Shila

--> @RationalMadman

I would agree. I never saw the issue, maybe it could be exposing if positioned in that would be revealing of genitalia, I don't know.

--> @Sidewalker

do you want to formally debate it?

 Nope. I am quite happy here where I gave give my opinions and where anyone can dive in at will.  And share the sometimes-awkward facts that theist like to avoid.

Such as the universally accepted fact the BOP is on, s/he that makes the claim. That BOP subject has been done to a death on this forum many times.

But please don't be shy, knock yourself out and start a new BOP thread of your own arguing to the contrary if you are in disagreement, you don't need my permission "kid".

-->

@Shila

The gospels were not the words of Jesus though. Such was/is the process of data transfer and reinterpretation in the absence of sound recording.

And Peter and Paul would have been very old if they were still around in the second century.

And if they actually existed, I doubt that their names were Peter and Paul

Polytheist-Witch: --> @Vici

You are not a Libertarian you need to change your political listing in your profile. And if you have a penis you need to quit engaging in this conversation it has nothing to do with you. It's about uteruses not penises so the penises can fuck off.

-> @Shila

I don't think your post #15 is in honest faith or positive intent,

It's also incorrect a number of ways,

So I don't feel like engaging in it.

--> @IwantRooseveltagain

Senator: Dems back reparations for those who 'do the crime' | AP News

OMG, every day I am more ashamed to have ever been a Republican, the party just keeps sinking lower and lower, and Abraham Lincoln is rolling over in his grave.

--> @Shila

Can you stop being a necromancer?

Best.Korea: Dear Shila,

I am not Putin. Putin is not my world view. If he was, I would simply conclude that he is winning.

--> @Shila

--> @RationalMadman

I just find the whole idea inhumane, not only the homeless but especially so.

I am absolutely as a cop I'd feel sick inside to have to arrest a desperate person who pissed onto a bush or whatever.

I am not discussing exposing one's genitals in a very public manner, I am discussing specifically the crime of pissing in public, urination in and of itself.

The crime is indecent exposure, and determination of that is up to law enforcement's discretion, generlly speaking, and more often than not, I think cops aren't arresting you for taking a discrete piss.

This is more a problem for the homeless.

I suppose threatening them with three meals and a cot isn't much of a deterrent. 

-->

@Shila

Self-parody.

->

@Intelligence_06

Our science and morality is built upon one "fact": That experience matters, and that what you see is true. That simply isn't true, as we cannot prove anything based on experience: How do we know that invisible aliens aren't pushing all these objects to create the illusion of Gravity? We do not know. Even though the current physics may not be "true", it is plausible, or that we think it is true, or that it is subjectively true. There is nothing preventing someone with what we call schizophrenia to actually see objects "with mass" to float upwards without seemingly any force exerted on it. In fact, we cannot conclude that those ones with schizophrenia are seeing the real world as it is, and we just have the same symptom of schizophrenia. How do we determine normal vision and abnormal vision? By social categorization, or what we "think" is right versus what we think isn't. Even how we see the world cannot be proven to be true, let alone speculation based on it.

You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky. Even though we tend to believe our experiences and more often times than not, you see the objects behave exactly like how the old people tell you through the physic textbook that they are going to behave, it is through YOUR vision. You can only prove that this time it worked, subjectively, but never that it WILL work next time, objectively.

Objective truth based on experience is equal to nonsense because objective experience is impossible and experience is not objective. Anything we consider true, based on experience, are, at most, subjective truths.

-> @TWS1405

You just lost the debate/discussion. 

from the racist baby killer that doesn't mean much

--> @RationalMadman

I just find the whole idea inhumane, not only the homeless but especially so.

I am absolutely as a cop I'd feel sick inside to have to arrest a desperate person who pissed onto a bush or whatever.

I am not discussing exposing one's genitals in a very public manner, I am discussing specifically the crime of pissing in public, urination in and of itself.

The crime is indecent exposure, and determination of that is up to law enforcement's discretion, generlly speaking, and more often than not, I think cops aren't arresting you for taking a discrete piss.

A very cruel lie, if you ask me.

What absolute shite!

-->

@Shila

Nope, that's just wishful thinking on the part of the believer.

Red ink, green ink, purple ink can't alter the fact that there is absolutely no first-hand record of the utterances of a Jesus character who might have existed 2000 years ago.

Sorry, but all accounts are word of mouth reinterpretations of reinterpretations subsequently recorded to a written narrative sometime after an unverifiable event.

As such, it is more than likely that these accounts rendered to folk tales, were vastly exaggerated and embellished with fantasy.

Such is what religion is and what religion becomes.

Myth.

Let us now talk about the many risks involved  in having an abortion . 

--> @Stephen

Mull of Kintyre hey.

And Linda played the keyboards and made the veggie burgers.

And your mum got all slushy when she heard the bagpipes.

Oh, mist rolling in from the sea.

And then there was the one-legged woman.

-> @Shila

No. Non-self-instantiable, if was a real word, would mean that I can't instantiate myself, i.e., I can't be the cause of my own existence. Of course, nothing can cause its own existence, so that word would describe everything. That's another was of saying that it would be a  useless word, which is why it doesn't exist.

How about a different word to describe myself: pedantic

Best.Korea: Dear Shila,

What I think matters. So if I think he is 0, he is 0.

I consider myself as a God. Only God is able to decide who matters and who doesnt. 

And even if others offer clear proof, I can simply say that such proof is illogical because it disagrees with my world view.

->

@bibliobibulimaniac

Possible Zealot Reasons?

The Jews are taking over our nation,

There is a global conspiracy against Germany,

We must protect our bloodline,

This medical research will save German lives, the subjects are subhuman,

Possible Ambiguous Reasons?

I don't want the government to shoot me for refusing orders,

I need to be paid to feed my family,

My company is getting rich off this forced labor,

Following orders and oaths is important to me,

I love my country,

It's a job,

I love being in power,

This medical research will save lives,

Even if I am not involved, they are going to die anyway,

Nothing that bad is happening (People ignorant of full scope)

Either option bothers me.

-->

@Shila

Non-self-instantiable.

Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville was on TV today in front of an all white Trump rally audience screaming that blacks are all criminals and paying reparations to blacks would be rewarding criminal activity. The white crowd ate it up and screamed their agreement.

--> @Shila

True, but that isn't nearly as fun as using a ridiculously long word to describe my political stance.

Let us now talk about the many risks involved  in having an abortion . 

Since I don't support the pre-2016 Republican establishment, but I oppose Trump's attempt to supplant it, does that make me an antidisestablishmentarian?

On the other hand, Trump and his supporters seem to have succeeded in supplanting the old establishment and in becoming the new establishment. So does that make me a disestablishmentarian?

--> @Deb-8-a-bull @Shila

Deb-8-a-bull wrote: Thats Unless one has actully meet the god. thing. 

Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

New International Version

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, John 1:18

But as is usual where the scriptures are concerned, John 1:18 contradicts other biblical verses.

Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

A very cruel lie, if you ask me.

Best.Korea: Dear Shila,

Most people dont understand that I determine everyones value by my standards. Even if he had 10 trillion, I would consider him 0. His spank buddies are also 0. So even when all together, they are still 0.

If he wants me to consider him more than 0, maybe he should stop going around and spanking children. 

He is probably a drug addict. So I dont care much about him.

--> @Mharman

Not everyone values their offspring.

Best.Korea: Its okay to tell people that abortion is wrong.

However, making a law to ban abortion means taking it too far.

Its against democracy. Its against personal choice. 

The next logical step is to claim that not having sex is murder, since it produces the same outcome as abortion. Literally the same outcome!

It seems pointless that we should go back to times when masturbation was considered murder and when everyone was expected to have straight sex and when having kids was forced on people.

What exactly is the point of returning to the biblical laws? 

In most cases, I am against abortion. However, I would not make my will into law. I dont see the point of such law. It would mostly be used to justify further oppression. 

Lol, yes, that is literally the point. We are talking about what we want and don't want. If you want children, if you want to come second to your child, then you can go do that. No one is stopping you. 

I do not want children, and I do not want to come second to my children, even if we're only talking about the 9 months pregnancy. The only 100% guaranteed method of birth control (sterilization) has been repeatedly denied to me, so I am not allowed to exist in a body that can't get pregnant despite my desires. If I am not allowed to sterilize myself, am not allowed access to abortion if I am raped (American women have a 1 in 6 chance of being the victim of rape),  may even lose access to contraceptives in the future, and would probably die if I got pregnant (taking the kid with me, by the way) what actions should I take that would make you happy?

I'm fascinated that the person who gets to do what they want regarding pregnancy and birth is screaming at the person who's been denied almost everything she wants. Avoiding pregnancy is 100% on me, but if I get denied sterilization it's still on me, if I get raped it's still on me, if my state outlaws contraception it's still on me. For an act that takes two people, there sure is an insane amount of responsibility on one person in your mindset.

--> @Shila

So why were the Republicans on the wrong side of the Civil War fighting  whites for black rights?

Are you not aware that the racists switch parties whenever a political party does the right thing?

1860 - Republicans free the slaves - racists turn to the Democratic Party

1965 - Democrats pass civil rights legislation - racists turn to the Republican Party

2016 - Trump becomes leader of the racists -  racists turn to the MAGA Trumper Party

This is what is stupid about the whole abortion debate. It boils down to people having hatred for those who aren't even born yet, for a crime they never committed, resolving from a mistake they never made.

If this doesn't show you the current evils of society, I don't know what will.

--> @IwantRooseveltagain

• I will ask once again:
  

What is your specific criteria for what quantifies "a great deal of variety"?

• If you do not answer the question this time, I will conclude you are hiding behind an incoherent position. 
  

--> @Shila

Now that you know where we got our inflated egos from.

I mean, if you forget about the whole sin and disobeying God and eating the apple and sin entering the world thing, that is...

--> @Shila

Then you had to come along and reveal them all again.

Thanks for that. And sorry, but the person you are trying

So desperately to reach is Unavailable.

To be perfectly clear.

Republicans do not celebrate diversity. They prefer all Americans to be white, straight, and Christian.

Best.Korea: Dear coal,

Your logic is flawed. You are not me. You are just a little worm. Only I have value in this world

--> @Shila

A woman  will not date a man who lives with his mother but you will date a man who lives with his wife.  But sometimes they don’t make sense

Refrigerator.

thett already vouched for me, fuckface. You gotta be the creepiest piece of shit I've ever had the displeasure of knowing. thett sees it now I bet. Others too. It always baffled me how you got any respect at all.

Good day, creep. 

--> @Double_R

Maybe the morally enigmatic individuals are not so focused on doing what feels good. 

The zealots are so immersed in their own realities, and they completely feel as if they are doing the right thing despite their actions being ethical wrong.

In comparison to this, those with a slightly better moral compass tend to be able to correctly differentiate between wrong and right, and usually act unethically while knowing that what they are doing is wrong. 

I wouldn't say that both groups have given up on considering what is right or wrong. 

This thread is aligned with a previous one called moral ambiguity vs intense fanaticism. 

Since not many people understood what I was asking / were able to answer it, I am going to rephrase the question. 

Here is the situation: 

You have two individuals: an antisemitic zealot who is driven by his ideology and lives by it; a morally ambiguous individual who is more clear-headed. 

The zealot believes that killing Jewish people is the only right option, and is ethically correct. The other individuals understands that killing the Jewish is deemed wrong, and understands that it is not ethically correct. 

Both individuals send 100 Jewish people off to their deaths. Both for different reasons. 

Which situation is ethically WORSE???

--> @Shila

Badger has been around for quite some time.  Thett simply had forgotten badger's long history of being a disgusting pervert.  For example, there was a very young girl on a prior debate site who he sexually harassed to the point that she almost left the site.  She was a bit fragile to begin with, but she had a rough home environment.  Which she talked about.  And which badger knew.  

He identified her as someone who was susceptible to his sort of mischief.  Then he targeted her.  And he tried to "groom" her in the exact same way as he tried to accuse me of.  Society treats it differently when it's a fully adult male directing that sort of attention to a 13 or 14 year old girl, which is exactly what badger did.  She's older now and I assume has grown up quite a bit.  And she was irritating, generally, on the site.  But under no circumstances was how he treated her appropriate.  

Thats Unless one has actully meet the god. thing. 

--> @Shila

As I suggested, post-dated narrative.

Though I have never stated that a relevant character never existed.

I have only ever sated that such narrative is unverifiable.

Though my real contention with any theistic/deistic narrative is the fantasy stuff.

So, assuming that a Jesus character actually existed, then was he a liar and a lunatic?

Who knows.?

Perhaps he was just an ordinary bloke, who put a lot of time and effort into a fantasy creation hypothesis.

And as we know there a plenty of people about today, who still do that sort of thing.