Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
And as for killing people, there are plenty who have had the virus, and survived with antibodies that science says is as good, if not better than being vaccinated, but those who used to complain [including SloJo, and Kammie] that the vaccine would not be effective, are now saying it must be mandated. What changed, other than their ill-informed opinions?
What changed? Maybe that covid is quickly becoming a pandemic among the un-vaccinated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Everyone knows the value of a president is determined by butts in seats, amiright!?
In all seriousness, I see nothing here but sour grapes - no mention of anything substantive from the town hall.
Created:
Posted in:
My statement about dark-skinned Africans and light-skinned Europeans had nothing to with the manmade categories of race.
Well, sure it does. You've literally suggested one race is closer to apes and puzzled over why anyone would find that reprehensible:
It seems both of you believe it is reprehensible to make comments regarding the proximity of a particular race to monkeys on the evolutionary timescale.
My point was that even within a single species, the earliest forms of that species are more similar to the latest form of their predecessor species.
Hard agree. However, this is distinctly different than your comment above. The earliest humans were dark-skinned and (being an earlier form) would have been more similar to apes from which we all evolved. It is not dark skin which reflects similarity, but the (lack of) distance in time.
Tl;dr:
Modern dark skinned humans =/= early humans
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't think you realize the category error you made in comparing the objective principles of mathematics
I didn't mention the objective principle of mathematics. ;-)
My point is that even organisms in the same species can be further along in the continuous evolutionary progression than earlier forms of that species.
My objection here has to do with the suggestion that an organism can be 'further along' in evolution. There is no evolutionary direction or destination other than survival. A population well suited to its environment and another population which has undergone selective pressures and modifications are both just as 'far along. 'More/less evolved' is not a meaningful description, at least, not within the context of evolution.
It seems on this basis alone, you would reject the idea of peppered moths being an example of evolution, correct? Because evolution doesn't recognize a difference between light and dark members of the same species?
You misunderstand. Without a doubt, evolution explains the pigmentation differences. What it does not do is recognize societal/cultural conceptions of race as biologically valid classifications.
Hopefully, this gets us on the same page.
Created:
Posted in:
Are you really willing to say that the objective principles of mathematics are as arbitrary as the giraffe species debate?
No, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of "species" cuts deeper than you may have realized. Every word we utter, every concept we think has an 'arbitrary and manmade' component to it. Might I suggest a smaller blade? ;-)
The point I am trying to make is that evolution is a continuous process that does not stop just because modern humans decide to categorize a particular organism. If modern humans have evolved from where we were 500 years ago, then we are further away from our common ape ancestor than humans 500 years ago. But you seem to be saying that species just jump into existence rather than gradually changing because there are no distinctions within species groups.
If you'd like to make a case for dark skinned humans and light skinned humans being different species with the relevant experts, have at it. Otherwise, you're questioning the wrong people and the status quo stands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
But species themselves are an arbitrary and manmade category to differentiate between various points on a continuous progression of evolutionary changes. The different species in the Homo family did not just spontaneously appear.
This is word play. Two, four, plus, and equal are arbitrary and manmade too, but 2+2 still equals 4.
Isn't it true that species are always evolving, even within their individual species? And isn't it also true that earlier forms of a particular species are "closer to" their predecessor species than later forms, at least in terms of their position on the continuous progression of gradual evolutionary changes?
Humans today are further removed in time from common ape ancestor than the earliest humans.
That being said, the point you're trying to make has no basis in evolution. The earliest modern humans were ...modern humans. Any attempted distinctions based on societal/cultural constructs (like skin color) are not evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I can't speak to what they would say about differences between modern humans and humans of 100k years ago.
My point has been, from an evolutionary standpoint, modern human skin color is unimportant. Skin color doesn't differentiate humanity into different species.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Would it be true then that lighter-skinned Homo sapiens are a later form of our species in terms of the evolutionary timeline? We are not making any comment on what implications that might have. We are just trying to map out a small section of the evolutionary tree (or whatever imagery you like).
Light skinned and dark skinned humans would be on the same branch of the tree. Evolution doesn't recognize a difference between the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I would guess you know the answer to that question - what is your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Assuming you don't take any issues with this statement, what is so reprehensible then about saying dark-skinned Africans are closer to apes on the evolutionary timescale than light-skinned Europeans? Isn't that just a statement that describes how humans evolved?
No. We are all the same species the same distance from our ape ancestor (which isn't a modern ape). Some of us have had different selective pressures which favored lighter skin.
To suggest dark skinned folks are 'closer to apes' first misunderstands the relationship between all humans and apes - we are not descended from modern apes. On top of that, it insinuates adaptation to a new environment is superior to being well adapted to a given environment. You might as well compare the relatedness (and superiority) of environments - it really doesn't make any sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
would it be accurate to say that evolutionists claim that monkeys evolved into dark-skinned Africans, and dark-skinned Africans evolved into other forms such as light-skinned Europeans?
Not quite. We didn't evolve from monkeys. It is thought that early man was predominately dark-skinned though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It seems both of you believe it is reprehensible to make comments regarding the proximity of a particular race to monkeys on the evolutionary timescale. If every organism falls somewhere on this timescale, it seems appropriate to inquire as to where on that timescale certain groups of organisms fall
It is reprehensible. It requires not understanding evolution with certainty.
That there is a 'top lifeform' is a (often religious) notion overlayed onto evolution. However, from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no "higher lifeforms" - at least not in the sense you're arguing. There is only better adaptation for a given environment. Light skinned humans are adapted for a different environment that dark skinned humans - both are equal distant from an ape-like ancestor.
If someone is suggesting there could be no dark skin in their ancestral tree (and evolution is wrong), well, their racism and ignorance is showing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Regardless of your opinion about the article - what does it have to do with CRT? How are your defining Critical Race Theory?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
How many of you have come from a religious background? And what was this background?
My father was a Baptist preacher - this was my upbringing. As an adult I transitioned to Episcopalian.
And what convinced you to become an atheist? Was it a journey or an epiphany?
Both, I guess. I knew there was dissonance between a literal reading of the Biblical origin stories and what was known of origins from reality. There were also theological dissonances that I never found satisfying answers for. Eventually, it all snapped into place and I was forced to admit to myself I no longer believed. It was a traumatic realization.
Did it cause problems with your family or partner at the time?
Not at first, I kept it to myself for a few years sorting it all out in my head. I eventually told my wife. Once I assured her my commitment to our marriage was unchanged by one less (divine) witness being at our wedding - there has never been an issue. Telling my father was a little more difficult, but he and I maintained a close relationship until he passed. As a rule, we didn't generally talk about religion. I have lost friends - some from my own errors and some simply because I was an atheist.
And are you still connected somehow with the people from your old religious affiliation?
I was consistently connected until a few years ago. I worked part time at the church I used to attend regularly. Either the church could no longer afford me, word got out I was not a believer (I became more outspoken once my father died), or a combination of the two led them to discontinue my employment. I still occasionally interact with my former priest and his wife - I consider them friends.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Did you ever say who you would like to see as president? You want someone uncompromising...who might that be?
I have no strong opinion. Although I agree with Oromagi on compromise. I think we have too many representatives who refuse to compromise over stupid things.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I almost fucked up and joined myself, but the high advanced score meant I would end up in intelligence
High advance score? It must not be that high cause I got 'intelligence' as well. XD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
No, America is a Republic. [...]America ceased being a Republic along time ago with the advent of the destruction of the rule of law.
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
America is a Republic not a Democracy, if you like Democracies so much maybe you should move to Venezuela.
America is a democracy (just not a direct democracy) and Venezuela is a dictatorship.
So...yah.
Created:
Posted in:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Wrong answers only.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, you don't, even though I made it in my #12. Must I hit you overt the head with it? It's subtle, like key was.
My response was to post #12. It shouldn't require two replies to clarify.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Judging history by todays standards is arrogant.
The anthem is current. It is appropriate to judge it by today's standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The Right has a tendency to white supremacy and sedition....rocks and glass houses comes to mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Were you aware that, during the bombardment of Fort McHenry, Key was on a British troop ship trying to negotiate the release of an American prisoner. He was a lawyer, after all, and detained when bombardment began. I trust he was relatively vague about his writing under the circumstances, which began on board during the bombardment
Yes, I am aware. I don't see what point you're trying to make though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The context is essential here.
Agreed, but it seems you are discounting the Colonial Marines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
That's a shame because you failed to address the argument that racist lyrics are more representative of America then and now then whitewashed lyrics.
I see the SSB as the whitewashed version of representation as explained in the OP and my reply to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'm not a big fan of throwing out art just because that art no longer reflects our values.
The 'art' will not cease to exist - we will simply stop pretending that it represents us* (all Americans) or that it ever has. Plus, the SSB hasn't always been our Anthem- it only attained that status in 1931. I doubt anyone was suggesting the artistic value of the previous Anthem was suddenly null and void.
Artistic value is a moot point compared to symbolic accuracy of ...a symbol. Fortunately we don't have to choose: we can have a symbol with high artistic value. Let's keep things in perspective rather than fondling modern partisan touchstones - changing the anthem in 2021 isn't erasing history any more than changing the anthem in ~1930 was.
I don't find the rest of your post to be necessarily relevant to the OP. It is not a choice between America the Beautiful or the SSB.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
In your view, FSK was threatening indentured servants and slaves of GB? I find that explanation lacking - we would expect FSK to address GB in general rather than just their hirelings and slaves.
Created:
Posted in:
'How can the Star Spangled Banner be racist?', you might wonder. It is about patriotic pride that the American flag stood after battle, right?! Most of us are blissfully unaware the poem from which the Star Spangled Banner (SSB) comes from has four verses - it is the third verse where controversy arises:
And where is that band who so vauntingly sworeThat the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,A home and a country, should leave us no more?Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.No refuge could save the hireling and slaveFrom the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
There can be little argument Francis Scott Key (FSK), the author of the poem which later became the national anthem, was racist. He was a slave owner and anti-abolitionist. He believed Africans in America were "a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community.” He petitioned for free blacks to return to Africa. A few weeks before writing the poem he likely would have seen Colonial Marines (a unit of freed slaves) fighting with the British in the demoralizing loss at Bladensburg. This defeat allowed the occupation of Washington and the burning of the Capitol.
In this context, it can hardly be argued FSK, when referring to 'freeman' or 'the free', would have included Black people of any status. On that alone, the argument for a racist SSB can be made. Beyond this, the third verse specifically mentions 'hirelings and slaves' as unable to hide from fearful fleeing or death. "Hirelings" might be considered a bit ambiguous referring to mercenaries, working men, etc., but "slaves" is without ambiguity along with the threat of retribution to them. For these reasons, I contend our national anthem should be retired for something more representative of all Americans.
I want to hear your thoughts - persuade me otherwise.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
indeed you did
Feel free to point it out. While you're at it, feel free to address my refutation of your position as well.
My prediction is you will make another assertion (or point to one you've previously made) while continuing to ignore the case against your view.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i already proved it
If you say so - I obviously missed it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Logic is fakeOh wow okay. LolIs math real?
If all else fails, make shit up, eh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
My son made the same exact statement to me earlier when I said batman was not real. He shrugged and said"I remain unconvinced."
Chip off the ol' block, eh? Does he have the logical argumentation for the existence of Batman too? (So cute!) Before he gets carried away, it might be a good idea to tell him synthetic truths do not follow from analytic propositions.
It goes to show that even when you show perfect logic such as Godel's modal ontological argument, that sometimes people will just believe what they want to.
Pure logic doesn't generate facts about the real world. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
How would you with your limited knowledge and significantly lower IQ than God, even be able to realize what perfect was by looking at it or reading about it in this case?
Assuming a god exists and humans (with finite knowledge) cannot recognize perfection then we can't know if God is perfect or not. It makes you wonder how we could define "God" as perfect...
You don't know really if God has directed the writing of the Koran, bible and Tanakh. Perhaps start by looking at things you do know he wrote. Look for him in the laws of nature.
I know of things claimed to be written by gods - I know of nothing that actually is.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
...perfect example of assertion. XD
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
no it clearly does not, i have provided evidence showing that Christianity is the true religion of america
Assertion is not evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
By definition God would have to be perfect.
I guess the authors of the Tanakh/Bible/Quran didn't get the memo. ;-)
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You're "nu huh" has been noted. Being the only reasoned arguments in this conversation, my points stand.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the fathers reconginaed the importance of Christianity
Ok, so let track this for a second. First you claimed 'the Christian god was mentioned in the Constitution". When this was shown to be in error, you amended your claim to 'the Christian god was mentioned in the Declaration'. Now that this has been shown wrong, you move the goalposts once again to 'the founders recognized the importance of Christianity'. What will your next 'concession by new claim' be? You're not being an honest interlocutor.
As to your new claim, some of the founders were Christian, some were not. This is not important. What matters is that the final product of their work, the Constitution, did not convey Christianity as of any importance moreso than any other religious view. In fact, it established that the power of the government comes from people, not any god - that isn't a Judeo-Christian principle. It established that every man (person) is equal - again that isn't a Judeo-Christian principle. I could go on and on. Given that you will inevitably abandoned yet another failed claim, its not worth the effort. Suffice to say, the Constitution is not built on Judeo-Christian principles.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No, the Christian god isn't mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. You're reading the Declaration through a Christian lense.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Sure thing, pops! XD
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is mentioned in the Constitution, the fathers understood the influence of ChristianityI'm not sure what you're reading, but it's not the Constitution - there is no mention of God in the Constitution.declration of independence
The Christian god isn't mentioned in the Independence either...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I haven't seen the ol' "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort in quite a while!- How about the ol' "I'm Pro, you're Con" retort, when is the last time you seen that?
As a rule, I try not to debate children. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
@zedvictor4
- You shouldn't speak to the mirror like that.
I haven't seen the ol' "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort in quite a while!
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I never said SCOTUS worked error-free. They have overruled themselves over 200 times in their history. But, when it comes to legality, SCOTUS, in the U.S., is the last word.
SCOTUS has the last word until SCOTUS overrules it - got it.
My position has not changed. I'll wait for legislation or the Supreme Court to catch up to the intent of the godless Constitution that created them. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I believe in God, because without qidam (pre-existence, necessity, first principal, ultimate reality...) there can be nothing. There is no world in which there is no qidam.
You're smuggling God in here. You would need to demonstrate "qidam" is part of every world or, at least, this one.
why should I believe what you do?- To attain truth, peace & salvation.
I should accept your belief is true so I could get [1] truth, [2] peace, and [3] salvation?
[1] circular reasoning
[2] peace can be had without your belief
[3] salvation from what?
- I am much more interested in debate. But discussion is ok too.
Currently, I'm not very interested in a debate for two reasons: lack of time and ignorance of the Quran.
My available time is about to improve (I'm quitting my second job - yay!). I would still need to brush up on the Quran - not sure how quickly I could do that...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- We can give that a shot too. My position regarding what exactly?
- I believe a lot of things. That's a wildly general question. Anything in particular?
Yes. Within the context of the OP its not a general question. How do you define God and why do you believe that; or more precisely - why should I believe what you do?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is mentioned in the Constitution [...]
I'm not sure what you're reading, but it's not the Constitution - there is no mention of God in the Constitution.
Created: