Shila

--> @Shila

you can't spell dementia without  AI

--> @ADreamOfLiberty

"But not the lack of fraud."

In case of a lack of fraud, the greater consent was violated. But not by any individual. And no individual was able to prevent it. So no individual would be at fault. So no individual would carry a responsibility for violating consent.

"Lets make the child 2 years old. The problem with the house is severe radon buildup"

"I cannot explain a radon buildup to a two year old."

"Your "greater consent" conception would assert that consent to stay in the house is not real consent because later the individual would come to believe the radiation which caused cancer was not in their best interests."

Yes.

"Now let's say you have a dog, who like the two year old did not understand radiation build up; but unlike the toddler will never understand it."

The consent is consistent of goals. Dog has goals. Even if dog never understands radiation build up, dogs goals would still be violated. Hence, dogs greater consent would be violated. 

"There would never be a "greater consent" for the dog because the dog will never make the connection between the painful cancer and staying in the house."

Dogs goal is to live a happy life. Dog doesnt consent to the painful cancer. Since that is greater consent, we must save the dog to uphold such consent.

--> @Stephen

He was caught asking where dead people were today. What a fearless leader

Greyparrot: She was 12, I was 30.

--> @Shila

Polytheist-Witche: I'm sure you would like that you should go talk to the two of them about it. Three pedophiles in a pod.

--> @Shila

Atheists like Christians have to deal with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions to make clear their positions.

how do you use ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions to make your position clear ?

--> @coal

And why is that?

Because you made a post pandering to 99% of users on the site that you already know oppose transitioning, and their opposition is rooted in a belief that gender is fixed in biology. But the central argument made by Foucault and post modernists is that things like race and gender are notbiologically determined. They believe those things are social constructs. The people you want to like your post don't believe that. 

--> @Shila

Polytheist-Witch: Again if you want to discuss pedophilia and my children go do it with the pedophile and Stephen. I'm sure you're all excellent company for one another.

--> @Shila

Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter), because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds, because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God.

How Gods mind works is detailed in the Bible. God sacrificed the world to save Noah with a giant flood. God then sacrificed his son Jesus to bring salvation to the Gentiles.

Nope, how God's mind works is not detailed in the Bible, in fact, the Bible is explicit that we can't know the details of how Gods mind works.

Isaiah 55:8-9

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Romans 11:33 

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

--> @Shila

Go discuss it with the pedophile. That's their and Steven's territory.

--> @Lemming

But they do have other rights.

Yeah, they have the right to be kept free from harm and receive protections that most adults generally don’t get. For example, an adult can make choices that children can’t (e.g they can use drugs, get drunk, etc.) but if a child is exposed to or engaged in those things, the state is obligated to intervene in some way.

If you go to work and don’t do your job, you’ll just get fired. But, if you’re a child and you go to school and act out, appear to be neglected, or do harmful things...your parents are going to be asked questions.

With regard to pedophilia, it’s obvious that it is not only sick and abnormal, but is incredibly harmful to children as well. Most children understand that it’s harmful, and so are rarely ever willing participants. They can’t give consent anyway, but if they could they truly wouldn’t want to. 

I would argue that the treatment of pedophiles in prison is more than justified, as being convicted of a crime in relation to pedophilia means they have acted on their impulses and caused harm to a child. Even pedophiles who only look at inappropriate images of children are causing harm because someone had to put that child in a position where they could take (illegal) photos of them, and that child can’t give their consent to being photographed or having their images shared. 

So, they deserve what they get.

Note: for anyone who doesn’t understand why people hate pedophiles, it’s because of the immense harm they cause to children, who are extremely vulnerable and not willing participants who are capable of giving consent. Other disorders are also harmful, and they cause a lot of other people to end up in prison too; however, they are considered somewhat less harmful when they only result in the mistreatment of adults, who are considered to be much less vulnerable than children and equal to other adults. 

It’s that simple.

--> @sadolite

You are the most colossal fucking asshole on the planet, I hope you fucking die.

Polytheist-Witch: That's a winner!!

Where is the 92 year old Sikh from Tonga aka Vici .? 

Vici (debateart.com)

--> @Sidewalker

If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.

please explain

Oh pulease, just get a dictionary,  look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.

i know the definitions

please explain specifically how these concepts are REQUIRED 

--> @Shila

https://youtu.be/cz5I_A5bQTk

--> @Shila

Yep, words have the same meaning whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, they are spelled the same too.

It should also be the same with Taoism which is what he follows

Yes, believe it or not, even if you are a Taoist, words have the same meaning.

--> @Shila

-->@Shila

More people know and have seen VanGogh’s work than care to follow Putins war.

color me skeptical re: that assertion

The Van Gogh Museum has passed the milestone of 2 million Instagram followers! ..

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/597483-more-than-8-in-10-us-voters-following-russia-invasion-of-ukraine-poll/

80% of US voters are following the War in Ukraine, that's .8 x 168 million = 134,400,000 which is more than 67 times 2 millon and that's just in American.  I would assume most of Europe is paying attention and significant percentages of the rest of the world.

I think it is beneficial. The entire society is rid of conflict because everyone is in harmony, does anyone oppose to this idea?

--> @Stephen

Polytheist-Witch: You are a fucking dumbass and incapable of understanding other people's thoughts and words. There's a pedophile posting on the forum now , you could actually go talk to him about how you think about my kids with broomsticks between their legs. You two have more than in common than you and I do

.--> @Shila

If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.

If it applies to Atheists it also applies to Christians.

Yep, words have the same meaning whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, they are spelled the same too.

--> @Shila

 Now he is appealing to member who like him suffer from gender dysphoria.

Then I do feel sorry those seeking his advice or even sympathy and comfort as I do his criminal clients and religious studies students.  But then again, we should expect him to better qualified in the gender dysphoria field than those he alleges to being qualified in. S/he has often spoken of his/her "experimenting in all sorts of sexual deviancy".

--> @Best.Korea

How would taxing the rich more make sense if they consume the fewest public goods and services, not to mention their already being financially obligated in financing social programs? Furthermore, a huge chunk of that debt was amassed by promises to finance social programs. The debt is actually substantially larger (it's much larger than $50 trillion) if you consider social security and the payments that are going to have to be made. Taxing the rich more only works to leave the tax-burden with the middle-class, working-class, and poor. This was true in California and New York. The rich are more mobile than the poor, so tax hikes would primarily affect the latter.

--> @Best.Korea

Children have plenty of rights in the UK, from what I read,

A right is an entitlement to something,

We all have rights, and lack some rights, as we are not entitled to 'everything.

. . .

Pretty common story to hear of pedophiles in prison being beaten or killed though,

Various reasons I'm sure.

. . .

Norway has nice prisons I hear.

--> @Shila

You are the most colossal fucking asshole on the planet, I hope you fucking die.

--> @Shila

White privilege is a fact.

if it cannot be measured scientifically, and is not logically-necessary, it does not qualify as a fact

Polytheist-Witch: He's here for the same reason everyone else is here. To shove their views on the others when it comes to God and religion. Are we all going to pretend like that's not the case cuz it is.

--> @Shila

the automatic behavior of the moth appears to demonstrate a LACK OF CONSCIOUSNESS

-> @Shila

Tradesecret: I went looking for the truth and I did not find it.  Like everyone else on the same journey, I soon discovered there many hurdles and problems - of definition of validity, of recognising it when and if I did happen to luck onto it. But I kept looking - and looking.  It was only when I stopped looking - because I wasn't particularly looking for the truth as whatever I thought the truth might be.  Or what others had told me the truth was and I didn't have a better idea. Finally, I stopped.

It was then that truth found me.   And it didn't try and prove that it was the truth and nor did it try and demonstrate that it was the truth and it did not validate itself and it didn't even task me to believe it was the truth.  Yet  it surprised me as to its simplicity and its complexity.  To its rawness and to its maturity.  To its completeness and its warmth and the immediate insight that it knew me better than I knew myself.  And it didn't have an issue with me.  And it was then that truth as it were "dawned on me".

My journey is now quite different to that one.   I am not looking for truth anymore.  That is a journey that others will walk until they realise that they won't ever find it.  I have a feeling most people on this site are on that journey - whether they admit it or not. They might call it something different.  They might recognise it or not. Yet like many other countless sites all over the internet and countless churches, and synagogues, and temples, and mosques, and little clubs, atheistic as well,  these people will keep searching, and every now and then someone will find something that they recognise as truth - for a while and then they will move on - on the same old journey.  

You are on that journey. that is one reason you visit this site and others probably. You might not call it a journey for truth or perhaps you do.  but you haven't found what you are looking for yet - or else you wouldn't be here. 

All the best for your journey.  you know where I am.

Shila wrote: We have you admission you are not looking for truth anymore. You looked for truth and never found it. And like also admit you haven't found what you are looking for yet - or else you wouldn't be here

S/he is here because of the mistaken belief that this was a religious forum and not a forum to discuss religion. He was of the pompous belief that he could be an authorative leader because of his alleged gleaming qualifications and 40 years of study, and knowing the bible backwards and forwards and that s/he had been taught to memorise the scriptures from a very early age and that s/he could use this religion discussion forum as his personal pulpit.

--> @Shila

Even Christian’s need to know what their metaphysical beliefs are.

Even Christian’s need to know the distinction between knowledge and beliefs.

maybe, but it is not a PREREQUISITE

If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.

--> @Tradesecret

And it was then that truth as it were "dawned on me". 

GNOSTIC

Slytherin. I'll never forgive Albus for screwing Slytherins over by orchestrating Gryffindor's unfairly winning the House Cup in Year One. It was only fitting that Albus was murdered by a Syltherin.

--> @Shila

I am not upset about anything. I have absolutely no emotional investment in any debate/discussion. Facts do not care about anyone's feelings. 

And the facts are as clearly laid out by Brandon Tatum in that video. Blacks cause their own problems. I post on those facts. You deny those facts and make a mockery of not only yourself, but the damage they cause society on the whole. 

--> @Shila

Insects certainly display complex and apparently intelligent behavior. They navigate over long distances, find food, avoid predators, communicate, display courtship, care for their young, and so on. The complexity of their behavioral repertoire is comparable to any mammal.

There are two types of behavior that can be observed in organisms: innate behavior and learned behavior. Innate behavior is genetically encoded. Flight and mating habits are considered innate behaviors. You have probably seen a clear example of innate insect behavior called the dorsal light reaction. Flying insects will sense the direction of light coming from the sun and fly in a way that keeps the sun overhead, or on their dorsal side. This is a means for the insect to maintain a flight plan that is parallel to the ground. You may have witnessed that this innate behavior is not so helpful when a moth encounters an artificial light source and flies in continuous circles around it to keep the light on its dorsal surface. At times, the moth is not able to fly away from that light source and, in essence, becomes trapped. [**]

-> @thett3

This has always been my problem with the white privilege narrative too. I think a lot of it is BS but the parts that are real would be better termed as “black oppression”—like it’s good that bad things aren’t happening to white people even if they shouldn’t be happening to anyone. It’s not a “privilege” to be treated justly. But the language as it stands exists to demoralize whites and drive further division.

The term exists because it spread to the rest of society from those who were on the short end of it. 

It’s not a privilege to be treated justly - until you’re the one who is not being treated justly. Privilege is nothing more than a matter of perspective. When you live in a society where your skin color detrimentally impacts your well being - anyone who does not face that same impediment is privileged.

To point that out and have it contorted into a narrative meant to demoralize and drive division demonstrates the most basic disregard for the view point of others.

-> @Shila

By giving them the definitions, at least they will know what they mean.

Ontological definition: relating to the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

Epistemological definition: relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

none of these have anything at all to do with "being a christian"

in the exact same way

none of these have anything at all to do with "being NOT a christian" (NOT a theist)

Stephen: As you have given me cause many times now to show just who it is that suffers with God Complex Disorder and likes to believe himself to be above all others, I will remind you of the man in your own mirror, Reverend "Tradey".

Lets see. After your "calling" and after being "chosen by god" himself you go on to tell the world about yourself.

Starting with your education  and without being asked or any prompting you freely tell this  forum :

Tradescret wrote; "I have been taught to memorise the bible from very young. I have read the bible numerous times. I try and read the OT once every year and the NT twice a year.  I know it reasonable well and can even read Hebrew and Greek".  #52

Tradescret wrote; "I have studied degrees at theological colleges".  #45

Tradescret wrote; "I have studied degrees at theological colleges and heaven gets mentioned - but rarely ever articulated on very much.  #45

Tradescret wrote;"I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church". #91

Tradescret wrote; "I study the original languages, translate them to English",  #25

Tradescret wrote;"I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation".#20 

Tradescret wrote; "I am a pastor of a church with over 300 people"#67

Tradescret wrote;" my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care. "#20

Tradescret wrote;"I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications". #20

Tradescret wrote; "Are you assuming that my qualifications obtained from a world class reputable university are not real"? #31

Tradescret wrote;"I  charge universities when they request me to lecture to them [ their students]". #20 

Tradescret wrote; "I am a lawyer".  #20

Tradescret wrote; "I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received", with gods authority.     #20

Tradescret wrote; "I devote a significant amount of my resources in trying to prevent abortions from happening. I also devote a significant amount of resources to programs which enable people to adopt children.#64 I also devote a significant amount of my resources towards helping people who are left in homeless situations and are expected to be looked after by the government and its welfare programs".  #64

Tradescret wrote; "by my Hebrew teacher"#45

Tradescret wrote; "I provide resources to my local church as well who have significant means of assisting people in impoverished places around the world and locally".  #64

Tradescret wrote; "Would you care to prove that a post graduate degree from Melbourne University is not a real qualification"#31? 

Tradescret wrote; "I suppose the rocks down on my farm might be much older" #13

There is much to add to you gasconading Reverend "Tradey".  For instance, your "orthodox Tutor connection in Moscow".  Your appearance in the Bangladeshi courts as an international lawyer.

And all of this on top of a family, children and a farm to run. 

 I have said many times now too on this forum that, for a man that claims to be a defence lawyer, you have a special ability to open the door for the prosecution. Your criminal clients that are in prison must rue the day they employed you to defend them.

@ shila  Cut out and keep.

Tradesecret: I went looking for the truth and I did not find it.  Like everyone else on the same journey, I soon discovered there many hurdles and problems - of definition of validity, of recognising it when and if I did happen to luck onto it. But I kept looking - and looking.  It was only when I stopped looking - because I wasn't particularly looking for the truth as whatever I thought the truth might be.  Or what others had told me the truth was and I didn't have a better idea. Finally, I stopped.

It was then that truth found me.   And it didn't try and prove that it was the truth and nor did it try and demonstrate that it was the truth and it did not validate itself and it didn't even task me to believe it was the truth.  Yet  it surprised me as to its simplicity and its complexity.  To its rawness and to its maturity.  To its completeness and its warmth and the immediate insight that it knew me better than I knew myself.  And it didn't have an issue with me.  And it was then that truth as it were "dawned on me".

My journey is now quite different to that one.   I am not looking for truth anymore.  That is a journey that others will walk until they realise that they won't ever find it.  I have a feeling most people on this site are on that journey - whether they admit it or not. They might call it something different.  They might recognise it or not. Yet like many other countless sites all over the internet and countless churches, and synagogues, and temples, and mosques, and little clubs, atheistic as well,  these people will keep searching, and every now and then someone will find something that they recognise as truth - for a while and then they will move on - on the same old journey.  

You are on that journey. that is one reason you visit this site and others probably. You might not call it a journey for truth or perhaps you do.  but you haven't found what you are looking for yet - or else you wouldn't be here. 

All the best for your journey.  you know where I am.

-> @SkepticalOne

I went looking for the truth and I did not find it.  Like everyone else on the same journey, I soon discovered there many hurdles and problems - of definition of validity, of recognising it when and if I did happen to luck onto it. But I kept looking - and looking.  It was only when I stopped looking - because I wasn't particularly looking for the truth as whatever I thought the truth might be.  Or what others had told me the truth was and I didn't have a better idea. Finally, I stopped. 

It was then that truth found me.   And it didn't try and prove that it was the truth and nor did it try and demonstrate that it was the truth and it did not validate itself and it didn't even task me to believe it was the truth.  Yet  it surprised me as to its simplicity and its complexity.  To its rawness and to its maturity.  To its completeness and its warmth and the immediate insight that it knew me better than I knew myself.  And it didn't have an issue with me.  And it was then that truth as it were "dawned on me". 

My journey is now quite different to that one.   I am not looking for truth anymore.  That is a journey that others will walk until they realise that they won't ever find it.  I have a feeling most people on this site are on that journey - whether they admit it or not. They might call it something different.  They might recognise it or not. Yet like many other countless sites all over the internet and countless churches, and synagogues, and temples, and mosques, and little clubs, atheistic as well,  these people will keep searching, and every now and then someone will find something that they recognise as truth - for a while and then they will move on - on the same old journey.   

You are on that journey. that is one reason you visit this site and others probably. You might not call it a journey for truth or perhaps you do.  but you haven't found what you are looking for yet - or else you wouldn't be here.  

All the best for your journey.  you know where I am. 

Added 09.27.22 09:23PM

--> @3RU7AL

ATHEISM is simply "not a theist"

it has absolutely nothing to do with "afterlife" or AXIOLOGY or any other ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions

Apparently, you don't know what epistemological means.

there are many self-identified "atheists" who have no idea what epistemological limits are

I know that, there are plenty of people who don't know what the words "ONTOLOGICAL" and "EPISTEMOLOGICAL" mean, but you don't usually see people like that using them in a sentence.

--> @Shila

Yes, and it's commonly referred to as the "Metric Expansion of Space",  it's space that is expanding, not the objects in space.  It also implies the violation of two of our most basic laws of physics, the 1st law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy), and the Relativistic principle that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Now here is something new that might confuse you, or might help. In the standard physics theory, the galaxies are all getting farther apart; that is the expansion of the Universe. Yet in the way the theory describes it (I mean in General Relativity Theory) none of the galaxies are actually moving. All that is happening is that the amount of space (vacuum) in between them is increasing.

No, you will not learn this in school, or even in college (unless you have an extraordinary professor). It is usually taught in graduate school, when you are earning a Ph.D. degree. At that point the language you will encounter is this: "In the Big Bang Theory, all galaxies have fixed coordinates. (That means they are not moving.) The 'expansion' is described by the 'metric tensor', which describes the distances between those fixed coordinates. In the Big Bang Theory, it is the metric tensor which is changing; that represents the expansion of the Universe, even though the galaxies aren't moving. The recent discovery of accelerated expansion means that the rate of expansion is increasing."

Yeah, I know, that's why in the post you are responding to I said "it's commonly referred to as the "Metric Expansion of Space",  it's space that is expanding, not the objects in space. "

--> @RationalMadman

You write that long a list without sorting me?

--> @Shila

Now we know why Muslims like their crazy women to remain covered by a hijab.

I’m not Muslim, but that’s really sexist. 

Shila is a bad bot.

Yes, and it's commonly referred to as the "Metric Expansion of Space",  it's space that is expanding, not the objects in space.  It also implies the violation of two of our most basic laws of physics, the 1st law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy), and the Relativistic principle that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

--> @Shila

You’re a bonafide idiot. Sorry. But it’s true

--> @3RU7AL

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Now, do you think asking questions in some way answers questions?

what makes you think a dragonfly has "consciousness" ?

What makes you think it doesn't have "consciousness?

According to the Standard Model of Cosmology, the Universe is temporally and spatially finite, and it is expanding. 

The question becomes, what is it expanding into?

--> @Shila

Do try to keep up *sips imperial tea*

-->

@Shila

--> @Tradesecret

and by the way - I never said it was a criminal offence to talk about gender.  I was talking  about it being illegal to talk to someone about whether they are confused about their gender.  you may not appreciate the difference but the legislation does.

Stop playing semantics. This is what you have literally wrote.

Tradesecrete wrote #50 " In Australia, and in Victoria, for you to ask that question unless you are a qualified GP and counsellor, is a criminal offence".

And let us not forget that you also live in New Zealand and speak Greek too TRADESECRET-BIO-FEMALE.jpg (1847×967) (ibb.co)

I see your little break from the forum has done nothing for your personality disorder.

Not something one would expect from a pastor or a lawyer. Should his condition improve he might return as a doctor.

Especially one that claims a congregation of over 300 worshipers, speaks many languages and tutors students in all the theological that's just to name a few of his many, many alleged accolades.

I am still waiting to see the legislation that supports his claim. Thos links offer nothing in the way of evidence. But I am not surprised.

--> @Shila

Do you justify it?

an insect is functionally indistinguishable from a robot

-> @ILikePie5

I am quite sure that you'd end up in Slytherin but as you wish.

I'd end up in Ravenclaw.

I can name you some definite members on this site's house (under my understanding of the sorting hat's prioritised traits and how the houses are actually split, not the way JK Rowling explicitly says they are split) :

Gryffindor

• Barney
  
• Sadolite
  
• Lunatic
  
• Mesmer/Mgtowdemon/Analgesic/zarro/anotheraltforsure
  
• Mall
  
• Coal
  
• Danielle
  
• Best.Korea
  
• Rayhan16
  
• IwantRooseveltagain
  
• GreyParrot
  

Hufflepuff

• Polytheist-Witch
  
• Supadudz
  
• Castin
  
• MisterChris
  
• Dr.Franklin
  
• Speedrace
  
• Bmdrocks21
  
• Lemming
  
• Jeff_Goldblum
  

Ravenclaw

• Whiteflame
  
• Intelligence_06
  
• Oromagi
  
• Ramshutu
  
• Bones
  
• Benjamin
  
• 3RU7AL
  
• RationalMadman
  
• Tejretics
  
• Blamonkey
  

Slytherin

• Wylted
  
• Novice_II
  
• Ehyeh (though he would always say he is meant to be in Ravenclaw, I am certain he'd be sorted here)
  
• David
  
• BrotherDThomas
  
• Stephen
  
• Mikal
  
• Airmax1227
  
• Imabench
  
• Ilikepie5
  
• Type1/Sparrow