Total posts: 1,320
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So you are against the death penalty?How about harming people that break the law?
Yeah, I am inclined against capital punishment until its effectively removed. I am not strictly against the death penalty though, sort of like I am not strictly against incarceration in state custody, but I recognize the death penalty as unjustifiable if something like incarceration would suffice to protect society. Retribution, or otherwise trying to justify the taking of one's life for sake of punishment is morally irreconcilable as far as I am concerned.
and it is a problem for me
I'll keep that in mind as best I can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
My family has had a dog put down too. It was practically crippled and had been living for years with cancer or something. Have you ever heard of the story "old yeller"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Its the way I write things down, usually rather quickly as a brief distraction from the day or something like that. You can just reply a little slower and you won't have issues in general, not just from me.Why can't you leave a comment when you have done adding the message? Why do you have to upload the comment then update it afterwards? You have done this consistently for it not to be a problem and it is a problem for me when I had to add another thing I had to respond to. It is not even fixing errors in your writing. It is that you missed out information that was given to me prior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Nah, that's friendship. Its not the same.Pets is an example of a social contract with animals. I feed you. You can defend the house or play with me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why not?
For one its not our place. I am generally inclined towards Pro-Life.
What is the difference between humans and animals
Animals have no established social contract with humans for one. I think everyone should kill an animal for food once in their life, and feel a full respect for its will to live, among other things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you for human violence?
Not really, no. I think we should try to get along with one another, and view eating humans distastefully.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
At the food shelf I volunteer at people tend to be a bit more plump then average.So we should regulate bad diets as in pay for people to get better and you think that other food is going to be bought by people who need it? I would like to see this thing that people who have the money but don't buy because of "bit more plump" people.
Regulating diet sounds totalitarian. I was saying that it's a cultural thing in "developed" countries, not a problem of abundance.
Any chance of getting a response or do you not like responding to flaws to your side?
What are you referring to, and what side am I on in your view?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
This is called a problem because even when there is an abundance problem with developed countries there are still people in developed countries that do not get fed.
At the food shelf I volunteer at people tend to be a bit more plump then average. That's because its a cultural thing in "developed" countries, not a problem of abundance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
See Post #26
I have mentioned that I take no issue with killing animals.So you are for animal violence?
I don't internalize it, but yeah. I have no problem with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm not talking about animal torture thus far. I have mentioned that I take no issue with killing animals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
So are omnivores.
If you get your meat in a natural way, like hunting, or maybe locally raising animals, than you don't have to depend so much on the displacement of native habitat, which is an issue of serious consideration in our time with human populations reaching unprecedented levels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I don't believe it either. Vegans are merciless towards to the plant kingdom, and fungi are the scum between their toes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
That seems reasonable to me. As I recall though, you introduced the subject of solar power this time, when others are talking about meat, cows, mammals, and other animals. I would appreciate keeping to the topic of veganism, if you can tie things in with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If you want to fix the environment, get solar panels. Until you get those, it's kindof hypocritical. Besides, I thought you wanted to save animal lives. Eating meat is not archaic
A broad problem in your contention, namely that someone should invest in something in common abstract principle, is that people might advocate for something that isn't personally practical under the current circumstances, or only specifically address something which is personally sensible in their own view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Have you read the sentence right after Robert Mueller's quote?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
You have probably figured out by now that the quote of Robert Mueller is not the basis, right? That doesn't seem remotely reasonable. You know that the quote was not removed as well assuming you have read the summary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Well if President Trump referencing the summary sent by the Attorney General to Congress is not relevant as it previously was to your own words, then I don't know what is. If the single quote by Robert Mueller is not relevant, as you previously indicated, then we are back to square one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Did you have a point to begin with?Why yes, yes I did
At that point, was President Trump referencing the summary, or a single quote of the Mueller report?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Did you have a point to begin with?
And on that note, do you recall a news source that took a statement by Robert Mueller, William Barr, or Donald Trump and twisted words or removed context?
Created:
Posted in:
well we certainly can't know what Trump has or hasn't read.
Nonsense, we've already established otherwise that Donald Trump was clearly referencing the summary put forth to congress by the Attorney General.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Trump's tweet is clearly a reference to the Barr summary, or do you disagree?Yeah, that's what I figure.Is this a agreement or a disagreement?
Its in agreement. What country are you from?
Second Paragraph, Page 3
1. Several actions Trump took as described in Mueller's report are obstruction2. Current DOJ policy states that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which is probably why Mueller did not bring forth charges directly3. If Trump had not been president and these actions had occurred, he would've probably been indicted"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Council's investigation is not sufficient establish that the President Committed an obstruction -of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."Did you have a point here?
I'll make one for you. President Trump may have read past the quote you supplied from the Mueller report and gotten to this part, just one paragraph down. It appears to state the determination was made regardless of presidential protections from indictment, and criminal prosecution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I missed something. Where was that claimed?Trump's tweet is clearly a reference to the Barr summary, or do you disagree?
Yeah, that's what I figure.
Okay, so that begs another question. What charges of the Russia investigation are you implying have yet to be addressed? Or do you mean to say that there is simply not sufficient evidence of him committing a crime, and Trump was never proven innocent?So there are several take away points from legal experts1. Several actions Trump took as described in Mueller's report are obstruction2. Current DOJ policy states that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which is probably why Mueller did not bring forth charges directly3. If Trump had not been president and these actions had occurred, he would've probably been indicted
I'm still curious if I'm the only person who has read into the summary. Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly
Second Paragraph, Page 3
"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Council's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President Committed an obstruction -of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Its a personal twitter account. It's Donald Trump's personal twitter account. It is a politician named Donald Trump's personal twitter account. The meme's are way more entertaining than the news.And it's great you feel that way. However from my perspective, he is the president and it is implied that what he says is rooted in data that isn't available to the general public. For example, if he were to say that there were mass incidents of election fraud, one might reasonably assume that this statement is drawn of private data from American intelligence agencies and is to be taken seriously. Accordingly, other people, especially those coming from low-information perspectives may take these views seriously.Why did you quote Robert Mueller's non-conclusion rather than William Barr and Rod Rosenstein's conclusion then?Two reasons1. Because Barr and Rosenstein's conclusions, while based upon the report are not part of the report itself. If your claim is that the report has exonerated you, clearly the report is relevant and not Barr's independent conclusion.
I missed something. Where was that claimed?
2. Because Barr's conclusion doesn't really bear much relevance in the context of exoneration. No further charges is not equivalent to complete and total exoneration which I think is an important distinction.
Okay, so that begs another question. What charges of the Russia investigation are you implying have yet to be addressed? Or do you mean to say that there is simply not sufficient evidence of him committing a crime, and Trump was never proven innocent?
Why are you quoting Donald Trump's twitter account rather than the summary Attorney General William Barr sent to congress? Did you read the summary?You could make a case that Barr's summary was a misrepresentation of the report certainly. But it doesn't really have the reach of the sitting president. My assumption is that most people wait for the summaries to be broadcasted on news networkers, or in my case, Trump's twitter account which is a better fit topically
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Right, so I didn't say that Trump's twitter account was news media, but my position is that the effects of his public statements are comparable to news sources in terms of the dissemination of certain topics and their corresponding impacts on the American population.\
Its a personal twitter account. It's Donald Trump's personal twitter account. It is a politician named Donald Trump's personal twitter account. The meme's are way more entertaining than the news, no comparison.
What I said has nothing to do with the ultimate conclusions made by Barr, only that what Trump said in that tweet is a distortion of what Barr's report has stated, which I thought was an example of "twisting words".
Why did you quote Robert Mueller's non-conclusion rather than William Barr and Rod Rosenstein's conclusion then? You can't seriously think Donald Trump is taking Robert Mueller's words out of context.
Finally, my understanding of the whole situation is that Mueller's intention was to leave any further proceedings to congress.
Why are you quoting Donald Trump's twitter account rather than the summary Attorney General William Barr sent to congress? Did you read the summary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Well just Barr's summary suffices as well, despite it having its own problemsSpecifically last sentence of 1st paragraph page 3,"The special counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.""-William Barr, Robert MuellerNext Sentence at the beginning of paragraph 2 page 3,"The Special Council's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. "-William Barr
President Trump's twitter account is not what I consider news media and according to the sufficient summary, the matter is not decided by Mr. Mueller, but rather left up to Attorney General William Barr, who came to a conclusion with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. I'm left a bit puzzled by what, if anything, you are referring to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
For deer hunting, the lead isn't a big issue with care, but being able to select proper terminal ballistics is pretty important in that regard. Lead is a malleable material and it is practical to select a bullet/cartridge combination that is capable of delivering enough energy and penetration within a limited range without flying apart. Modern options are available with expensive copper bullets particularly conducive to high velocity rounds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Deer are usually impaled in the vital area where the heart and lungs reside. A head shot can be risky when hunting deer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Two ways hunting is different from eating meat from a farm is the personal feedback in nature and how the animal is respected, plus that it doesn't necessitate the alteration of land and the displacement of habitat. One caveat I should list is that livestock doesn't have to be raised on a factory farm, so ecological compromises can be minimized as climate allows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
When discussing the efficacy of legislation one must consider the worst case scenario.
Civil Rights legislation would apply for outright refusing custom services in that case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You should not say they don't have the option to buy a custom cake, or that they are barred from purchasing complex cakes since that has never been proven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
s sexual orientation evena protected class to begin with? In the context of a business being allowed to refuse service?Not where I live. Not to my knowledge.
Well, if it isn't I think it should be as long as we have the civil rights act. It is not protected under the Civil Rights Act at the federal level as of this time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
As long as "white supremacist" organizations are LEGAL entities, they should be given access to businesses that are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
Private business, is not a public utility. Intrusion must be justified.
There is no reason that in opening my business to the public that I have to cater every single wish.Nobody said "every single wish".If you offer one set of services to one customer, you must offer those same or equivalent services to all paying customers.
I will not cater a white supremacist event, for anyone. You are playing dumb. If you want to worship the state and believe money talks, that's your prerogative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody's "entitled" here. We're talking about PAID CASH MONEY SERVICES from any business that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
You are just saying this arbitrarily so that anyone conducting open business has all its employees forced to work for entitled jackasses. There is no reason that in opening my business to the public that I have to cater every single wish. If you don't like someone else's business, you can just stay out. Nobody is forcing you to do business with anyone, yet. You understand that we are talking about people right? If they welcome you to their establishment, that doesn't equate to making a mutual agreement for a business transaction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Offering limited service based on a "protected class" is still discrimination.
The guy wasn't picking his customers though, hence, open to the public. You incorrectly assume he's picking out gay people for custom services, but there is in fact no evidence that he does not offer custom services on the basis of any so-called "protected-class"
So basically two boy names instead of a boy name and a girl name.Trying to split a hair between "gay person" and "gay wedding" is a distinction without a difference.
Trying to split a hair between a white person, and white supremacist meeting is a distinction without difference, NOT. You can't seriously think just because someone doesn't support your lifestyle, that they are basing it upon whatever identity you ascribe yourself.
And besides, you can practically marry whatever you want, and do any number of things regardless of whether you define yourself by sexuality. Someone who is considered bisexual could attend a same sex wedding, a traditional wedding, or neither. Someone who is married to a member of the opposite sex could buy stuff for a "gay" event, and you must know this. Guess what, you aren't entitled to other people's work. Its something you should be thankful for, and we can appreciate so much more since its not forced but volunteered of our own will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Except when it comes to conserving the ecological environment that sustains humanity on Earth.
I don't think that is a liberal thing. I know people who would be considered conservative who have great respect for the environment, and vote accordingly. In my experience subjects such as habitat restoration, pollution, and wildlife management are of interest to conservatives. Overpopulation is intertwined with the great challenges humanity faces right now, and I'm surprised its not talked about more in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Someone does not have to justify their religious beliefs.How is this qualitatively distinct from anarchy?
Separation of Church and State
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
By that rational getting married need not involve sex (though like being homosexual it generally does) so the bakers objection to a non sex act is still quite puzzling.
I don't know what his deal is to be honest, probably something to do with marriage if it is a wedding cake. The point is that he was mistreated by his government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not based on anything that is actually written in "The Bible".The bible is based upon our relationship with God, not vice versa. I can give you reference to historic prescriptions in the bible.Even so, you still have to show the rule.If your flavor of religion prioritizes certain documents over others, that's fine.Pick whatever document you wish, but you still need to show the text that says something interpret-able as "don't sell or make stuff for gays or sinners".
There is no such rule in Christianity, and the ethic is not really reducible to a list of rules so much as an ordered liberty. Even believing in a sin irrationally and acting upon it runs contrary to a state of grace. Last time I suggested the presumption of people's motivations you said something like "they say its based on religion" but what you are actually doing here is saying that their conscience can be assumed to align with your own presumptions like "don't sell or make stuff for gays or sinners" without proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Are you aware of any formal heresies denoting something like "bible worship"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not based on anything that is actually written in "The Bible".
The bible is based upon our relationship with God, not vice versa. I can give you reference to historic prescriptions in the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
...with resemblance to the original model observed in the story of Adam and Eve before the fall.Just like the King Solomon, blessed by the "YHWH" with 1,000 WIVES AND CONCUBINES.
Yeah, there could still be Jewish arguments on that subject. In Christianity something like that is considered as a consequence of the fall and/or policy of specific historical context, and no longer institutionally valid in any circumstance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Everyone who has perused the bible already knows that marriage was around before Jesus came to fulfill the law.So you're basically saying we agree.
Marriage is thought to originate from God, and the Christian chapter is viewed as circumstantially distinct but on continuum. It isn't invented by the people who founded the church. In practice it was refined institutionally with resemblance to the original model observed in the story of Adam and Eve before the fall. Through Christ salvation is realized.
Lord's Prayer, Mathew
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Vegan chefs are wizards. Some things I think are just weird and try too hard to be meat, but the food can really taste quite delicious when you are in the mood for something a bit more on the light side. If there aren't a lot of vegetarians, a vegan restaurant really has make decent food to stay in business.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think there is anything wrong with killing animals but there is something wrong in thinking that if you completely remove your steak in how they are treated and ultimately killed that you are helping them. So, if that is the case, where does veganism come from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Also, just a note here, Christianity did not invent Marriage (and therefore does not own it).Marriage existed for tens of thousands of years before MOSES was even born.
You might be making a logical error here. That is, what you are referring to as marriage may not be what English speakers (Christians) referred to since the origins of the word till around the 21st century. Everyone who has perused the bible already knows that marriage was around before Jesus came to fulfill the law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Marriage is between a man and a woman, who are given to one another. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage in Christianity. It is like an oxymoron. Interracial marriage would still be marriage.Marriage in this context is a legal designation not a religious one. Otherwise no legislation would be necessarry or apply.
What legislation are you referring to as necessary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Marriage is between a man and a woman, who are given to one another. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage in Christianity, an invalid oxymoron. It is good to be a virgin, and it is fine to marry. Interracial marriage would still be marriage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is a conscious act.
Created: