Shila

--> @Shila

If pregnancies can cause physical injury why do women want to get pregnant and why do they want to abort after they get pregnant?

You realize every woman is going to have a different answer to this, right? I can't speak for all of them. 

I personally do not want to get pregnant because my body would not be able to handle it. If I did get pregnant despite my efforts to the contrary, I would want to abort because I have no interest in going through a high-risk pregnancy or potentially dying just to bring a child into this miserable world. 

-> @Shila

Maybe this will clear things up, I come to pluck your berries harsh and crude,

And with forc’d fingers rude

Shatter your leaves before the mellowing year.

Bitter constraint and sad occasion dear

Compels me to disturb your reason  due

My bad maybe this will clear things up. I appeal this reveal worth really feature of leak surge keep. The beat burp this heard critique words impressive stir of a verb to down boy sit. The watch clog disturb these idioms are at admit may sound bloated. The silly wand ruthless tongue in my intent. I am hell bent on sentences demented. But anyway the dog dick nats circle the feast that awaits in the infected ulcers of the dog groin.

--> @zedvictor4

I'm interested that you only see Correctional and Abuse as the two categories of parent-child relationship.

Which category does it fall into when a parent encourages their child's artistic endeavors? it's not correctional, as there are no social expectations to enforce, but if not done correctly the child's creativity will be crushed, perhaps for their entire lifetime.

I agree that there's a motivational difference between abuse and correction, but if you're saying correction can never be abusive, I disagree. If a child is screaming in the supermarket, there's a difference between beating them and helping them recognize the emotions they're struggling with and offering healthy ways of coping/self-regulating. While the ultimate goal may be correction (because no one wants kids screaming in the supermarket), beating teaches a kid nothing other than "I get beat when I scream" whereas proper coping discipline will follow them throughout the entirety of their life. 

This is also a mindset we only see with children. Children scream in anger and frustration and we beat them. When adults scream in anger and frustration, it's a crime to beat them .

It's my belief we often prefer the beating method (even if the beating is minor) over the educational method because we culturally enjoy the idea of punishment and we also think adults deserve to unleash their feelings of embarrassment and frustration on a child. Even if the adult's motivation was correctional in beating the child, the end result is abuse

A person noticed me smerking and asked what am i laughing at. 

I dare not start to explain. 

O no. 

Not again 

I said.    A person noticed me smerking 

Now i am thinking about me wearing a pubic hair wig.  

Look i am going to pass. 

PASS

--> @Lemming

Interracial organ transplant.  

Powwwwwwwwwwww , what a topic.  

I'm going to think about that for the rest of the day now.  

Thats awsome. 

I don't th8nk I've thought about that before.    

I've  thought about (Band-aids )  being racist but not inter organ trans. 

Again thanks.  

UPDATE: I found the Reddit post in question.

Now I'm just starting to think you don't know what words mean. Your statement of "in the majority of instances, it does not" result in harm factually proves that sometimes it does result in harm. Sure, if it makes you feel better to consider it that minority of cases I don't care at this point, but even you agree that in a minority of cases, pregnancy causes harm. It is therefore a true statement to say "Pregnancy can cause harm." I am not saying in the majority of pregnancies the woman is harmed. I am saying sometimes pregnancies cause harm.  To be clear, the definition of harm is "physical injury". Pregnancy can cause physical injury is a fact whether you personally were harmed or not.

10 mins in 

Still  LOL ing when i read 

Are you trying to say you did fined him already.

I'm going to give it another 10 minutes.

--> @zedvictor4

 abortion is the right of the mother to utilise surgical and medical procedures to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

• What is the argument for this?
  

--> @Shila

If a person is smart enough to become an authoritarian, it would be smart of his followers to recognize their smart leader and collectively enjoy success. 

I think Donald Trump and his followers refutes that idea.

I've  difinded him already

--> @Shila

I did actually submit a full profile when I first joined Dart, but it was erased for some reason, and I have never renewed it.

Though as I said, profiles can only be taken at face value anyway, as we have no way of verifying the information.

And as I also said, we actually know nothing about the Jesus character other than second-hand tales, contained within a narrative that is undeniably mythical.

Accepting such unverifiable tales as fact is no different to accepting phoney profiles as fact.

So, the character was a Jewish carpenter's son from the Middle East who spoke the regional language and was interested in the regional religion.

So, prove to me that all these details are actually true and relative to an individual whose name was Jesus.

But once again you admit that Jesus was the son of a carpenter and not the son of a GOD. So, you are also admitting that certain aspects of Jesus's profile, were in fact phoney.

Which would therefore infer that all of Jesus's latterly made-up profile was probably all phoney.

-> @Shila

The Marine Rapper is Black. TWS1405 is a white law enforcement officer.

I am still trying to figure out why it's a hard act to follow. Are you making a joke on law enforcement or about TWS?

--> @Shila

Yes, we know. Why do you keep posting this? I already explained to you, literally sentence by sentence, what this means and how it shows that your and Sidewalker's claims about what I said are full of shit

Best.Korea: Dear Shila,

I do what I want. And I always assume my decision is right. So when I tolerate, I assume I am right in doing that. Since I always agree with myself, this is a really simple process.

--> @Shila

How can you respond to his first point when you admitted you don't know what a 3rd dimension is,

Because I don't need to. Until you can demonstrate that such dimension exists, it has no place in a conversion about what is responsible for fluctuations in the weight of human bodies

I focused on that one because it was the first one you listed. I had no intention on responding to all of them individually because I'm really not interested in getting into an all out "scientific" debate over whether souls exist so I'm just going to respond with a simple generic rebuttal:

--> @Shila

Talks about ones self in the third person, not a human. Chat bot most likely. Now for something completely different "The Larch" “In life you have not made it , If they haven't tried to use your history or past life against you.  Is then they preach to be kind to others trying to cleanse their soul and consciousness. Cretinous one-liners that they imagine are definitive refutations. By dark water and the old birch tree,

amidst a torrent of fallen leaves,

wind rustles through bloodied plastic

-->

@Shila

Now you are admitting they were all part of your exchanges with Tarik.

So why were you denying they were to Sidewalker?

Admitting? No, I'm educating you as to what was actually said and the context it was said in. That's kind of important to understand before you accuse someone of being dishonest.

--> @Public-Choice

Well this comes down to a difference in definitions. I thought by physical you meant exists in the 3rd dimension. If you just mean exists then yeah it has weight I'm sure.

Something either exists or it does not exist. I don't know what a 3rd dimension is, but at least we seem to understand what we're talking about now, so that's good I guess.

You completely ignored the other links in their entirety, opting instead to just focus on one.

I focused on that one because it was the first one you listed. I had no intention on responding to all of them individually because I'm really not interested in getting into an all out "scientific" debate over whether souls exist so I'm just going to respond with a simple generic rebuttal: 

The problem with the soul debate is that we're talking about something that is undefined and not observable or measurable. The only "evidence" we are therefore left with is asserting them as the cause of something else, but that fails logically. Things that do not exist cannot be asserted as the cause of something else, so to assert something as a cause you need to first demonstrate that it exists. You're putting the cart before the horse.

--> @Best.Korea

I really don't see anything stopping Putin from nuking Ukraine. The US and NATO are just paper tigers now. All talk no action no results. As if Biden has the balls to order  a war against Russia.  The US  is so in debt it couldn't fight a war if it wanted to. What, you just gonna print another 10 trillion dollars? Why do I even pay taxes if they do?

--> @Shila

That is a tough act to follow.

Howso?

-->

@Deb-8-a-bull

"Julius Wagner-Jauregg (7 March 1857 – 27 September 1940) was an Austrian physician, who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1927, and is the first psychiatrist to have done so. His Nobel award was "for his discovery of the therapeutic value of malaria inoculation in the treatment of dementia paralytica".[1]"

Julius Wagner-Jauregg - Wikipedia

Best.Korea: Dear Shila,

Thank you for calling me a totalitarian. It warms my heart. 

 I think that only I am right and that everyone else is wrong.

This makes sense to me.

Truth is not relative.

Truth is forever fixed. Authentic Christianity has always held that Scripture is absolute, objective truth. The Bible is God’s truth regardless of whether a person believes, understands, or likes it. It is permanent and universal truth, and therefore is the same for everyone.

 

Absolute Truth is absolutely, universally, and eternally true and should be taken literally.

If "Absolute Truth is absolutely, universally, and eternally true", then it can’t be a literal truth.  The God of the Bible cannot in any way be circumscribed or even exhaustively defined by any single tradition, to circumscribe is to bound and limit, and “the word of God is not bound (2 Timothy 2:9)

 

If the Absolute Truth being imparted by those who wrote the Bible is in fact universally true, then it is necessarily represented everywhere, in all cultural contexts, and therefore it is one and the same Absolute Spirit that is presented in a variety of different forms in all of the great religions of Mankind.  To paraphrase Huston Smith, “People differ even when nurtured by the same culture, and as the Absolute Truth must try to speak to the needs of all, it has no choice but to spread out in almost endless diversity, even within the same tradition."

 

That’s why the Bible explicitly instructs us to change our focus from actively pondering the material level to passively opening to the internal, transcendent knowledge within, in particular it says, “not of the letter,but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Corinthians 3:6). 

 

The Christian belief in God precludes any existence apart from God, and in recognition of our solidarity with the whole of reality, it tells us that the most important commandment of all is to “Love our neighbor as we love ourselves”, the only way to comply with that commandment is to understand that their faith is to them, what our own faith is to us.

Jesus’ native language was Aramaic, which is not just structurally and grammatically different than English, it is also very different in that it is a rich, poetic language that utilizes webs of constellated meanings to represent ideas. Jesus "spoke as no man had spoken before", and he spoke as "One who knows", he used words to inspire and initiate, to involve the listener, and to transmit complex ideas through imagery. The language he used was polyphonic, poetic, and profoundly imaginative. It is a great tragedy if we try to take words and expressions that were originally meant to resonate on many different levels of meaning, intellectual, metaphorical, and universal levels, and translate them into explicit representations of literal material facts. If we do so, we are bound to "miss the mark", so to speak.

2 Corinthians 3:6

 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

 

1 Corinthians 7:7

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

 

1 Corinthians 13:12 

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

1 Corinthians 8:1-2 

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

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.

--> @Shila

Don't you find it weird that RM's mind wished to use his sexual pleasing skills as his example of "adapting in the jungle" when he could have said literally anything else? He didn't even have to bring himself into the discussion and what he's good at, especially not with something so weird.

--> @Shila

My suspicion that you are a bot just increased to 90%, with post #6,

Then down to 20%, as I reconsider past posts of yours, as well as the nature of people to be trolls.

--> @Shila

None come to mind,

Not something I think on 'too often.

--> @RationalMadman

 discussing if Noah was an antivillain or an antihero

I am not sure what you mean. Noah was the protagonist but neither in the story. It wasn't about Noah, it was about God purging the world of extreme evil.

not relative to God and his narcissistic narrative

We can have the Noah debate if you'd like, but I also would like to debate this one. I do not think God is a narcissist, but rather humans, as a species, have inflated egos.

--> @Shila

My suspicion that you are a bot just increased to 90%, with post #6,

Then down to 20%, as I reconsider past posts of yours, as well as the nature of people to be trolls.

--> @Shila

The Marine Rapper:

https://m.youtube.com/c/TheMarineRapper

He's both lol

Best.Korea: Dear Shila,

We have already seen Russians threatening to use nuclear weapons.

Also, they cant afford to lose the war in Ukraine.

Ukraine must surrender or lose by convencional means.

If not, then I predict Putin will nuke Ukraine and justify it with "americans did the same to japan in ww2".

Russia has enough ICBMs and nukes to nuke the entire world.

North Korea will probably side with Russia in case of world war.

So one must wonder what will NATO do if Russia nukes Ukraine. There seems to be no good response to that situation. Attacking Russia is suicide.

--> @Shila

No, I'm waiting to see if bibliobibulimaniac is still around,

Then I might be able to satisfy my curiosity of what they want out of this thread, why they created it,

I am curious of peoples reasons, motivations, at times.

RM: Nothing changed on the part of men, what changed is that unlike before, women are demanding more from the men to even get a fucking seat at the table without them ignoring you to text the next guy who turns up.

If you think I'm ignorant, try the dating game. I've met women who literally admit it to me and say 'why not'. I am not a fucking misogynist, I can sexually please women very well and get along with them in daily life (though I'm rather introverted), it's not about frustration at sex, it's about observing the environment. Those that don't adapt will perish, the jungle's just more social media driven than real-life contact driven now.

--> @Double_R

Says the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.

Yep. All the same traits of the Reverend Tardesecret.

WTF?

That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about

Yep. All the same traits of the Reverend Tardesecret.

--> @bibliobibulimaniac

Somehow the word 'responsible confuses me in this thread,

I'm sure it's mostly me though.

--> @badger

I'd say that no matter which side you're on, you are "throwing in" with truly awful people who exist somewhere.  If someone's politics are tainted by some ethereal association with somebody else you do or don't know who has similar beliefs and attitudes but adds bad stuff to it, then all politics are tainted. 

In which case no politics should be happening at all. But nobody here accepts that conclusion.

Best.Korea: The war can end if Putin uses 10-20 nukes on Ukraine, preferably on civilian targets. 

Since USA was the only country to use nukes on civilians, Russia must use at least 3 nukes on Ukraine to beat USA.

If USA opposes, Putin and Kim can nuke USA and entire NATO alliance.

Yes, billions would die. But thats just statistic. We shouldnt be bothered by that in the slightest.

In fact, if everyone dies, all of our problems will be solved.

That is to say, there's obviously decent people on the right. But also absolute fucking lunatics. Then with the exception of RM, the left is all the same one thing, you know what you're getting, it's not so bad. Ramshutu through to oro, they all just like to suck a cock every now and again. Danielle is a lesbian, basically.

So, well, the good guys. Thett for example. Skep is also gay, questionable. But what happens if your votes make for TheWhiteSaviour69 becoming president of America. Or who knows. ThankWhiteySlaves. TheyWillSuck. Just. He's an obnoxious fucking loser really. I'm drunk lol. I wish I could think of something fucking sick burn for his dumbass acronym. TheWhiteSerpent. Something. 

--> @Shila

My god dude. Learn. To. Read.

"Asserting God as the standard for morality"

This was the former - a clarification of what Tarik and I was actually discussing.

"not ..."

This is the negation, as in what follows the "not" is something Tarik and I were not discussing.

"asserting God as an existent being"

This is the thing Tarik and I were not discussing. It also came second in that sentence, making it "the latter".

So when I said the latter was a factual claim which shoulders a burden of proof, I am very clearly saying that asserting God as an existent being carries with it, a burden of proof.

--> @Shila

So why is your test about locking pro-lifers in a burning building and forcing them to make life saving decisions?

Because they volunteer themselves to make such grave decisions all the time. What's one more?

The entire pro-life position is founded on "I know better than you regarding this difficult decision". 

Pro-lifers want to save all life.

Then go save it. 

Out of all the people groups in the world that have pled for help, not a one of them was an unborn child. Go pay attention to the thousands begging you to and stop obsessing over the one that doesn't need or want you.

--> @Shila

Benatar argues that bringing someone into existence generates both good and bad experiences, pain and pleasure, whereas not doing so generates neither pain nor pleasure. The absence of pain is good, the absence of pleasure is not bad. Therefore, the ethical choice is weighed in favor of non-procreation.

Most South Africans hold a similar belief. It started with Apartheid then spread to every aspect of life.

Show that "most South Africans hold a similar belief".

--> @Sidewalker

This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.

The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof

WTF?

That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.