Sidewalker

It doesn't matter what I think.

Well, sure it matters. You probably have some opinion about it.

Pedophiles think it's OK to rape children, and what goes around comes around.

So if a pedophile makes his victim very happy, then do you make a pedophile very happy?

Yes, pedophiles are being violated in prison.

Do you think it is okay to rape pedophiles?

Yes. They are raped there too.

We call that justice.

Maybe you think that a woman who had sex with a boy who wanted it and enjoyed it should be brutally raped and beaten even when that same boy doesnt want for her to even go to prison, but I dont really hold such an extreme opinion. I think that would even be "cruel and unusual punishment", so legal rights of pedophiles are maybe being violated there.

Then they go to prison.

Yes. They are raped there too.

Nope, with a minor, it's rape.

Not by the federal definition.

Really, you guys need to agree on one definition of rape to avoid all this confusion.

Pedophiles usually consider that children can consent.

Sex with consent isnt rape.

Nope, both are statutory rape

No, only one fits the definition of rape. "Statutory rape" is different from rape.

Even if your working theory is that the country is full of morons, it still doesn't absolve the Democrat party's incompetence of winning over said morons.

Skin shaming wasn't the way to win over the morons in the swing states, and now the Democrats lost all that power. Maybe don't skin shame next time if the Democrats want to win elections. (or IQ shaming for that matter)

Alienating voters is good clickbait, but bad for the polls.

I have no clue what MAGA stands for, but it's clear the Democrat party doubled down on skin shaming, and lost a lot of followers.

Maybe stop supporting skin shaming next election. Just a wild suggestion, take it or leave it.

It happened. If a party doesn't call someone evil for being born with white skin, you think that is supremacy. They think it's the only place left where they won't be treated like dogshit.

Trump did not "pass a bill." Presidents do not pass bills.

I know that. You know that, but we are talking to retards here so we have to use small words.

Pass a bill has smaller words than executive order.

Lol, I was never a Democrat, so I can't really speak about why all those white people suddenly left the Democrat party after so many years of calling them evil for being born white.

I am saying that the genius strategy of calling white Americans evil and mandating indoctrination classes explaining exactly why the skin they were born in made them an evil person probably wasn't a winning strategy for consolidating democratic power.

This is great news. Now anyone can dodge the draft by identifying as trans.

Now you dont need bone spur.

Nah, probably has a lot to do with eliminating DEI racism against white people, you know, all the whites that left the Democrat party after the Democrats basically called them evil for being born with white skin. The Democrats even mandated funding based on skin color, and no far left DC judge dared oppose that kind of discretionary spending...

Clearly, that was a winning strategy with the Democrat party.

Federal assistance is relied upon in red states more than blue states genius.

When talking about discretionary spending, I am gonna take a wild guess and say we spend many more billions on DEI programs in blue states than red states.

grants and loans are considered discretionary spending, which means the President has more flexibility to influence or freeze these types of expenditures. Unlike mandatory spending (such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid), which is required by law and not subject to annual congressional appropriations, discretionary spending on garbage pork like DEI is subject to the yearly budget process and can be altered through executive orders or administrative decisions.

In this case, President Trump's freeze on grants and loans targets discretionary programs, which are funded each year through appropriations bills passed by Congress. Because the President has the authority over this type of discretionary spending, he can effectively pause or limit how those funds are allocated until a new budget or spending plan is approved.

This also explains why such a freeze would impact things like discretionary federal aid, nonprofits, DEI and various other discretionary programs, but wouldn't  halt mandatory programs like Social Security, or food stamps.

Lol, the country may have been founded on DEI racism, but removing it will actually be a good thing.

Federal assistance is relied upon in red states more than blue states genius.

When talking about discretionary spending, I am gonna take a wild guess and say we spend many more billions on DEI programs in blue states than red states.

Besides that, I get comments deriding Trump supporters as being trailer trash pieces of shits. 

Over the course of five decades, Donald Trump has been accused of sexual assault, tax evasion, money laundering, non-payment of employees, and the defrauding of tenants, customers, contractors, investors, bankers, and charities. Also filed 6 bankruptcies. Trump paid 88.5 million to E.Jean Carroll for raping and defaming her. Trump was charged with paying hush money to porn stat Stormy Daniels to keep secret their sexual encounter while Melania was pregnant with Barron. Trump's false or misleading claims total 30573 over 4 years .

First, it's a violation of the Constitution because the power to spend is in the hands of Congress, not the Executive branch

Second, does this mean his supporters won't get their food stamps this month?

Let this be just the latest example of how we've been saying you cannot use Trump's first term to determine what his second will look like. He knows this time around that all he had to do was get rid of the guard rails and make loyalty to himself, not the constitution, the number one qualifier. They said we had Trump derangement syndrome. No, they're just morons.

I know, I know, he's the reality TV president, this doesn't matter as long as it is just good TV, I hope you guys are enjoying it...it's Ok if he destroys the country as long as you are entertained, right?

Dude like 20% of the people I work with are useless. You know the number has to be 80% in government. We should only pay money for productive work.

Are you really this upset over DEI losing funding? There's worse things to really get upset about.

Obvious trolling I am sensing.

Actually, the USA will be his biggest bankruptcy.

He took a picture with him at a charity event. This is like one of those things democrats do. You get Clinton actually on the flight logs to the island you get lots of celebrities .

It's like calling Eminem a child molester because he took some photos with puff daddy. It's really stupid. Which is why outside of politics and a similar situation like Eminem in photos with P. DIDDY, LITERALLy has zero people on the planet calling Eminem a child molester. 

The smartest people I know are Chinese.

As somebody with a son. I will tell you, this is rape. If a grown woman touched my son, I would do the same thing I would do to a grown man.

It's fucking sick. That woman is a predator. I have been 16 and have had older women attempt to seduce me. I may be disturbed by that with my son, but I wouldn't necessarily think the law needs to get involved but a 12 year old is a child and this woman is every bit as sick and twisted as any male predator

Shakespeare didnt mention the age of Romeo

16 isn't much older than 14.

The actual age of Romeo is never mentioned in the work. The age of Juliet is described as "she just turned 14".

But judging by Romeo's actions, I realized he is probably much older than 14.

not a lot of families then or now would approve of a couple of teenagers getting married after less than 24 hours.

The biggest issue was that families didnt get along, so they didnt want to ever approve of such relationship. I dont really hold a view that family should meddle in who marries who. Otherwise, might as well go back to arranged marriages.

Besides, at the time the work was written, 14 was considered adult.

Most people have heard of William Shakespeare's work "Romeo and Juliet".

However, most people dont know that Juliet was 14 while Romeo was considered much older.

They end up killing themselves because their families dont approve of their love.

You say why label, well we have labels called heterosexual and homosexual don't we?

They exist because we judge what something is and not.

Now if you're scared to call a cis male gay for doing whatever sexually with a trans female, that cis male wants to know,

it's disingenuous to avoid answering the question.

You know that B.K is playing you, don't you?

Are you gay being a cis male engaging in a sexual relationship  with a trans female?

Why or why not?

Guys, its okay. I accept your concessions.

That is not the definition of faith, no matter how many times you proclaim it.

If you are not going to agree on a definition, then there is no debate. Either give a definition you want to debate on, or this wont go anywhere.

Is the rejection of science a precept of your religion?

It was a comment on quantum physics. Even Einstein said that its not perfect because it doesnt have direct observation. When there is no direct observation, then there is only inductive reasoning or by results. Inductive is not perfect because its basically built on assumption that things we cannot observe are acting in same way as things we can observe. If you go by results of things you cant observe, it is like observing the effect while not seeing the cause. So while we know that cause exists and reacts to input, it is still not an observation of a cause. So without direct observation, it is very silly to assume that we can know exactly how it works. We dont even know everything about things we can directly observe. Brain can be observed given enough time, but brain has so many connections that mere amount makes it impossible to observe it effectively, let alone make complete theory from such an observation. With the things you cant observe directly or which rely on flawed observation instruments, it is even harder. Science isnt some magic which gives instantly correct answers. Most scientists spend decades working on theories, and face many failures. It is years of effort which eventually reveal a working theory out of bunch theories out there. Even theory of evolution today isnt same as it was when it was first produced.

I will look into that. Thanks

You would be labeled a character troll according to the link.

I said I have faith in science

Faith = belief without proof

So you think your belief in science is same as believing in unicorns.

If science is about things you can see, then what is allthat stuff about quantum physics I hear about. 

Mostly fantasy, like unicorns.

There is an entire army of people writing all kinds of fictional theories, many even contradicting each other. Its all done to milk money from donors, to make it seem like they are doing something. While indirect observations are possible, they are based on inductive reasoning which can be flawed. Basically, they take observation from place A and assume that same exists in place B.

I didn’t say “all faith is true”

How do you determine which faith is true and which faith isnt true?

You are just a fountain of deep insights, can I quote you on that too?

You can.

If you don't know anything at all about philosophy, then why did you start a thread about philosophy? 

The thread is about faith being a logical fallacy. If you want to discuss philosophy, sure. Many philosophers were literally insane. Zeno made pointless arguments about how movement is impossible. Plato believed that you cant actually learn anything except what you already know. Aristotle believed in the existence of soul and made some works of fiction about it. To put it simply, philosophers dont seek truth. They seek to be absurd and mock general knowledge. Philosophers arent really something you go for when seeking truth. This is why science is about observable things. Usually, where observation ends, imagination begins.

It is the topic, you don't even understand your own post?

Topic is: Faith is a logical fallacy.

Thus, things which are not faith are probably irrelevant to the topic.

This idea that everything is faith is your idea, not mine.

You said belief in science is faith. So it seems to be very much your idea.

You are really talking about yourself in this thread, you obviously lack a way to determine what is true, that's why you can't bring yourself to make a true statement.

It is a true statement that faith is a logical fallacy, as proved by its lack of ability to determine whats true.

I think it's time to go back to talking to Shila about your dick.

If girls talk about your dick, its usually a good thing unless they talk about how small or ugly it is.

LOL, oh yes, please do teach me all about science Einstein, I could use me some learning about that science stuff.

Well, first you need to learn about observation.

The difference between science and faith is that science is about things you can see, where faith is about things you cant see.

For example, if I tell you that I hear the voice of God in my head, you would need faith to believe me. But you say all faith is true, so I guess you would have to believe me.