Total posts: 1,320
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The question is, what is the "Biblical" teaching that makes denial of service mandatory?
I wouldn't say that anything is mandatory in Christianity. I would say what we have here is a matter of conscience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Mississippi’s so-called “religious freedom” law went into effect today, opening up the LGBTQ community to widespread discrimination.HB 1523 allows anyone citing a religiously motivated reason to deny goods and services to the LGBTQ community, as well as those who have sex outside of marriage, or anything else that might rub their dogmatic sensibilities the wrong way.
The bill could be mischaracterized in the OP, at least according to what I have read through section two, where it formalizes a list of well known religious beliefs. I haven't had time to seriously look through it yet for any flaws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
.The bible is fine with some minorities, like immigrants. But not gays. The bible says they won't go to heaven.
No, it doesn't, and if it did, that would be irrelevant to the topic at hand because humanity exists in a fallen state and we are all born into sin. Salvation is possible by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Well, I probably shouldn't argue the rationale of the civil rights act in this setting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If a gay person doesn't receive service, they can go to another store to get the service they want. Not all businesses will refuse to serve gay people.
Don't be ridiculous. You can't say that every community in America has a majority of reasonable businesses catering to the public in every sector. Congress still needs to address this issue, adding something to the effect of "sexual orientation" to the civil rights act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Maybe under some unusual special circumstances it is possible, but I don't see how one would gracefully arrive at such a conclusion, especially if it is unlawful. By your plain meaning, that is a fair assessment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
@Alec
Alec: but so does arming civilians and teachers for defense.Mustardness:More guns { wepaons } on Earth is dumb. Humans are dumb and barbaric. How does a dumb and barbaric humanity survive the most years forward on Earth. Not by building and dispersing guns { weapons } to more and more humans.Why do you think USSR and USA got rid of so many hydrogen bombs? Because is was M.A.D. Maybe you still dont grasp what M.A.D means some 30 years later. Mutually Assured Destruction of humanity on Earth
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
What is (in)sufficient evidence? Believing in something whether it be a rational concept or not, is not shown to be rational, so far as we are concerned.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
No. If both are irrational, then it follows that we cannot ascribe a rational value. Why would we suggest that anything can be equally rational to begin with?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
As content is concerned, one is whatever "god(s)" comprises of, and one is whatever "this" is. So far as the nature of belief, I do not speculate a difference.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok so is it ir isn't it?
It would likely be irrational to believe in something.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Rational is not more or less to my way of thinking. It either is or it isn't.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Analogously, I would think you would ask if they believe that such a dragon does not exist.
Created:
-->
@WisdomofAges
Do you type all of this out every time, or does it get copy and pasted?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Precisely, it does not.
Created:
-->
@WisdomofAges
How do you decide which words get capitalized?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The Bible, at least to my knowledge, does not say "gay = bad"
Does anyone know what part of "The Bible" makes denial of service to sinners mandatory?
I don't know about this either.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Perhaps a more fitting question
Can the belief be rationalized?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
a united humanity under one global flag vs division/splintering into more and more factions pitting against each other with some trying to gain rich wealth over the others. This is no best way forward
I'm curious about your time frame. How long do you think it will take the people of every country to join the United States?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
This is the "More Guns Thread" not the "Gun Enforcement Policy" thread, although I have no intention of limiting such discussion if it interests you. Its for people to discuss expansive ownership of small arms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
@Alec
Alec: If you ban guns, people will get them illegally.You mistated you argument. If'we' i.e humanity, ban all guns {weapons } by destroyng the ones we have, and no mass-production of guns, then some indivdduals will build them. Why would they build them?Because they are crazy, or the sane ones know crazy people exist on Earth? Is there an alternative way to deal with these crazy people?No there is no other ways to deal with crazy people than guns? We dont know which crazy people are crazy until they kill { bite } us?Do some people go crazy because others intent is to drive.
That is insane
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@mustardness
@Alec
Moved to the More Guns Thread
DPirate....What % of gun crimes are committed by males w/o father figures? I'd bet it's very high.What percentage of gun crimes are from people who do not have access to guns?More guns { weapons } is just plain dumb and is takes away from resources that humanity needs for living, not killing.The easier access to guns is sign of the level of intelligence of humanity.There was a rational, logical common sense reason for USSR and USA to pull back from Mutuallly Assured Destruction.{ M.A.D}.There exists rational, logical common sense set of reasons for humanity to put away their desire to have weapons to kill each other.This is obvious conclusion to mature and mentalitty balanced adult humans. How we get to this on a global scale is a seperate question. First humanity has to unite behind and idea. The idea that we want humanity to survive on Earth for longest time period possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
shot gun slug barrels aren't rifled, the rifling is in the slug itself, I don't know physics etc but I'm not so sure the same thing couldn't be applied to smaller calibers. It's probably more expensive to make them that way, but if the demand is there.....never under estimate human ingenuity.(look at the ballistic type tests on shotgun slugs if you haven't)cnc shops and machines would fill any need, supply and demand.there was some tv show, red jacket something or other which was a small business that made guns. Kel-Tec is out of Florida for example. Someday there will be alternative materials to steel, polymers and resins will get stronger, kevlar is a pretty good example of ingenuity and a metal alternative. Aluminum changed how and what things are made from. Again there's videos of people casting lowers from aluminum cans. There's no real demand for that ability, we shouldn't create one either."When you consider that the aim is just to lower the supply/demand and make it less practical for kids without father figures then you are giving the theory an honest run for its money. "are you referring to the aim of background checks?What % of gun crimes are committed by males w/o father figures? I'd bet it's very high.
Well, background checks are the particular subject of interest, but more broadly it could be thought as establishing a realistic set of expectations. Since we both know that there is a real world relationship in that respect, and the percentage is significant, I am encouraging consideration on a sociological basis for policy in that statement. A young person who has the skill and direction to make a rifle from scratch is probably fully capable of landing a real job. As they get older, more of the deviant populous will become less naïve, learn from their mistakes, or end up in prison. I don't see the capacity of production as a cause to rule out the potential to effect the market as it caters petty criminal activity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The problem with that theory is the rifle barrels are difficult to make properly. You are basically though, in the context of urban combat. I could still make something accurate enough for survival in a garage that I could rely on, but military grade weaponry would be out of reach according to modern standards. For anyone wondering I consider "military grade" as a maintainable standard of reliability and precision. When you consider that the aim is just to lower the supply/demand and make it less practical for kids without father figures then you are giving the theory an honest run for its money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I would like to see a program for people with histories indicative of risk factors where a family member is contacted, respecting their rights, and also those who love them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Oh yeah, I'm only referencing small arms suitable for personal defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
@mustardness
@Alec
I made a place to reply on the topic of expansive gun ownership in the interest of defense. Enjoy.
Created:
Posted in:
More { weapons } = more sanity?
Sure
More { weapons } = more security?
No
More { weapons } = more peace?
No
More { weapons } = less crazy people to abuse them?
Correlation does not mean causation
More { weapons } = intellectually best path forward for humanity?
Putting the equation aside, the general idea probably holds true if you mean more people assume responsibility for themselves, unless the intellectually best path forward is savagery. If savagery is preferable, than probably not.
More { weapons } = humanities best short term solutions to violence?
No
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Why not Canada, or Mexico?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Source of Firearms possessed by State prison inmates at time of offense, 2004
Purchased or Traded From - 11.3%
Retail Store 7.3%
Pawnshop 2.6%
Flea market .6%
Gun Show .8%
Family or Friend - 37.4%
Purchased or traded 12.2%
Rented or Borrowed 14%
other 11.1%
Street/Illegal Source - 40%
Theft/Burglary 7.5%
Drug dealer/off street 25.2%
Fence//black market 7.4%
Other - 11.2%
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If they want to arrest someone, and they can find them, the federal government will rain as much hell as they are willing to endure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
While it is possible to stave off a local police department (with consequences) I am not aware of any instances in which the United States government can be deterred by a small band of individuals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Universal background check means that all transactions require a background check. It does not refer to the quality of the background check itself. Currently, some number surrounding a dozen states have a universal background including private transfers from one individual to another on all firearms, which is not required by federal law unless the recipient or seller crosses state lines.
For government agents to know who has what, there would have to be a registration system.
People generally get a background check through someone who has a Federal Firearms License, a national requirement if you want to be in the business of selling firearms, or their police department. Some states have their own background checks in addition to the federal system. The standard background check entails filling out a short form, and a call to the FBI, where they look your name up in something called the NICS, a national instant criminal background check system, and report back. In my experience it takes less than ten minutes, though I'm not sure if there are delays with complications. Some states have streamlined purchases if you already have some proof of passing, like a permit. If you have no history which would bar you from purchase by federal and state law, and the owners discretion, then you may proceed with purchase. If you lie, you could be charged with a felony.
The FFL dealer (whomever) would keep documentation proving they facilitated a proper transaction, but in most states there is no registration system. Immediately following a background check no one would know you are the rightful owner except the parties which you allow to. Your name could still come up if the firearm ended up in the hands of a police agency, who then sent the serial number to the ATF, where people can begin manually investigating the supply chain from the manufacturer.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Currently, all firearm sales through an FFL dealer (Licensed gun salesman) require background checks. Not all states require background checks for a private sale, just from one person to another. Many states only justify universal background checks for classes of firearms associated with crime. This is reasonable if a shotgun is not any more likely to be used as a murder weapon than a knife or a blunt instrument. I would be reluctantly supportive of universal back ground checks for all sales in my state if it came down to it because my entire family has absolutely no interest in selling their firearms to a criminal. Next to no one does, but you can't expect the general populous to have such an awareness without establishing the means. I say reluctantly, because I think that any decent society because any decent society would have a healthy degree of trust between one another in the absence of reason not to, but I wouldn't refuse to vote for someone who mistakenly thinks otherwise. At least, handguns should have universal background checks though because they are well known to be used by gangs and other deviants. Additionally, I am supportive of a formal record of the sale in which this process takes place to ensure that the firearm is traceable, and that there is proof upon request of a legal transaction. Interstate sales already require universal background checks, and I want those laws that are already on the books at the federal level to have teeth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
To clarify, you are saying that salt is used as the primary medium of heat transfer between the reactor and the steam boiler?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Out of curiosity, do you exist?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
"i'm sure the costs benefits weigh in favor of these regulations"
Without knowing what the regulations are, we can't say this. Maybe one regulation makes sense, and its packed in with a bunch of stuff that doesn't. Maybe it makes fiscal sense over all from afar, but its implementation is ridiculously cost prohibitive in certain aspects.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
One argument in favor of nationalizing regulations is that its assumed the fed is harder to buy off. I've never looked into the merit though. There is a problem in that if the fed goes too far, it might impose something that isn't as appropriate as it could be, but then again one might imagine they can also guarantee some minimum standards across the country as a baseline of "common sense" to start from for security.
There would ideally be nothing unusual about reconsidering environmental regulations every two years.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
what's wrong with doing this via the federal level? it's a universal problem. the interstate state commerce clause of the constitution allows for regulating these things.
I'm not precisely sure since the article doesn't explain what "this" actually is. The fed is harder to steer, doesn't represent people as well but it does have its place in the safety net. Generally federal regulations should address interstate issues, and states can address more social issues accordingly. That way by splitting the assortment of responsibility its more difficult for politicians to leverage people to compromise on one issue to solve another. The interstate commerce clause is appropriate for interstate commerce, not problems that every state has. If we have regulations according to the interest in one state could have imposed upon another that could be an abuse of power. As you get to lower levels of government, you will have closer representation by the people.
also, a lot of states won't want to regulate this, so they can better compete with other states. or they will just refuse to. why should the victims in those states suffer?
That's an argument you can make in those states to remedy the situation, just like you are addressing here. Since a majority of people think it makes sense, there should be some pretty persuasive material among the states with superior regulations. That's another reason you don't want to consolidate everything to the federal level. By diversifying our efforts we enable more people to come up with different kinds of solutions in up to 50 ways so there is a sort of political market between the states rather than infighting over the federal government. Representatives may adopt unique regulations that are stream lined, more effective, or just more relevant to the times. Assuming there is progress some will always not be as good as others, which is actually a relatively good thing, or probably less bad I suppose.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Do you know any decent articles that show why the regulations were nationalized, something to do with interstate waterways? I would be interested in the studies as well.
Created:
The more agency the president has, the more people are going to disagree with them. You can't do that job to the best of your ability without offending people. From a business standpoint it probably makes sense to report on the president. That's not in our civic interest in this case. What would be productive is comparing approaches to regulation among the states.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Why can't the states tailor these regulations?
The article completely avoids the real issue which is that Pennsylvanians need to check into their state government. Maybe its a non-issue in the 21st century and they are already covered, or maybe we need to take initiative, but how are we to know if we spend all our time gossiping about the president?
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
The context arises from a prospective relationship between the people and the state. I'm saying that Alec has an approach to prescription from the state which you argue to be disordered, and that is one thing. Additionally though, you said you should not allow or endorse the action of abortion. So, I found it fitting to add that if the government does not intervene on an issue, that does not constitute an endorsement of any action, nor does it allow it.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Certainly, the moral imperative lies within the jurisdiction of the church to correct such a misguided prescription. However, the legal jurisdiction of government, or rather lack thereof, neither allows nor endorses an action in this case.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Aren't you a Christian?I don't think that's supportable from a utilitarian standpoint. Damning two people for sure in order to save one for sure when there is potential for three saved souls. It's similar to the trolley problem, except one of the options has the potential to save everyone.
Created:
Many left wingers would claim that restricting abortion is sexist. I know why you want to prohibit/restrict abortion; to save an innocent human life.If you are discriminating against women since they can only have abortion then you are a sexist. What part of that is wrong?
Assuming the intent is to discriminate against women would be wrong when it comes to Pro-Life. It just happens that women bear children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Accusing a politician of "playing politics" is like accusing a fish of swimming.
Okay, that was random
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
6 Democrats refused to view the unredacted report because the shitshow is more important.
Huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You are setting an exceptionally low standard for trust. Basically, anyone you don't dismiss out of hand would be more trustworthy than a trumpanzee in your view. Nancy Pelosi has a notorious reputation as a partisan hack. What William Barr do? If you value her statement, why is she saying what she is saying?
Created: