothing resembling an administrative practice of shunning.

1.  It doesn't fall on users to police - Please don't forget to have fun!! You bsh1 are a user, and therefore the chief moderator (also you) is not the chief of police, good to know?  

2.  You are assuming I'm aware of the omniscient, omnipresent police force this website employs.  This would be a mistake, if not, a misrepresentation, assuming you are the same person who knows that I've pressed the little flag thingies before under the impression that relaying information to the powers that be was preferrable to more efficiently resolve issues for the community/user experience etc... particularily given the relatively limited tools members are allowed to employ themselves without appealing through admin.

3.  Public Shaming as Punishment - This is actually in my opinion a rather vile practice, in part because of the display of primative means to manipulate people through brainwashing and coercion in order to get what you want, but also because the people it can have an effect (resolving or not) are the most vulnerable.  Additionally, there aren't any means through this website to inform family members of such exposure.   

4. New introduction about role - Being a member of a website one would imagine plays some role in someone's life but you do not necessarily know what role that is. Assuming they have a life, they probably have more important things to worry about than what starfish22 expressed on "debateart.com" even if the person handling starfish22 contributes to a valued function in one's life.  They probably have an independant value system, and a set of relationships in which they interact with people and meet real friends through a medium in which its common to introduce oneself by name in honor.  The response to false assumptions over the diverse access through the internet could be anything from "meh" to "blub blub I'm a piranha" to  "challenge accepted".

Being a moderator, I'm confident you are quite enthusiastic about what this website has the potential to offer.  I'm equally confident that you feel shame on the basis of your personal views and your knowledge of why and how you did not do your best at the end of the day, not what starfish22 suggests @ngelbutt should think about you, but what you are rightfully concious and expect of yourself.

Public shaming is needless word pollution, and it's not a punishment either to someone who actually has a life.  The practical function of a public ban list is to make every member aware so that the offender can be banned repeatedly as necessary when they try to come back.

Do you deny the concept of an ultimate reality?

No, I just clicked on the link to a Quartz article at the bottom labeled "Here is the study" and read to the end rather quickly. 

Is post #5 against your religion for letting your ego separate yourself from a rational oneness we all need move towards?

You aren't entitled to climb into someones property to speak your mind dammit.  You can innocently climb in to request their permission and that's about it. Alex Jones can still cunduct as many psychotic episodes as he wants.  Evidently, being able to speak publicly on the internet without having to encounter Alex Jones contributes to a valuable service.  If you don't value it, choose another service or make your own.  

This is not a free speech issue.  It's a civil rights issue fyi, so be careful conservatives that you don't contradict a lack of support for laws that guard against the effects of segregation.  Alex Jones is at worst being banned, on the basis of political orientation to cater advertisers after the rich leftist snowflake market.

Politicians may be in charge of their respective duties but a culture that relies on them for leadership has some serious issues imo.  

Women just need to actually build a political career and win an electoral majority....why should the women's vote matter?  The political interests one is able to satisfy are what matter and those circumstances don't necessarily change because you are a man or a woman.

Okay, I do have socioeconomic opinions regarding how girls and boys should be raised, but why exactly should I care about gender in politics?  Is this an issue outside of my bubble? 

You made a key error, that being that your degree of faith is logical.  Sure, you can design a logical system which produces an outcome based on the highest purportion of observable probablility.  That doesn't prove in anyway that your suspicions are logical.  You haven't provided a context like a systematic method of trouble shootong.

Can you try illustrating what you are trying to say with respect to the unicorn post without conflating the existence of a supernatural creator with the non-existence of natural creations?

What you are saying doesn't appear to be obvious to the person you are saying it to.

Being called cute is not an insult.

Someone else's state of ignorance is not relative to my perception of authority, so you shouldn't hinge a logical test upon my acknowledgement of authority.  It is obvious to me, that you do not understand "ignorance" so it's not appropriate for me to claim that this Mopac you speak of does not understand it excluding yourself, which is what "it is he" implies in my culture, an implication of exclusivity in context.  

I'm not in a position to authoritatively answer your question.

There's a Lotta folks of that persuasion, in the sense that we all have the opportunity.  

You asked if it was ignorance to not know something when someone flails their arms and how that works.  You are ignorant of many things simply by not knowing them. It''s that simple.

Ignorance is just a lack of knowledge.  The education system or lack there/of is irrelevant to ascertaining whether or not you are ignorant of something.

Does that make sense?

I'm sorry, not sure which false pretenses you are referring to.  

Naturally there's not much point in reading into a logical construct based upon false pretences.  I'm sure whatever you are referring to is just laziness on my part, nothing worthy of congratulations I'm afraid.

"Are" is a helping verb for "discerned", also a verb.  Spiritually is not a noun.

God is obviously supernatural, not natural, the designer of nature....You want to hang at his crib you better up your game, no us vs them Goin on.

No one is going to physically stop you from acting out in murdering people without an explicit threat, because that's insane.  Do not murder people, and please get help

Edit: I Accidentally stated post 24, when I was actually trying to refer to post 28.

Thank you for clearing that up, casual_leftist

"I don't really care about your opinion. You're clearly hyper-partisan and thus your evaluation is suspect and frankly just boring"

Post 24 has not been flagged.

Post # 31 and #32 have been flagged for spam

Post # 27 is relevant to a previous post it replied to but was still flagged for review earlier this morning.

Post #30 Has also been flagged.

Please do not respond to this post within the forum, Thank you.

Posting this because to my knowledge this sight does not allow members to delete content, and I do not know how to contact a moderator

Casual Leftist Post 24 - Flagged for Spam

Note, these are public forums.  

Opinion: Posts need to be content related in forums to be of any use to the public.  Spam can cause "derailing" and additional replies degrade the ability of forum viewers to enjoy/utilize the forum in continuity and contribute perspective and information respectively.  

It appears you lack the moral fortitude necessary to be entrusted with lethal force.  That does not make you a "bad person", but failing to accept it could.   Please exercise caution and remain on the safe side of your limitations.  If a group entertains that its okay, necessary or what have you to shoot someone, or toss them in an oven, try to distance yourself from that association.  Don't keep weapons for self defense in morally questionable settings either, and go out of your way to avoid such navigation in trouble.  With care and good will you should still be able to contribute to society and grow as a person without harming it.  

Tolerance is necessary to act reasonably through less than ideal conditions.  Suppression doesn't come into play until after civilized discourse has failed irreparably, which is inevitable if an institutional declaration of hate speech is defined by the recipient.  It is theoretically possible to avoid suppression with proper implementation of legal rights barring other externalities.

My family plays a lot of little tricks on kids from a young age in general, so something like santa is just another short sense of achievement figuring things out and intellectually hanging in there with their elders.

Modern Creationist theories have been largely sorted to an attempt to refine explanations of evolutionary theory, just sayin....They require they're own additional substantiation to be tested if we are to contend they are indeed well founded, and sufficiently reliable to build upon our current understanding of the natural world.  You can't be a creationist, point out that your observations of the evolutionary process refute evolution and expect to be taken seriously.  Even if the creator is not confined to the current human condition they/it has to have done things somehow.  Clearly if the creation itself is understood, the magical aspect is just a matter of perspective ignorance.  There is zero evidence that tuna fish were assembled from mud and water or came flying out of the sun.  It appears most likely that before there were tuna, there was some other ancestral fish and we can infer from real time observations that over generations somewhere in the life cycle of living organisms that genetic mutations occur and some being reproduced more than others.  The gist of the theory of evolution and the subset theory of natural section have held up to rigorous testing for over a century although the actual physics are still in the supernatural illusion of ignorance.  Conclusively breaking these theories and starting over again would be a bombshell, a great and coveted achievement from a scientist's perspective.  That's what science is all about.

Something is only worth as much time as you are willing to put in.    Not sure what all would go down but I'd trade for tangible assets as soon as possible, and a beer.  I'd assume that it would ultimately benefit the upper class in a position to take advantage in the changing times and screw everyone else.  It would have been benevolent to make your currency out of a nationally owned commodity or something.

Why not just focus the effort of the majority to donate to the foodshelf through your local church or whatever?  That's a lot simpler imo, people just show up when they have time and it all works out well.

Criminality is ideally non existant.  Its a minority behaviour in a decent society and there's just no way around that.  The police are in a position of inherent interest to target the minority and investigate "unusual" activity for goodness sake.  It's arguably in one's best personal interest to refrain from known associatians with criminality in your locale if you are concerned about interaction with police.

Roe vs Wade is just not going to be overturned by anti-abortion activism because of the relationship Americans worked to ensure that future generations would have with their government.  It did however have effects that go beyond the scope of constitutional authority, and over time will be "gutted" by perspective of people who would like there to be a strong Roe style law through the proper channels in the legislative process. Refinements will come out of challenges going up the chain over time, assuming a functional court system.  

Personally, my prioritization is in a candidate's fortitude to the checks and balances necessary to ensure the liberty of the American people.  We the people don't actually get to choose who rises to power, but it''s still theoretically possible to have some say in who shouldn't.  For that reason, I value someone who is unapologetic about Roe's fate, as that is an indication they will be unapologetic in their political approach to the judicial branch, and the success or lackthereof to the appropriate legal action to facilitate the progress of the human condition.

If one's 'race' does not present an obstacle, which in reality it Truly can't, that is NOT a power as has been covered in this thread because "being white" cannot be demonstrated to apply force across distance over time. Obstacles with respect to race can only be presented by people who contrive them.