Total posts: 1,720
-->
@Bones
If Gaetz does have the laptop, where did he get it from? The chain of custody for this laptop is all over the place bringing into question anything found on it.
Besides, I would really like to know about the sex trafficking charges against Gaetz. That seem less difficult to decipher since he has admitted to actions that could be classified as such. No chain of custody issues there...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Blocked. You've established yourself as a disingenuous and dishonest interlocutor. I will devote no more energy toward you while that remains true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Wordplay does not make my point. Atheism is definitionally a belief. Theism can be (and generally is) the absence of belief.- Indeed.
Dishonesty.
Tell me you don't understand "atheism" without actually telling me? I think you nailed it! :-p- These powerful arguments need to be displayed in museums for all to admire.
Well, I mean, it's not dishonesty...so there's that.
I've explained why I think your position is in error and your response has been wordplay, dishonesty, and snark. (Not necessarily in that order). Do you have a rebuttal or have you given up on debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Theism is not a belief - it is the absence of a belief in the inexistence of God.
Wordplay does not make your point. Theism is definitionally a belief. Atheism can be (and generally is) the absence of belief.
Atheism entails an entire paradigm & worldview based not on the belief in God, which is unlike any belief system we've ever seen. A belief system truly devoid of any Morality, Rationality or Spirituality.
Tell me you don't understand "atheism" without actually telling me? I think you nailed it! :-p
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
My religious view is atheism. Given that atheism is not a knowledge claim (at least not for me),- It is, regardless of your wishes. The moment you have a view, you're in the provision of belief.
Atheism is not a belief - it is the absence of a belief in gods in general.
I know everything there is to know about it. 10/10- For consistency sake that should be 0/10.
Fair enough.
Also, Atheism is an ideology in itself, a worldview. How deep is your knowledge of it?
The absence of a belief does not a worldview make.
How convinced am I that my religious position is correct: 9/10- That's quite something, given Atheism is unattainable.
I would like to here your explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
My religious view is atheism. Given that atheism is not a knowledge claim (at least not for me), I know everything there is to know about it. 10/10
How convinced am I that my religious position is correct: 9/10
How convinced am I that my religious position is correct: 9/10
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I have a debate coming on morality - one is enough.
If this thread is any indication of your debate tactics, an opponent is optional for you. You are quite the crafter of strawman and dodger of criticism. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
You know what's absolutely depraved though, it's the dozens of millions of teen & preteen children in your country being in sexual relationships without marriage,
It sounds like you're saying sex with children is acceptable if they are married. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you did not communicate that well.
MARRIAGE. Perfectly legal in your country as well,
Not when one of the parties is 9. Someone who is 9 can not give informed consent to sex and/or marriage. That is why pedophilia is considered predatory - someone old enough to understand the scenario is taking advantage of someone who is not.
If you were born a couple of decades ago, you would've abhorred gays
Perhaps, but if we allow it, our moral compass is honed by a greater understanding of humanity. I will take an incomplete morality over a rigidly flawed 7th century morality which does not allow for the insights new information can provide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Actually if they were going to add a new letter it would probably be for polyamory or polygamy.
I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
unlike his holy book.- Please! Don't stick your depravities & sexual fantasies on us. Ew! You're atheist anyways, you got no moral judgment.
That "depravity and sexual fantasy" is explicitly permitted by the Quran. Muhammad married A'isha when she was 7 and took her to his house as a bride (with her dolls) at 9.
I don't revere pedophiles or cherish books which permit pedophilia. I also dont gaslight when caught out. It is not my moral compass which needs calibrating, friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well pedophilia will never be added to the western LGBTQ+ but has always been socially acceptable for legal marriage in Islamic cultures until they realised that elsewhere it is considered disgusting and wrong.
This. I have to say, it's pretty tone deaf for OP to rail against the 'sexual depravity' of LGBTQ and modern society when neither condone pedophilia ...unlike his holy book.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Illiterate idiots.
You've got to watch out for those illiterate idiots that can read and write and (somehow) string together a coherent response. ;-p
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well, that seems over the top. Especially since OP is literally looking for ways to segregate the forum so as not to have to interact with atheists....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Atheism is a position relevant to religion. It is fitting for atheists to post in a religious forum. Seeking to disqualify atheists from a religious discussion is akin to disallowing religious adherents of a particular sect from the forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Yep, because the problem would be actions not skin color.The problem is that you are essentially ascribing “awful actions” specifically and uniquely to a particular identity group. Black people, in the above case.
Nonsense. It's not about the immutable skin color but the mutable actions. Plus, it just so happens those actions were done by white people - that's not some sort of agenda to make white people look bad - its a factual statement. You are essentially objecting to an accurate accounting of history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The argument that the white crime rate is just as high and whites just get off is patently absurd.
This was not my argument.
But if you’re going to say that we as a race “owe” them something,
I specifically addressed this in my last response. I've not said we as a race owe anyone anything other than honesty about the past and a better path forward.
Exactly what portion of my net worth was “stolen” from black people?
You've missed the point. I am not advocating for monetary reparations.
I see no reason to continue. You have established a pattern of oversimplifying and/or misrepresenting my arguments. Thanks for the conversation though.
Created:
Posted in:
The fact also is that for the last half century they have been committing wildly disproportionate amounts of crime, to the point that in 90% of black-white crimes white people are the victims despite whites outnumbering blacks 5 to 1.
When we consider factors such as POC being many times more likely to be pulled over, POC being many times more likely to be charged with drug offenses (when blacks and white use and sell illegal drugs at similar rates), POC being more likely to be excused from juries, white defendants being more likely to be offered plea bargains, etc., that statistic unravels and corroborates the existence of an unfair system.
In addition, the welfare state that has existed since the 1960s has disproportionately benefited black people and has disproportionately been paid for by white people
Given the obstacles systemic racism provides, it would be no surprise (and not unreasonable) if there was a greater need for help in black communities. However, as it stands now, blacks are the not the prime welfare beneficiaries. For instance, ~37 % of SNAP participants are white as compared to ~26 % black. Whites burden the system moreso than blacks.
I don’t think anyone owes anyone else anything other than the people who have actually committed crimes or benefited from someone else’s labor
If you go back and look at the post you responded to, you'll see listed quite a few ways society has benefitted from the labor, resources, and stolen potential of the black community.
If you’re going to say that I, because of the color of my skin, am indebted to some other group because of the color of THEIR skin…I’m going to push back.
That is not what I am saying. We should recognize how as a society we have taken advantage of and mistreated some of our own, and we should make every attempt to correct and go in a new direction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Yep, because the problem would be actions not skin color.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Ah, yes it is. See: “guilt by association”… or guilt by group identity, in other words
It's not guilt by association - it is literally white people who, in this country, have been guilty of taking advantage of POC in a multitude of ways. It is also not all in the past. The legacy of black codes, Jim Crow laws, redlining and the way that we fund schools (property taxes), voter suppression (historically and now), as well as disparate treatment in policing and the judicial system (and many others).
If you feel guilty being told white people have been responsible for a multitude of evils from which they still benefit and from which POC still struggle, all I can say is the truth hurts. We need to own up to transgressions (past and present) as well as our stolen inheritance, and start being part of the solution for a change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I am not entitled to any of the benefits of my ancestors, nor am I forced to inherit their problems.
It is likely you are the recipient of the benefits due to your ancestors. It is also likely some of those benefits came from systemic repression of other groups.
Out of curiosity, do you think there is anything wrong with an inheritance created from unethical/immoral actions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Well I wasn't responsible for any of history's misfortune.
Were you called out by name? That's weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I see it as unproductive because it appears to undermine its own point— that it’s wrong to discriminate against a group on basis of identity and immutable characteristics, all while casting white people in a negative light.
Casting (white) people in a negative light for awful actions isn't discriminating a group on the basis of identity or immutable characteristics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I vote Airmax. No offense to the other candidates -Airmax is a known quantity.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I have. I was team captain of a pool team in the APA that I led to go deep in a national tournament in Vegas.
APA/national tournament as well. What part of the country do you reside? (Wondering if there is a chance we've met irl)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The GOV of California just proposed spending 300 million to support radical racist cops in California. The same cops that deny a person's right to resist arrest unless they are a black man.
What?
"The announcement came after hours after the Los Angeles Times reported more than a dozen current and former officers with the Torrance Police Department exchanged hateful messages about Black, Jewish and LGBTQ people. In other messages, officers spoke about using violence against suspects and lying about a police shooting, the newspaper found.
The messages led to the dismissal of at least 85 criminal cases at the local and county level, according to the Times. The officers who sent racist text messages were involved in at least seven use-of-force incidents since 2013, three of which resulted in the death of Black and Latino men according to records obtained by the outlet."
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
...Especially as related to standards of evidence, burden of proof, Biblical slavery, and the moral relativism of slavery being justified by "it was a different time and culture".I am not sure if you are for or against what the ancients were doing.I have never read of any holy man badmouthing slavery in the distant past.What would be your best advice to a slave in those days or to those who held slaves?
I am confused at your confusion. My position is spelled out fairly well in the post you sampled.
Created:
Posted in:
The ones that created generations of fatherless families. Go read the Moynihan report.
This does not answer the question.
Don't pretend CRT is anything other than a scapegoat for Democrat failures to ensure their dynasty lives on longer than necessary.
I feel as though we are speaking a different language. CRT the conservative boogeyman, has very little relation to what CRT actually is.
BTW, I'm willing to drop the block if you are. This indirect conversation is silly.
Created:
Posted in:
This CRT craze will be irrelevant anyway once Democrats lose sufficient political power to permit the opportunity to reverse the social policies they implemented in 1965 that verifiably insured generations of black families would remain largely fatherless and far from the American dream.
I wonder which 1965 policies Parrot desires to be overturned? Overturning the Voting rights act would be the most regressive, but reversing medicaid/Medicare would be a close second...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Soo if public schools mandate that CRT must be taught in order to graduate, can the student take what ever test they give, pass then turn around to the teacher and say I took the class and passed your test. And then say "I think it is the biggest load of race baiting garbage ever conceived of and wont listen to a word of it from here on out."
Yes. A student can cling to ignorance.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
But JoeBiden is not being looked at for those concerns, and the party who is looked at for impeachment on those matters cannot be impeached since that party has already left office; the one punishment impeachment and conviction on that impeachment can impose. Your 'if' is meaningless. Try reading the Constitution once in a while and comprehending its text.
It seems you've mistaken my response for someone suggesting Trump should be impeached (for a third time). Certainly tilting at windmills has never been done with such fine technique, sir.
Created:
If using the power of an elected office to potentially sway an election and inciting an insurrection isn't grounds for impeachment, Joe Biden has nothing to worry about.
Of course, those who protected Trump aren't consistent...so there's that.
Created:
The chances of another insurrection in 2022 are much greater if the House doesn't flip.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Hmmm, on one side we have an individual who incited insurrection and on the other we have ...checks notes...'child sniffing'?
It is a testament to the sad state of the American electorate that this needs to be explained. Insurrection is objectively worse than whatever *not-insurrection* Joe Biden is accused of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Condolences, my friend.
If your position were that individuals with no soul could not go to heaven or hell, I would ask if angels and demons have a soul. I think the consensus would be 'no'. This leads me to believe a soul wouldn't be required to go to heaven or hell.
As for 'believing in Jesus' as a prerequisite for heaven, I suppose it depends... I mean did Moses or Noah except Jesus? I don't see how that would be possible given the Biblical time frames. Are they in heaven? I think most Christians would accept they are. That being the case, there is necessarily some exceptions to that rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Thats not a dumb question nor is it exclusive to Brits. Regardless, it is a tragic mishandling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Wow. I knew people bet on everything, but I'm caught off guard every time I'm reminded of that!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?Why is a greater authority required in order to tell us to emote?
My thought exactly. I don't follow how human emotion points to an authority greater than humanity.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If straight people have sex, they produce a bunch of straight babies.
That's not true.
Gay people don't reproduce, [...]
That's not true.
With accurate data, your conclusions can be more accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Post your early 2022 midterm predictions here. My prediction: Republicans take back both houses of congress, winning around 230 house seats and 52 senate seats
If say that's a pretty safe prediction. The party not in the white house usually does well in the midterms.
That being said, I'll go out on a limb a say Democrats will hold both houses because it doesn't seem GOP has much, if any, advantage.
Of course, if I had my druthers, Democrats would add seats in Senate...preferably 10, but that is without a doubt a pipe dream.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
There’s nothing right about killing an innocent child period.God doesn't think so.
Agreed. Besides that, killing the innocent is literally what Christianity is built on...Jesus Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
You're assuming self defense never involves 2 innocent people.That’s because it doesn’t.
In your world, perhaps, but in the real world people can feel their life is in danger when it is not.
You are also assuming your own conclusion when you attempt to place the unborn in a category of their own.What category is that?
A category where other people's rights are merely suggestions.
and being a person doesn't give someone the right to use the body of another without consent.This is circular logic and has been already addressed.
Where is the circularity? Rights are shields, not clubs, my man. Bodily autonomy is a right, meaning I alone control my body and no one (not even if they are *in* my body) gets to say otherwise.
Drug dealing isn't a right. Abortion is. No legitimate comparison can be made between the two.It’s more fitting then any of the comparisons you’ve made so far and neither one of those scenarios are rights, there’s nothing right about killing an innocent child it’s wrong period.
Abortion is a Constitutional right. The point stands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
By that justification, self defense in which someone dies is wrong. It seems you're not considering the broader implications of your position.Again just like legal rights (among many other things in life) have conditions so does killing and should be dealt with accordingly not just painted with a broad brush, so what’s the difference between the former and the latter? Well one includes an innocent unborn human child and the other includes a guilty assailant. I know I didn’t mention the term innocent in my previous argument but that’s because I thought the implication was obvious, apparently not.
You're assuming self defense never involves 2 innocent people. You are also assuming your own conclusion when you attempt to place the unborn in a category of their own. At best, the unborn is a person just like every born individual - and being a person doesn't give someone the right to use the body of another without consent. You're trying to give the unborn special rights.
how do you think these college students qualify for these government grants? Through certain information being made PUBLIC and there’s little to no privacy as far as payment is concerned because they’re not the ones paying for all of it.
That's not an accurate description of the process. Information isn't 'made public' because applicants submit info. ...and even if it were, they would have chosen to do so rather than being forced as you are suggesting.
Side note whether you like it or not the government does have a say in what business are allowed and what aren’t for example I can’t just start my own drug dealing business without reasonably expecting there not to be any consequences for doing so if caught. So if the government wants to shut down every abortion clinic that’s their prerogative and legal right period.
Drug dealing isn't a right. Abortion is. No legitimate comparison can be made between the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Under no circumstances can someone else's bodily autonomy overule our own within our own body.But it should if taking that someone else’s bodily autonomy is equivalent to killing them.
By that justification, self defense in which someone dies is wrong. It seems you're not considering the broader implications of your position.
More dishonesty. In context, it is clear I was talking about the Hyde Amendment:And so am I the exceptions of the Hyde amendment are also the exceptions to the privacy argument.
That's your assumption - which I don't agree with. Just because I described the exceptions allowed for by the Hyde amendment doesn't mean I think those are exceptions to a right to privacy.
Your view is a nonsequitor as far as I am concerned. I mean, if someone received a government grant for, say, tuition, does that mean they forfeit their right to privacy? No, of course not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you park your car on my property, your property rights for your car do not outweigh my property rights of the land you've parked on - I have the ultimate authority.Except the context of this discussion is the body of the unborn and ending its life, cars and land are irrelevant in this sense and have nothing to do with that.
Do you think I'm talking about something other than pregnancy? The analogy is relevant although I am willing to except it is imperfect for comparison to pregnancy.
The point is each and every one of us has property rights to our bodies. That means we get to decide who interacts with our body and how. Under no circumstances can someone else's bodily autonomy overule our own within our own body.
Rights aren't something that can be taken away like privileges.No one said anything about taking legal rights away,
You're being dishonest. You were arguing if taxpayer dollars were involved there is no right to privacy. Thats not just a limitation, thats forfeiture. When questioned, you agreed rights can be invalidated:
Secondly, taxpayer dollars ďo not invalidate rights. Listen to what you're saying, bud.They do if the right being discussed is privacy because paying taxes isn’t a private matter it’s a public one
==========================================
I can even use your example against you when you saidEXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger.
More dishonesty. In context, it is clear I was talking about the Hyde Amendment:
The Hyde amendment prevents the use of taxpayer funds on abortion EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger.
Listen, I have no problem accepting rights are necessarily limited. However, I don't see how the 'limitation' you're implying (forced birth) can be anything except a revocation of rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Irrelevant. Anything or anyone using her body for any purpose are subject to her sovereignty.Sovereignty is a separate argument from the unborn’s body and ending its life which is currently being discussed so if anything is irrelevant it’s the sovereignty variable your now trying to factor into the equation.
No, bodily sovereignty is extremely relevant. If you park your car on my property, your property rights for your car do not outweigh my property rights of the land you've parked on - I have the ultimate authority. It is the same with bodily autonomy.
Rights aren't something that can be taken away like privileges. Rights are irrevocable (unalienable) - see Declaration of Independence.Well in that case countries where abortion is illegal rights aren’t being violated?
Roe v Wade is exclusive to America, and that is the context of this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
It seems Pro-life advocates generally push for personhood of the unborn in name only. Child support, government assistance, tax status, life insurance, etc., etc., are not commonly considered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Except the unborn’s body isn’t its mothers body.
Irrelevant. Anything or anyone using her body for any purpose are subject to her sovereignty.
The Hyde amendment prevents the use of taxpayer funds on abortion EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger.
Are you disagreeing with my characterization of the Hyde amendment? If so, be explicit. Your link appears to substantiate my description.
Secondly, taxpayer dollars ďo not invalidate rights. Listen to what you're saying, bud.They do if [...]
No. You are acting as though rights are merely privileges. Rights aren't something that can be taken away like privileges. Rights are irrevocable (unalienable) - see Declaration of Independence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well if consent is your concern then why are you okay with taking an unborn life when they didn’t consent to that?
...Because consent is not needed to act upon/make decisions for ones own body.
Not when our public tax payer dollars are funding it.
That statement is misleading and wrong.
Tax dollars in general are not used for abortions. The Hyde amendment prevents the use of taxpayer funds on abortion EXCEPT for cases of rape, incest, or when someone's life is in danger. That is as it should be.
Secondly, taxpayer dollars ďo not invalidate rights. Listen to what you're saying, bud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Consent was given when you had sex.
Nonsense. Consent has limitations. For one, it is limited to people in existence. How odd that I can consent to sex and that somehow translates to consent with some third party not in existence at the time. This reasoning is quite absurd.
My medical decision to not donate my heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs involves the deaths of many human beings every day.But the people dying are not dying because of you. People dying from lung cancer were not placed in that position because of me.The fetus is dying because of your own inability to manage your sexual life.
If disallowing the use of one's body 'causes others to die', then my point stands. Either we can make medical decisions in private regardless of what others might need/want from us, or we are obligated to the needs/wants others might have regarding our body.
Either you're killing people by being stingy with your organs, or... women have a right to make private medical decisions. It can't be both or neither - One or the other is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Rapists intentionally violate their victims and thus get their rights removed. A fetus does not intentionally violate it's victim.
Intentional or not, there is still no right to use the body of another without consent.
Abortion is different from any other medical procedure as it involves the death of a human being. Though most medical procedures are private, the one's which involve the death of a separate human should at least be the business of that who is about to be killed.
My medical decision to not donate my heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs involves the deaths of many human beings every day.
Created: