Total posts: 1,320
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't intend this to be an analogous "justification", however, you have a developing relationship with your parents to relate to as a young child distinguished from when you have been raised to be relatively self sufficient. The reality of the world you live in will punish you, especially if you don't heed the wisdom of the elders who love you.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Hopefully I'm not conveying that locally exposing yourself to a library and socializing with people is superior so much as pointing it out. I'm just trying to give some helpful advice to the approach of acquiring data from an ignorant starting point. The total amount of raw information in a facility is of little consequence to personal aspiration, so long as there is sufficient amount of relevant information.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
Its good to go to the library or a take a class to gain some sort of basic foundation for a variety of reasons. Once you get over the learning curve of the task at hand and gain a baseline of applicable knowledge, you'll be able to utilize a search engine more meaningfully to obtain open source information in the future. Hopefully you're prepared to conduct critical analysis of data you find from an unfamiliar source. The library can introduce you to information in a different way than a search engine would, and expose you to coherent information you weren't setting out to find initially, without being steered so heavily by your notions, algorithms, and marketing. Make a system of organization to efficiently refer back to should you have new questions in the future.
If you are interested in American politics, I would highly suggest reading the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, all of which are rather concise documents. Secondly, you should gain some familiarity with documentation known as the federalist papers, which contain some of the prevailing views in how the implementations that effect us today were designed to render service by the people, for the people. It is still largely relevant, although additionally the Civil War lead to an enabled effort which is the basic structure we have today, where portions of the national Constitution are held applicable to the States, and the period between the WWI and the end of WWII had a revolutionary impact on the economic relationship of contemporary politics.
Being inexperienced, you might adjust your mindset a bit from "data that will help my side" to entering into a debate you are interested in learning and presenting a quality argument worthy of everyone's time in an improved capacity, which may or may not ultimately stand up to scrutiny in its entirety, with the goal of a better understanding than the parties have going in. A good debate can have a bit of give and take to the end of a common good.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What would you guys come up with if you were able to put together a debate? (If you're a conservative and want to design one as if it were for the 2016 election cycle, go for it)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
The material isn't currently being debated on this website. It would take forever for Tejretics to eventually debate these on their own, but everyone can see them. If you see one you like there's nothing stopping you from starting a debate and maybe learning something, or taking some criticism. I think they're good food for thought, don't you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I've been contemplating something that might be considered off the wall in terms of how we normally approach the problems in education. It would be something if we had a system that promotes elders with a career of work experience in the real world entering into the education system in some capacity, not necessarily as the foundational educators, but certainly more prevalent and influential from an earlier point than what we have now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I don't think its safe to assume that guy believes what he is saying.
Created:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
This is why under a more socialized system with universal basic income, socialized healthcare, socialized education, and redistribution of resources would be an ideal solution to the rise of AI intelligence to ensure those whose jobs are taken still have the means to survive.Under a pure capitalistic system anyone who's job is taken is essentially sentenced to death.This is exactly why a social democracy is a better and more realistic form of economics than a pure capitalist society.
This notion of a "pure capitalistic system" assumes that socialization isn't most accurately rendered independently of the state. Actually, it seems to go even further and idealize that all socialization is done through the state government. A moral people care for one another in a capitalistic economy, and a socialized economy in the sense of struggling against capitalism and abolishing it isn't an accurate reflection of reality in contemporary politics of the United States.
Created:
Posted in:
Set #2
I find this list fascinating.
Developing countries should privatize their state-owned enterprises.
I suppose this is a bit more philosophical. Specifically, what countries aren't developing? To this end, I might suppose a republican form of government to be generally superior, and would speak in such a light if possible, or one could take an advocative approach to the complex world we live in.
Created:
Posted in:
Set #1
I can be a bit nitpicky on how debates are set up. I like set #1 and haven't noticed any significant issues. I don't notice any loaded questions.
I would be personally interested in taking up some of these debates. They all seem relevant to discussions I've had offsite, and on point. I imagine you can peak someone's interest, and people might enjoy them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why not just start from scratch and write down just the "good bits"?
Why is the collection as a whole called a testament?
Arguing "harsh rules for harsh times" is SITUATIONAL ETHICS. The whole ideological bent of Christianity hinges on hypothetical Objective Morality.
Are you implying the two are incompatible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Thanks for doing these debate things.
This interview is from Joe Biden on foreign policy while he was still serving in the Whitehouse, 2016.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Thanks for proving my point: you would accept literally no proposition that's far, far, far less outlandish than "magic being spoke universe into existence", without evidence and reason to do so. And you're also not being very sporting about the idea of debate with someone who disagrees with you, at all. I almost feel like I've bullied you, I'm sorry.
You'll have to explain my unsportsmanlike conduct. I've met people into formal debate, but have little experience with it outside of philosophical consideration. As far as I'm concerned I've been having normal discourse with you.
The notion is especially unconducive to taking literally since there was not any recognizable medium through which to speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't imagine I would believe you. I've been around rodeo, and there are honorable people who would ride anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Oh, I think its feasible if you were wondering about that. The first thing that crossed my mind is that you would have to have an outdoor job where the animal could be fed, watered, and cleaned after, not going to some parking lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
It WAS awesome. Do you believe me?
No, why do you ask?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
That isn't what I'm asking. If there's a god that's timeless, it should not require time travel to demonstrate it. It's either there or it isn't. Can you offer any demonstration at all?
Everything is expected to be the way it is. We can't go back to the times of Moses and talk to a bush. We can't see Jesus go to his crucifixion. The Jews and the Christians are still among us though.
If I told you I owned a rhinoceros, and I rode it to work today, would you believe me?
Totally random but, that would be awesome. I love it when people ride ridiculous things to work.
Created:
Posted in:
its not always appropriate for you to take everyone off on some empirical tangent. Imagine you're the one kid with ten thousand questions whose holding up the class from getting through the lesson.I think this is a false equivalence: we are under no time pressure as in a classroom. And a student's questions are only annoying if you can't answer them, I think. "Why does gravity work" has a defined (if complicated) answer. This is exactly where we SHOULD be going off on tangents.
I'm not sure if anyone actually knows why gravity works. We do have theories incorporating relationships with the concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Please give me an example of anything else where in order for me to understand it, I have to understand it already. Where it is impossible for me to figure out the answer for myself without accepting someone else's answer (that cannot be demonstrated in any way) as correct already. These are answers you can't question.
I'm not saying you can't question things, but as a matter of practicality. You are framing this as if you've already ascertained that something is literally impossible for you to figure out. You can't go back in history and witness a demonstration, if that might satisfy this line of questioning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I observe topics of religion needn't be from a perspective of belief.
That's something I wasn't implying if that's what you are trying to get at. I guess I'm off on a tangent from the forum topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I have to disagree somewhat, or maybe just add on some elaboration. You can't just dip your toes. You have to be able to dive in to finally say the water is fine. If you want to have a meaningful discussion on some things, its not always appropriate for you to take everyone off on some empirical tangent. Imagine you're the one kid with ten thousand questions whose holding up the class from getting through the lesson. If you are sincerely interested, you will ask those questions with the motivation to verify them yourself, but you've got to know the basics.I don't ask for the justification of every facet of the old testament or the new testament. Those are claims. I ask for evidence, nothing more. I just ask that there be some demonstration of something before I believe in it. It shouldn't be that hard, but here we are. I don't think it's reasonable in any way to say "you must believe something before you can believe it or it can be demonstrated." It's very simple. There is literally no other proposition besides religion that thinks things work this way. I don't have to believe in the earth going around the sun for it to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
And as far as persuading to a religion is concerned, you'd then be at odds with a very significant portion of the bible. Spreading the good news, and all.
This is an interesting topic actually. Where from the bible do you justify that Christianity is dedicated to persuasion, as opposed to say, letting their light shine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't think its generally a good idea to expect someone to persuade to a religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You can't always start from a null position. Its just plain unreasonable to expect someone to justify every facet of the old testament to you in this forum until you are satisfied that you have a complete understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I see no benefit in posting in a less active (or relevant) forum. The suggestion that critics should go elsewhere strikes me as an attempt to make criticism go away without addressing it.
So, I'm not actually trying to say this at all. I don't categorize anyone on this website as a critic, and I don't expect the effect you are pointing out. I observe that socio-political discussion of "evangelicals in the United States" is one topic, and "What is Pentecostal about" is another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
...and religious problems go in the religion forum.
Precisely,
As it is now, there's a ridiculous amount of energy in the religious forum that could be divested to people who are interested in the socio-politics, the philosophical quandaries of where science lies in religion, history etc...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
The stuff on medieval/ancient politics can usually (like 9 times out of 10) go in the history forum, or the politics forum.
The stuff on wack-jobs can go in the society forum.
History and phenomena can often go in the historical or science forums.
The rationalism/science makes religion moot arguments go in the philosophy forum. Personal problems can go in the personal forum.
Created:
Posted in:
Luke 14
14 Now it happened, as He went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath, that they watched Him closely. 2 And behold, there was a certain man before Him who had dropsy. 3 And Jesus, answering, spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the [a]Sabbath?”
4 But they kept silent. And He took him and healed him, and let him go. 5 Then He answered them, saying, “Which of you, having a [b]donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” 6 And they could not answer Him regarding these things.
7 So He told a parable to those who were invited, when He noted how they chose the best places, saying to them: 8 “When you are invited by anyone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in the best place, lest one more honorable than you be invited by him; 9 and he who invited you and him come and say to you, ‘Give place to this man,’ and then you begin with shame to take the lowest place. 10 But when you are invited, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when he who invited you comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, go up higher.’ Then you will have glory in the presence of those who sit at the table with you. 11 For whoever exalts himself will be [c]humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
12 Then He also said to him who invited Him, “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the [d]maimed, the lame, the blind. 14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”
15 Now when one of those who sat at the table with Him heard these things, he said to Him, “Blessed is he who shall eat [e]bread in the kingdom of God!”
16 Then He said to him, “A certain man gave a great supper and invited many, 17 and sent his servant at supper time to say to those who were invited, ‘Come, for all things are now ready.’ 18 But they all with one accord began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a piece of ground, and I must go and see it. I ask you to have me excused.’ 19 And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to test them. I ask you to have me excused.’ 20 Still another said, ‘I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.’ 21 So that servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in here the poor and the [f]maimed and the lame and the blind.’ 22 And the servant said, ‘Master, it is done as you commanded, and still there is room.’ 23 Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. 24 For I say to you that none of those men who were invited shall taste my supper.’ ”
25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.
34 “Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? 35 It is neither fit for the land nor for the [g]dunghill, but men throw it out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You win.What is he LITERALLY saying? Now explain LITERALLY.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
The answer is we don't know what God's motivations are. Perhaps He sought to confuse the Jewish religious elites, who professed to be wise but couldn't even understand His relatively simple message.But that's not what you're saying in the original post I responded to.Christ spoke in riddles and mysterious sayings, to confound the listener and accomplish His good purpose.You're saying here you do know his motivations: he wanted to confound the listener AND ACCOMPLISH HIS GOOD PURPOSE through, somehow, this confusion.
You are getting into semantics with someone rather than getting into Luke.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm feel like a minority in my support for the 2nd amendment as a part of the greater constitution, that Joe Biden doesn't support, and he doesn't do enough to distinguish himself. The way he speaks on foreign policy is always wishy washy, like everything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
I'm basically where you are. I like both Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard. I'm leaning towards Gabbard so far. I value her military service, and that its contributed to her experience as an American as well. I was impressed in the past when she laid out her platform in tangible terms of how she considers her duty as President of the United States, and in relation to the people who form policy. I've seen her suggest a modern worldview of economic aggression, something I think she observes Donald Trump's America first policy with noted criticism. She seems to have some independence from the party brass, and I think she has the attitude to maintain integrity when people turn on her. She's young, but I hope she proves herself through the campaign and I think she can beat Donald Trump.
Amy Klobuchar I am familiar with as a representative. I associate her as an apple pie Midwest liberal more qualified than Barack Obama, with a good mindset towards serving her country, but never displayed presidential distinction to me. I haven't had much time to look out for it yet. Both are polling so low. I wish they at least had greater respect.
I would consider voting for Bernie if I lived in Vermont as a senator because I'm impressed by some of his past flags on economic issues, but I can't tell if he's ignorant or insane. I wonder if he just campaigns to advertise himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Open up a thread on spam in the Debateart.com section if you are so interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Of course, there are people who want to talk about the debate going on right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Oh wow keep comparing me to an experienced debator,
Imabench is interested in the democratic primaries, and writes complete sentences on the fly.
Created:
Posted in:
I imagine the political climate with secure boarders and sensible immigration policy would be most conducive to an influx of people immigrating to the US, from all over the world. They say the abusive immigration system is unfair to people seeking to come here legally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
So you don't believe the word of god, how droll.
I think this is the funniest thing I've ever seen from you.
I realize that people give you a hard time often enough, so I'll say I don't mean to scoff as others do in this forum. From what I have seen, your material tends to have a certain focus to it, and the centrality of God's word to your express amusement is so faithfully conveyed in that reaction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
My last statement is reasonable, and it's appropriate to point out that you should question whether your "proof" may be a result of confirmation bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Since you've accused me of lying, I can't really speak with you in good faith.Show me where he says that. Your lies are easily refuted, just like Stevie wonders.
Created:
Posted in:
Jesus isn't literally saying "Hate thy neighbor". It's more like what you would expect from the strong language in context of a family member.
Created:
Posted in:
Though not authoritative this dictionary is sometimes useful for its for biblical citations, its relevance in American law, and its thorough definitions.
HATE, verb transitive [Latin odi, for hodi.]
1. To dislike greatly; to have a great aversion to. It expresses less than abhor, detest, and abominate, unless pronounced with a peculiar emphasis.
How long will fools hate knowledge? Proverbs 1:22.
Blessed are ye when men shall hate you. Luke 6:22.
The Roman tyrant was contented to be hated, if he was but feared.
2. In Scripture, it signifies to love less.
If any man come to me, and hate not father and mother, etc. Luke 14:26.
He that spareth the rod, hateth his son. Proverbs 13:24.
HATE, noun Great dislike or aversion; hatred.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
How deep is the ocean? How high is the sky? I'm not answering questions like these.
Some of the questions are literally quoting content from your original post for clarification, or elaboration. None of the questions are asking for a degree or measurement or taking you to speak of some ridiculously random thing you've never mentioned. They aren't intended to be difficult for you to answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
1. What might Donald Trump be "Blowing"?
2. Who is "the Left"
3. Why would "the Left" be terrified?
4. What does "close to white nationalism" mean? If it helps, here's a list of related questions.
- Does it mean a nationalist that happens to connect with the same things dead Europeans did and Americans continue to do?
- Does it mean having a light, slightly orange hewed skin tone, and being a nationalist?
- Are Americans like John McCain "close to a white nationalist" for expressed support of binding Euro-American relations?
- Are people who proport common "Western Values" close to white nationalism?
- Is the belief that the people form the foundation of freedom close to white nationalism?
- Are advocates for cooperation or union among Europeans "close to white nationalists"?
5. What significance is the particular commonality, compatibility, or closeness with white nationalism to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
and the Left is right to be terrified.
How so? What terrible things are we talking about here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Anger?, examples besides you
I like the idea of interesting material attracting attention over "Yeet". The record attempt at most posts is poor conduct and brings dishonor unto us. My mentality at the time I voted yes was more along the lines of "eh, I'm cool with that"
Created:
Posted in:
If anyone is interested, this is essentially the same thing, but from a different source, and more quotations.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I have yet to see proof that the death penalty terrorizes people into thinking twice about severe crime. (or whatever theory)
Created: