Total posts: 1,065
-->
@oromagi
You don't see any red flags in any of that?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Well, if Republicans run the country they'd do it too. They're just as trigger happy as leftists, only with different groups.
I think the government should be forced to indict you and win the court case before they can touch anything you own. That is a right that keeps tyranny in check.
I understand the process of an arrest before the court case, but your assets should not be frozen. You can be arrested if your crime can be proven in court, and I think that, if you don't get tried within a week of the arrest then you are free to go.
We have so many people sitting in jail for months or even years awaiting a trial. They haven't been convicted of anything yet. That could be an innocent person who is sitting there. One week until the trial starts. If they can't do it, then so be it.
Besides, in the old days people armed themselves and defended each other from psychos. That sense of community was a much better check on crime than police.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Just to be clear. I am not absolving anyone of any actions here. I am merely showing that our government and our financial and internet institutions have long abandoned the Bill of Rights.
The people they banned could have been actual terrorists. But unless that is proven in a court of law, then what is going on is a serious affront to our rights.
That used to be the standard. The government and other organizations had to PROVE you were doing something wrong in a trial by jury before they took all your shit and completely removed you from society. It was one of the checks and balances against totalitarianism.
I am not saying these people didn't do what the government said they did. What I am saying, though, is that many people haven't and have had their things taken from them through these Patriot Act style laws and they never really got restitution without suing the government for 10 or 20 years first
This is very alarming and totalitarian stuff going on right now. Detaining people indefinitely without a trial or even public statements of their crimes and also draining their bank accounts upon suspicion alone and getting companies to deny them service are gross human rights abuses. Most of the people targeted did nothing more than support a political candidate or happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
It isn't like they are all Dylan Murphy or some crazed terrorist. Many are falsely accused. But SOME aren't. Either way, without a trial it doesn't matter anyways because the government gets to do whatever it wants without any consequences.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Did you read what I posted or nah?
It affirms censorship of local governments while saying censorship is bad. They denounce Russia and then say "but we want to censor whatever we want."
That isn't affirming rights. That is doubletalk.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
they still would not be able to link anything to you.
Yeah but what does that matter? We have people rotting in a jail cell right now because the FBI said they were violent at a protest. No trial. No scheduled trial. No bail. Just endlessly detained.
We had a sitting President impeached on a completely fabricated intelligence report on Russian Interference.
We have banks denying people their life savings and credit card companies shutting down credit cards over SUSPECTED (i.e. unproven) terrorism because of their political beliefs.
So the fact that they know your email, your payment info, and that you use a VPN is more than enough for the government to destroy your life and detain you indefinitely should VPNs be considered a "reasonable suspicion" for terrorism.
They can drain your bank account with "civil asset forfeiture" and then shut down your accounts. They can revoke your payment method completely, and they can also completely purge you from social media because they have your email and your full legal name. This all comes from just the sign up info and payment info.
So, that is more than enough right now to destroy your life. And they haven't even gotten to your internet history yet.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Also, let's look at your solution for a second.
Most VPN providers are legally required to hand over their data to the government anyways. They are also required to follow whatever laws their presiding government has about the internet.
The gross majority of these VPN providers are in the United States or somewhere in Europe.
NordVPN (your favorite) is under the jurisdiction of Panama. Panama has an agreement with the United States to hand over your data. The country of Panama also has extremely strict internet Censorship laws. Moreover, Panama has an extradition treaty with the United States, so your registration data, your payment data, and other personal details they have on file about you is completely open to the USIC.
Malaysia, while a very strict country, doesn't actually have any extradition agreements with any other governments. They are not required to turn over anything to the United States if asked. Moreover, Malaysia has not censored anything on the internet.
However, this assumes that VPNs are not crackable. The fact of the matter is, they are.
The NSA and Russian Intelligence have already cracked AES encryption. They created scripts that instantly unlock it. This was back in 2013. So they don't really provide much protection anyways.
That isn't even to mention the fact that VPNs still require the user to enter a website somewhere, and those websites are likely owned by the U.S. somewhere, so once you log into Facebook on your VPN, they put in the tracking cookie and track your whole experience on there and elsewhere from your browser even with the VPN. They know it's you because you logged on.
This also assumes the VPN is not leaking, and your browser is one of those privacy browsers that don't accept cookies or any JavaScript scripts or other things.
There's so fucking many ways to hack a VPN that they are really useless.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well, I barely use it. I haven't actually used it since 2016 or so. I already know the NSA has all the information they could possibly desire about me through my ownership of a smartphone that tracks my location 24/7 and listens to my conversations without my consent, so you kinda wonder what the point of a VPN would be with such constant monitoring.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What's your solution?
Not joining the partnership and keeping the internet the way it was before 2016. Almost completely uncensored.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I recommend NordVPN.
Are you a VPN salesman?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
some don't do as they are told and are not ignored.
Man I miss mean tweets.
Created:
The United States just joined a coalition of 60 partners, including 55 countries in signing a declaration call the "Declaration for the Future of the Internet."
According to the declaration, the 60 partners will "Protect and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach to governance that keeps the Internet running for the benefit of all."
If you're familiar with the World Economic Forum, a stakeholder is someone who has benefit from something, as opposed to a customer who buys and uses the product. So this new internet will protect governments and other stakeholders and not their citizens.
The declaration also states:
"In signing this Declaration, the United States and partners will work together to promote this vision and its principles globally, while respecting each other’s regulatory autonomy within our own jurisdictions and in accordance with our respective domestic laws and international legal obligations."
This was supposedly to counter "a trend of rising digital authoritarianism where some states act to repress freedom of expression, censor independent news sites, interfere with elections, promote disinformation, and deny their citizens other human rights."
So... It takes authoritarian censorship to stop... authoritarian censorship?
Yeah... That'll uphold people's freedom of expression and rights...
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Well if Esperanto ever becomes the lingua franca of the world then we can all speak Esperanto. But for now it is English.
I tried learning Esperanto when I was a kid and I don't hate it. I just don't have the time these days to devote to learning a language just so I can debate people lol.
And I think most others feel the same way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
11010101010000111010101011111100110010101101
Is this supposed to make you look smart or something? I don't read binary, and the translator came back with:
ÕCªüÊ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Sophomoric "I know you are, but what am I" retort = hypocrisy.
So now you're projecting hypocrisy now.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Yeah. While English is the lingua franca of the world, we're going to start speaking Esperanto.
Btw, nothing is stopping you from holding debates in Esperanto if you want to, or even making forum posts in Esperanto.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
What do you mean. I voted the same way as Supadudz.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I can't figure out why Christians refer to him with the extra A (Gamaliel).
It is a transliteration thing, like how Yeshua is Iesous in Greek. Gmlyel is Gamaliel in Greek and that is how the name stuck.
The New Testament was written entirely in Greek and even quoted from the Greek Septuagint, because the recipients did not know Hebrew as their first language in the gross majority of cases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
You're fine. I am just trying to understand it is all.
So there are certain rules for which sage to agree with? So, for instance, if Hillel and Gamaliel were to have a disagreement (yes I am aware Gamaliel is not really in the Talmud), which side would be ruled on?
I know this isn't a great hypothetical. But I know both Gamaliel and Hillel are reputable.
So is it based off a generality or is it more specific to what the topic is? Are some Rabbis only an expert on some things and not others? Or is there an order of prominence that settles it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Interesting. So the view of the Talmud is vastly different than how Catholics would view tradition, that it is one unbroken line of proper oral tradition passed down in perfection and disagreeing with it means you are wrong. Am I correct in this?
The Talmud, it sounds like, is more like consulting a vast library of commentaries and seeing what they all agreed upon, and when there is disagreement, to choose the viewpoint that makes the most sense. Am I understanding what you're saying?
So it isn't like the Talmud is a "THIS IS IT! BELIEVE THIS OR ELSE!" book. It is more like consulting commentaries and seeing what they say. They can disagree with each other but it doesn't mean there is no truth in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Thanks for all the info.
May I ask, which interprets the other? Does the Talmud interpret the Torah or does the Torah interpret the Talmud? It sounds like you are saying the Talmud interprets the Torah (and also the rest of the Scriptures). Is this the case?
If so, what if the Talmud has a contradiction? What happens then?
May I ask, which interprets the other? Does the Talmud interpret the Torah or does the Torah interpret the Talmud? It sounds like you are saying the Talmud interprets the Torah (and also the rest of the Scriptures). Is this the case?
If so, what if the Talmud has a contradiction? What happens then?
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
Goodness reading that was painful.
You: cites proof literally proving what you are saying.
FDR: says you're wrong.
You: show how the dictionary definition agrees with your interpretation and your data.
FDR: says, without evidence, that you're wrong and just restarted his position without proving it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
While being a "disciple" might have a particular value, your word was "servant" which is a very different concept in the talmud
I cited it to show historical proof of meticulous records about the disciples and such of the Rabbis. I don't endorse the theology in it entirely. It just shows how there were meticulous records of who followed and served the Rabbis.
I perceive you are an Orthodox Jewish person, am I correct in my assumption?
If so, can I pick your brain sometime? I have questions on the nitty gritty of Orthodox Judaism, such as whether the Jerusalem Talmud is preferred to the Babylonian Talmud. Why one over the other? And what happens when the Torah disagrees with the Talmud (like in Genesis, where God refers to Himself in plural form)?
Would you be up to answering a few questions sometime? I don't have any Orthodox Jewish friends so I can't really ask them lol. And a lot on the internet has serious contradictions on what Orthodox really means.
Oh, and which Talmudic translations do you consider the best for us English speakers? I already know the JPS Tanakh is the one Jewish people recommend for the Tanakh and Torah. I just don't know for the Talmud and Mishnah and such.
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
What is the argument for the proposition "MAGA Republicans are today’s slave holders"?
Don't bother. You can't convince crazy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Can’t disprove my position so you go for the ignorant personal attack.
Takes one to know one.
Created:
Posted in:
I think it would be pretty cool to see how peoples' Elo ratings changed over time. Like, to see when people grew the most and other such things. IDK I think this would be a fascinating little statistic to look at.
Is this possible to implement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Your delusions of grandeur knows no bounds.
Stop projecting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
do you have any sort of corroboration for this claim?
There were extensive notes for whom disciples of rabbis were in that time period. Working in the temple was considered a position of prominence, even if just a servant.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have to disagree. Muhammad himself condoned raping married women as spoils of war:
Muhaririz said: "I entered the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri. I sat with him and asked about withdrawing the penis (while having intercourse), Abu Said said: We went out with the Apostle of Allah on the expedition to Banu al-Mustaliq, and took some Arab women captive, and we desired the women, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, and we wanted ransom; so we intended to withdraw the penis (while having intercourse with the slave-women). But we asked ourselves: "Can we draw the penis when the apostle of Allah is among us before asking him about it?" So we asked him about it. He said, "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born." (hadith of the Sunan Dawud, Volume 2, #2167)
Muhammad, here, says it is perfectly fine to commit adultery with captured female married slaves. He even said they could cum in them and not worry about if they will get pregnant or not before reselling them as the ransom.
Further from the same hadith, but this time #2150 in volume 2:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24].
So if a woman is a slave, married or not, you are allowed to fuck them as much as you want. This is even a command from allah.
Moreover, Muhammad himself was allowed to have sex with underage slave girls. This is proven in quran 33:50, 23:5-6, and 70:22-30.
There's also passages about being allowed to tax infidels out of their belongings (Quran 9:29) and other such things.
So, no. Islam was always pro-rape, pillaging, and taxation. To assert differently is to completely rewrite Islam. Muhammad himself said he received a command from allah that it is perfectly fine to rape people's wives so long as they are taken as slaves first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Their names aren't important to the story. They were random people who made a testimony. The act of misjustice was the whole event.In Isaiah 53:7 it states that Jesus would be accused and not open his mouth:
"He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth." (BSB)
The false witnesses fulfilled prophecy. Their names aren't what's important here, what is important is the prophecy they fulfilled. In many of the personal interactions that Jesus had with others, the Apostles record them in the gospels. This is because they were personal interactions. The names were mentioned and they were important conversations. The emphasis in the testimony before Caiaphas is the event itself, not the names of the many false witnesses. It was Bible prophecy being fulfilled.
take the time to mention a non-entity such as Malchus
Well think about it here, the man had his ear removed. Wouldn't that have been an extremely unbelievable story? Surely people would be wanting to investigate that, right? Also, if he was a servant of the priests, then they would have known who he was. Temple membership was well-known at that time period. Genealogies were significantly more important than they are today. People's entire claim to being Jewish rested on it. The same with the temple proceedings. Being a servant of a Rabbi was rather important of a position.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So when I say "Christian" I mean people who ascribe to Christianity and try to live a godly life. I don't mean nations that called themselves "Christian" and then did whatever they wanted.
Kenya, recently, became a Christian nation. There was no violent overthrow of the regime.
A lot of the colonialism of recent history was not really Christian in action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
This suggests some sort of vetting process as I suggested here> #10
So in the Ancient Jewish trial system, at least as I understand it, there was a period of questioning of the witnesses. That is how their stories we're inconsistent, in addition to their not having the same details of things.
for reasons known only to themselves, decided that their testimony was acceptable.
As stated before, their stories were also inconsistent according to Matthew's account. So they had that one phrase right but they were inconsistent on other stuff.
But up to this point none of this identifies these two “certain witnesses” or gives us the reason why the gospel writers choose to keep them anonymous.
They kept all the other witnesses "anonymous" too. If you read the accounts this is based off Peter being in the back and watching to see what happened.
Are we to assume all Jewish people know each other? They were probably people Peter never saw before. Why didn't they name the names of all the other witnesses as well?
They also don't name all the Roman centurions, the ones who whipped Jesus, etc. etc. I just fail to see how not naming two people is some big problem here. This doesn't mean they didn't witness what they witnessed. People witness things all the time. They don't know the names of everyone involved.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
study what Columbus and his homeboys did.
You mean just show up on a continent and accidentally bring diseases that they were immune to? You really want to fault all Christians for the accident of one?
It was not malicious by any means.
Take literally any nation that is now Christian and study how they were turned Christian.
Kenya?
Created:
You will rest in hell. God has already sharpened his sword for you.
Coming from an account that doesn't exist, this means absolutely nothing.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Large difference between Catholic and Christian in the middle ages. Also what is your proof the Catholics were raping and pillaging?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Crusades were a great sin anyway.
I disagree. Muslims were torturing, raping, and pillaging people. The crusades were a defense of human decency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
You're a great cop, but a terrible public servant.
You just prove that stereotype that cops are trigger-happy, power-hungry, racist, good ol' boys. So you're a good cop.
But you utterly fail at being a public servant and upholding the creed you supposedly believe in: "protect and serve."
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am not an account.
Cool thanks for admitting you don't exist. I rest my case.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Andrew Tate has been a diehard Christian
Well, if he is sleeping around with 10 women in polyamorous marriages then he is certainly not practicing Christian values to begin with.
Andrew Tate's stated reasons for converting to Islam are that they are scary, violent and intimidating in defense of their religion
Has he even read about the crusades? Christians have a long history of taking up arms to defend their religion. The difference is in the attacks. With the exception of the Inquisition, Christians have largely denounced attacking people to convert them. But for self defense it is an entirely different discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well, upon going back to the Bible to reread the passage, in Matthew it says they found many false witnesses but finally two guys said something truthful about Jesus but twisted the context of it.
Furthermore, in Mark 14 it says the same thing.
Furthermore, in Mark 14 it says the same thing.
And in Matthew 26:Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but they did not find any. For many bore false witness against Jesus, but their testimony was inconsistent.
Then some men stood up and testified falsely against Him: “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple, and in three days I will build another that is made without hands.’ ” But even their testimony was inconsistent. (Mark 14:55-59) BSB
Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking false testimony against Jesus in order to put Him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.
Finally two came forward and declared, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’ ” (Matthew 26:59-61) BSB
So to answer your question they were a bunch of people who said things but their testimonies we're inconsistent, even the two that said one factually truthful claim.
But specifically as to why I think they were paid off, the story of Judas is the reason for my inference. The Pharisees paid Judas 30 pieces of silver to betray Christ. If they paid him off, why is it so crazy to assume they paid off the people to lie? After all, lying was a punishable offense in Jewish Law. Who would lie for no reason? Money, however, is a clear motivator. The money had to come from SOMEWHERE. This was why the Pharisees tried to unload Judas's money on Potter's field, because it was blood money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well they could have been two random people on the street whom the pharisees gave large sums of money to.
Remember that, according to Irenaeus, Luke's gospel came from Paul the Apostle. (Against Heresies Book 3 chapter 1) Paul, in Galatians 1:18 and 2:2-3, said he went around questioning people and studying the gospel and the theology behind it to see if it was true.
Additionally Luke said himself that he investigated everything thoroughly. This is why we have such things that are not contained in the other gospels, like Mary's genealogy, the magnificat, and other such very personal details that could only have arisen by actually interviewing people.
So it is likely that the two false witnesses were just random people whom the Pharisees paid money to lie.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
As you burn in hell, you will have plenty of time to figure out why you are wrong.
Idk. I'm not using the Bible to troll people.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am right. You are wrong.
Well, apparently you're not. Since you agreed with me just 4 comments ago.
Created:
-->
@Shila
How do you account for the flat earth believers on DebateArt, are they Catholics?
What? I never said all flat-earthers are Catholic. I said the Catholic Church strongly promulgated the flat earth myth and censored other viewpoints.
That is totally different than saying all flat-earthers alive today are Catholic.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If it doesnt say in the Bible that certain account exists, we have no reason to believe it exists.
So therefore you don't exist.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So you're account in debate art isn't an account?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes but there's no mention of a DebateArt account titled "Best.Korea," so you don't exist by your own omission.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Its not real. DNA is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
Well neither are you, so....
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
The way to rule the world is to distract humans with cat videos and memes. Then we can do pretty much anything we like.
I know you're joking, but this is literally true.
In Russia and China their tik tok clones are all educational content. They have math, science, engineering videos. In America it's a bunch of people acting like jerks and doofuses or pets doing things.
The way to rule a country is to distract and divide it's populus with stupid, unimportant shit.
Created: