Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The separation of Church and State was to allow the church to grow unhindered by the State.
Separation protects both religion from state and state from religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
you implicitly admit you don't mind distorting the Constitution to serve your own purposesWhen did I say that I wanted this?
Do you not understand the word 'implicit'?
When atheists want the government to do their bidding specific to their position on religion, then yeah. Yeah there is.
This goes to my point above - you are suggesting because group B does X, it is acceptable for group A to do the same. That is an implicit argument for revisionism.
the absence of religion in government is to the advantage of everyoneThis very choice of wording is a malicious distortion.
Not at all. There is a conflict of interest when a government is responsible for protecting religious freedom while also favoring a religion.
What the 1st Amendment assures is religious neutrality. "Absence of religion" could be construed to mean state promotion of atheism
State promotion of any religious view, including strong atheism, would not be neutrality. It seems you are amenable to a religiously neutral government which is what I am advocating. Where is the disconnect here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
You shall have no other gods before meUm, okay. This has literally nothing to do with the topic, but okay.
Tell me you haven't read the OP without actually telling me. :-)
The Op is about Christian Nationalism - if core Christian and American values aren't relevant to this subject, nothing is.
I mean, atheists and hardcore secularists are constantly trying to coopt the government to their advantage.
Tu quoque fallacy.
Again, the OP is about Christian Nationalism. If your argument is 'someone else is doing it!', you implicitly admit you don't mind distorting the Constitution to serve your own purposes. Besides, there is no such thing as 'atheist nationalism' and our government is secular - the absence of religion in government is to the advantage of everyone...even those who see neutrality as a threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Christian nationalism is as American as apple pie.
- 1st commandment: You shall have no other gods before me.
- 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The notion that America was founded on Christian principles runs contrary to American principles enumerated in the Constitution. Being an American Christian might be as American as apple pie, but Christian nationalism makes as much sense as America being built on contradictory values such as 1C and 1A.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Simply put, then, there is no such thing as the "Judeo-Christian tradition." It is a modern invention. There always has been a Jewish tradition and a Christian tradition ― or, more accurately, varieties of Jewish and Christian traditions. The term "Judeo-Christian tradition" continues the suppression of Jewishness by hiding the essential differences between Judaism and Christianity, one of which is that each denies the validity of the other. As Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits puts it, "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism."
Agree. Judeo-Christian is code for Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
So Judeo-Christian is about the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom by Jesus a Jew. It is about the humble expectations Jews and Christians have placed on Jesus.
Judaism and Christianity holds conflicting views on Jesus. This proposed definition of Judeo-Christian is incoherent. Additionally, you've provided no position on Christian Nationalism.
Created:
Posted in:
I back my arguments with scriptural evidence. We have the evidence why not use it?
Your claim was that virgin births are rare because of contraceptives, anal sex, and homosexuality. Substantiatiation is not found for this claim in the Bible or anywhere else.
Created:
-->
@Vici
TO ANYONE WHO ISN'T CONCERNED, THIS IS VERY ORWELLIAN. THE BANNING OF SPEECH IS THE RESTRICTION OF THOUGHT.
Getting banned from social media restricts the ability to think, eh? That's a bit hyperbolic.
The Constitution doesn't grant the right for someone to use Facebook's megaphone. It grants the right to not be stifled by the government. Facebook=/=government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I'm not going to help you preach under the pretense of debate. If you become interested in honest debate, let me know. :-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Jews rejected Jesus and demanded Jesus be crucified. The Romans crucified Jesus.
Without a 'sacrifice' there could be no talk of a second coming. The return of Jesus would be contigent upon his death. So, again, you've not presented evidence of anyone working to stop a 'second coming' much less any Christians doing so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The OP is in the context of epistemology, not theology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If there are Christians working to prevent Jesus from coming back, I've never seen nor heard of them.The Jews rejected Jesus and demanded Jesus be crucified. The Romans crucified Jesus. Both the Jews and Romans are still around [...]
Romans may or may not be Christian...Jews are definitely NOT Christian.
You've dropped multiple points which are damagaing to your argument. What you did address is not making any sense, my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Virgin birth (like what's claimed in Christianity) involves pregnancy without a person ever having sex. Soooo, anal sex and gay sex wouldn't prevent parthenogenesis (if it is possible)...it might prevent pregnancy and someone being labeled a virgin though. ;-)
Secondly, birth control pre-exists Christianity (by 1000's of years). So, the fact is that virgin births have been claimed after women started using birth control. What kind of a puny god would be stopped by a pill anyway?
All that being said, every generation has its fundamentalists that anxiously wait for Jesus to return and imagine the second-coming to be within their lifetime. They interpret current events through the lense of the Bible and, if it is within their power, they steer society toward what they think the ends times should look like. If there are Christians working to prevent Jesus from coming back, I've never seen nor heard of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Virgin births are rare today because women take contraceptives to prevent that from happening. And when that fails resort to Abortion. This is why Christian men are against abortions. They believe it stops Jesus from return as promised, obviously through another virgin birth.
What?! First, birth control isn't what makes parthenogenesis rare. It is exceedingly rare with or without contraceptives. Secondly, an all-powerful, all knowing entity could never lose in a game of 'abortion whack-a-mole' unless that was his intent. Anyone who claims to be against abortion for this reason needs to either evaluate and understand their beliefs a little better or stop being dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
yes but the ockams razors finds that 1 is less than 4 so.
O is less than 1. ;-)
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Nope, sorry, just us wack jobs.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No one may possess a detachable rifle magazine that can hold more than 5 rounds. For handguns, 10 rounds.
I agree with most of your suggestions. Allowing untrained civilians to 'Constitutionally carry' is a bad idea. I was curious about your reasoning for different limitations for handgun and rifle though. What's that about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If it can be shown not all religions are true, then the proposition is not unfalsifiable. It is logically impossible for all religions to be true. The proposition is logically falsifiable.
Unfalsifiable: not capable of being proved false
We agree in principle, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are all religions equally true?equally unfalsifiable
I'm going to disagree with you. It is logically impossible for all religions and their competing claims to all be true. It follows from this - not all gods are true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
are all gods equally "true" ?
Are all religions equally true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I reject any claim of truth to proposition B, so I tacitly accept claims of truth to proposition A
That strikes me as odd. Default acceptance leads to outlandish and contradictory beliefs.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
1. No
2. Yes
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
For some unknown reason, you seem to be under the impression opinion and propaganda carry equivalent weight to data and objective analysis of it. Only the latter (which I provided) qualifies as fact.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
You've provided 3 opinion pieces from questionable and strongly biased sources.
I can go on and on and on and on...
You haven't started yet, my friend.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Don’t censor yourself. Speak your mind.
I have to admit - I found this cleverly amusing. ;-)
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
If it is not supported by the evidence, then prove it. I (we) will wait. But we will NOT hold our breath.
What happened to your "Fact-based Truth"?! Just FYI, the absence of evidence against your position doesn't make it true. Someone with "two legal degrees" should understand how the burden of proof works. Also, your position is not supported by evidence which makes it dubious (at best) rather than true:
[...] the claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy largescale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests.On most days, right-leaning U.S. Facebook pages dominate the list of sources producing the most-engagedwith posts containing links. In particular, during the run-up to the 2020 election and its aftermath, the page of conservative commentator Dan Bongino outperformed those of most major news organizations. The pages of Donald Trump and pro-Trump evangelist Franklin Graham consistently showed up in the top 10, as did Fox News. CNN, National Public Radio, and The New York Times sometimes made the list, but Joe Biden rarely did.Using CrowdTangle, one can also generate engagement rankings for “U.S. general media.” Here, three of the top 10 spots were held by rightleaning pages during the period from January 1, 2020, through Election Day in November. Fox News was the runaway leader, with 448 million total interactions. In second place was Breitbart, with 294 million. In seventh place was The Daily Caller, also a right-leaning outlet, with 97 million. The 839 million interactions generated by these three conservative pages was more than the 821 million total produced by the seven mainstream media pages in the top 10—those of CNN, ABC News, BBC News, NBC News, NPR, Now This, and The New York Times.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
People get kicked off platforms for all kinds of reason, most of which are purely unsubstantiated leftist bullshit.Fact or opinion?Obvious fact. The internet and each platform is replete with case after case.
The fact is this notion of a social media bias against Conservatives is not supported by the evidence. Aren't you supposed to be all about "fact-based Truth"?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
People get kicked off platforms for all kinds of reason, most of which are purely unsubstantiated leftist bullshit.
Fact or opinion?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
No, I do not have any reason to lie. You will need to substantiate that claim if you're going to continue insinuating I am a liar.
Again, I gave reasons for why someone in your position might have reason to lie. You need to look at this from outside your own perspective. I don't know you or your character. Appealing to your integrity isn't helpful and doesn't change the possibility of someone in your shoes being dishonest.
So no, it's not a non sequitur fallacy.
The *reasons* behind a ban might support guilt (if there is any) not the ban itself.
For the record, I possess two legal degrees.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there. ;-p You might save yourself the trouble - I am unimpressed with claimed qualifications of an anonymous person on the internet. Your interactions with other people will tell me much more about you than anything else.
I do NOT cherry pick data. I do not draw broad conclusions either. And nowhere have I made any asserted claim or stated position that "dark-skinned people are inferior in some way" either. That's a false assumption on your part. Talk about drawing subjective conclusions.
You should probably go back and read what I said. I asked a question and provided a conditional statement. There's no need to get defensive there, big guy.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Again, I have no reason to lie and the fact that I was banned demonstrates a measure of their guilt.
You DO have reason to lie if you did what they said and you don't want to be condemned ir held accountable for it. Also, your ban does not speak to anyone's else's guilt. That is a non-sequitor.
Posting fact-based truth is NOT a violation of the terms of service,
Yes, but is that what you did? If you are using cherry-picked data to draw a broad conclusion that dark-skinned peoples are inferior in some way, you're not posting 'fact-based truth' and youre likely violating most TOS.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
exactly like a trial, let's focus on the individual who stands accused
Okay. Being banned from multiple distinct sites is sufficient to suspect the individual is the problem and not the sites. The individual is the common denominator. Without specifics, that probably the best we can do.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
have you considered running those same statistics specifically for "economic status" ?
Indeed. "Fact-based truth" should include all relevabt facts and not just those which confirm a preferred conclusion.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
guilty until proven innocent
That cuts both ways. OP and those who banned him are both innocent until proven guilty. It is fair to say we do not know if OP's ban from multiple sites was justified or not.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
banned for differences of opinion
The facts thus far don't support that conclusion. It could be OP was banned for good reason.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I doubt many people reject these facts - it is the conclusions drawn from them that can be problematic. If I had to guess, it is the latter that got you banned from other social media sites..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Both of your definitions use the term you're supposed to be defining (and aren't relevant to the OP's definition).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"infinite unoccupied space"
OP has defined 'nothing' as the complete lack of existence, so I believe that would exclude space.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
That just seems like a bare-assertion. Why can't something come from nothing?
All observation supports things coming from other things. Based on that fact, it is my pragmatic view that something will not come to be from nothing. Is that actually true? I don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
So just so we are clear, you are saying that if something were to pop into being, then this can only be the case if the potential for that something were to exist logically prior (that potential would be itself "something").Is this correct?
I'm saying nothing comes from nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
For sure it seems that way, the question is, is that necessarily so? If there is no existence at all, that would mean no restrictions. What would stop something from popping into existence?
The absence of restriction doesn't mean anything is possible. Something (which is not nothing) is required for potential.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Nothing could be defined as "a complete lack of any existence whatsoever".
Okay. If there are no building blocks, no forces, no energy, etc, then it seems "nothing" will stay that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Define "nothing" and provide an example, please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Your scenario does not account for the reality of sex. It is more than merely a good time - it is intimacy, emotionality, security, comfort, etc. These are things humans need and want. This is part of our nature - Avoiding sex isnt a reasonable expectation for sexual beings.
Secondly, pregnancy isn't a burden everyone can endure. Some might lack stability, resources, physical ability, maturity, committment, etc. Forcing a burden in spite of the inability to carry it is cruel and irresponsible.
This is where loose definitions cause problems. The inevitable response will be something along the lines of 'Well, it is a human being - it is not a burden that can be denied', however when an adult woman, a fertilized egg, and a tumor might all qualify under an overly broad definition of human being, this argument can't be taken seriously. A human being isn't merely determined by human DNA or the potential to be a person.
Finally (bringing us back to the OP), a person has the right to say, 'no - I do not consent to having my body used that way', and that my friend, is the end of the story.
Tl;Dr- Your definitions are too broad and your scenario is too simplistic to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
The right to life doesn’t depend on spatial location.
Self-ownership is about a very specific location and what actions happen in that location. There are no rights another person might have which negate this.
As long as you insist on weaponizing rights (which is inappropriate) we are going to disagree. I've enjoyed the discussion though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
This thread took a turn lol
We're just trying to keep it interesting! ;-p
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
You are the one who used eviction as an analogy to abortion,
Fair enough. Point of clarification: is it your position that everyone should be required to provide their (metaphorical) home and resources to someone who needs it to survive? If so, there are millions of people who need your body to survive. Are you living up to your own standard or does it only apply to pregnant individuals?
I agree that we own ourselves, but that is only if our choices with our body don't significantly put others at risk, harm or kill another innocent person.
Apply those words to the person you envision in every pregnant womb, and you and I will be on the same page. Assuming there were a choice to subject another person to pregnancy, risk, harm, and/or death would necessarily be part of the outcome. This is an unavoidable consequence of pregnancy.
I don't want to go in circles, as I think you would just respond to the above question with "because the unborn child isn't autonomous".
You would be wrong. I would respond with 'there is no right to use the body of another without consent'. Personhood is a distractive tangent to the abortion discussion because self-ownership is a protection not a weapon. If the 'battleground' is within a person, they have the final say. The unborn resides within another person, not the other way around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Relying on a heartbeat seems like an arbitrary condition to count as "autonomous".
I've said nothing about a heartbeat. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
*edit* I see what you mean now. I've referred to more than just a beating heart. My point is that the essence of life that exists within each of us is our most important and valuable property. No one gets to claim it for themselves without permission. And if they are directly reliant on someone else's life force for survival, they are not autonomous.
I see no reason why the unborn doesn't deserve the same right to life as anybody.
I have no issue with a legitimate right to life, but that right doesn't include trampling the rights of others. Again, my right to life doesn't include your body, and it is the same for everyone - including the unborn.
If a man popped into my house right now, and would die for some reason if he left my house,
A man materializing inside your skin would be more analogous...
I think our disagreement on this matter comes down to which is valued more, the right of ownership of property, or the right to not be killed.
I think you're right. My position is that all rights are contigent on self ownership. If we don't own ourselves, then rights are meaningless. How can you posses a right but not the body it is meant protect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
So just to clarify your position, one is not autonomous if their living existence is dependent on another person?
No. I chose my words carefully and provided an extended explanation for a reason.
Also, it is not just about disallowing occupancy as the child must first be killed inside the womb before the child comes out.
If the 'child' cant survive without someone else's organs, it can't survive. Period. If doctors weren't overly cautious and humane, you wouldn't have this pretense of an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Why are they not autonomous persons
Because the unborn are dependent on the beating heart of the body in which they reside. If there is an unborn 'will', it is subject to the autonomy of the body they need for their existence. If I rely on your organs for my survival, I exist solely by your willingness to allow me to use them. I have no claim to your body, while you do have claim to your own organs regardless of my needs or wants.
Personhood is a legal status which is typically granted at birth or in rare cases involving malicious harm of the person they rely on for life.
Also, did you know that abortion changes a woman's body and life as well?
Pregnancy is the cause of change in a woman's body, not abortion. Abortion stops the pregnancy, but it may not stop processes already begun.
you are talking about sticking instruments in a woman who is already pregnant and killing her unborn child.
Most abortions occur early in a pregnancy and medication is all that is required. Abortions which occur later in the pregnancy (and might use instruments) are typically done out of necessity, such as to save the life of a woman who most likely wanted a child.
There's Hormonal changes, breast tissue, lactation and even changes at the cellular level because of abortion.
Without abortion, these changes will occur demonstrating these changes are due to pregnancy and not abortion.
Also, comandeering a body isn't the same during rape and you know it. With rape it is done with intent to harm,
Rape occurs any time there is non-consensual sex. Intent to harm isn't necessary. Comandeering someone else's body for personal gratification or benefit is, in itself, harmful to the victim.
Are you for the death penalty?
Abortion is about disallowing occupancy (not an execution). I am a strong proponent of eviction. If I, as a property manager, evict someone from my property, I haven't executed them. I have removed them from my property and they, being fully autonomous persons, are responsible for their own life regardless of where they live.
Created: