Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
which religions and or belief systems do you consider "valid" ?
The Golden Rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
So you believe Jesus is a stand alone entity and that father in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit Trinity thing doesn't exist.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
maybe one in 10,000 ?
Maybe, maybe not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Do you even understand the background of Christianity or the Old Testament where it comes from because obviously you don't.
Regardless it’s not pertinent to the discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
but if nobody (human)knows who qualifies and who misses-the-mark, what practical use is this "intuition" ?
The possibility of being right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what makes you think this ?
Because that makes the most sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you believe you are going to heaven and if you do, why ?
quite honestly I’m not sure. I’m not God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
my point is...how exactly do you believe someone qualifies to get into heaven ?
That’s not a point it’s a question and quite honestly I’m not sure. I’m not God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The Jews didn't feel that their God's rules apply to anyone but them I have no idea why Christians think they do wait maybe it's because Christians basically tried to steal that God from the Jews.
Who said anything about Jews?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
even if the number is half of the 68% estimate, that's still a lot of convicts
Your point? If most of the convicts are in prison for crimes they didn’t commit it says more about the system then it does about the convicts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Christians as a whole make up about two-thirds of the inmate population in the facilities. Protestants are seen, on average, as comprising 51% of the inmate population, Catholics 15% and other Christian groups less than 2%. [**]
How about you give me a statistic for all the inmates convicted for crimes they didn’t commit or a statistic for people getting away with crimes they did commit, at some point somebody is gonna have to explain why blacks that make up less then half the U.S. population makes up more than half the U.S. prison population, so don’t get fooled by this fluff, because the “justice system” is far from justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
trusting jesus to save you from hell on your deathbed does not make you a moral person
I never said it did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Hell is perhaps the most amoral concept imaginable.
Not if immoral people are going there, sounds like justice to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this does not appear to be the case
Why, because of the people that double-parked in front of a fire-hydrant? No one is absolved from sin, but that doesn’t make every sinner an immoral person that’s destined for hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm not sure how you expect to keep the people who double-parked in front of a fire-hydrant out of heaven
I said nothing about my expectations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say to someone that's exactly the same as you but the only difference is you worship Jesus that they're going to hell because they're evil.
Not as ridiculous as it sounds to be that reluctant in making that one change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The system the way that Christians think it works is broken the only reason they support it is it benefits them no matter what they do.
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the mere existence of a reward and punishment does not itself magically make that reward and punishment "MORAL"
It does if moral people are being rewarded and immoral people are being punished, it’s called justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If God is all powerful and all knowing then there is no such thing as an act he is not ultimately responsible for because it is not possible for anything to happen which he either didn’t know about or couldn’t stop. What is so difficult about this?
You taking that to mean God is amoral, if that were true we wouldn’t have concepts like heaven or hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If free will was a defense against knowingly allowing horrible acts to be committed by horrible people then it would be immoral to imprison anyone for anything.
Now your twisting the narrative to suit you, originally you stated
God is all powerful.God is all knowing.God is the creator of everything.These three qualities do not allow for anything that happens to be anything other than God’s will.
The former is an argument of what’s defensible and the latter is an argument of what’s God’s will, I’m arguing that the only will God implements in life here on earth is free will, meaning He is not responsible for every horrible act that happens, it’s the animal that did those horrible acts responsibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Because it is logically impossible under this set up for anything to exist without God having created it.
Yes, but one of those things He created happens to be free will, you seem to be forgetting that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If God exists, God would have nothing to do with morality, God just stays there and well, stays there.
Then who defines morality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You know what no one said nothing matters to me especially me so just pissed off if you don't want to have a conversation.
Then please clarify whatever it is that your saying and I’m not pissed off by any stretch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
but for people they don't matter to that puts them in some sort of ranking system
Why would you have a system if nothing matters to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't know if that makes any sense but.
It doesn’t but your uncertainty of that I guess is a step in the right direction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I certainly think there are universal concepts that should be considered evil but I'm one person the trouble is getting everyone else to agree to those and sometimes they're just not going to.
But that’s the question though, is a universal concept defined by peoples ability (or lack thereof) to agree or is it about a fact being true regardless of what others may or may not think about it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Society's tend to do that.
Societies are inconsistent, so if morality is defined by an inconsistency then morality at its nature doesn’t really make any sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This means every child rape, every malicious murder, everything, is in accordance with his will.
No it’s in accordance to the monster that committed those heinous acts, ever heard of something called free will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No. Almost any story involving the gods shows some of them to be immoral. The creator of all things is amoral.
Then who defines morality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
I didn't say no one understands morality.
You did in the link you referred me to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
Unlike for a circle, people don't understand what morality is, which causes them to confuse the subjectivity of the term with the subjectivity of the concept.
For arguments sake let’s say your right that no one understands morality, then under that pretense how do you even know it exists in the first place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
[84] You are mistaken. I didn't open that can of worms. Sadolite did.
That was your quote I quoted, you even admitted so when you said
quote of Amoranemix 381 to Tarik
The objectivity/subjectivity of something can refer to two things : to a term or to a concept.
You asserted this. Assertions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
[a] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
Really? Your gonna ask me to prove that claim when your the one that opened this can of worms with this claim
Choosing normally qualifies as subjective. The standard may be objective, but not its choice.
I was just piggybacking off of it, so how about you ask yourself a similar question. How do you prove an objective moral standard?
but such definition would be contrived.
Exactly, so what was your point?
Maybe I should.
That’s all you got? Maybe you shouldn’t, see how easy that was 😛
Reality tends to give that impression to Christians.
That you should know what your talking about before making any claims about it? I’m pretty people on your side of the religion debate would agree with that one as well.
The concept of burden of proof eludes you. Read about it here :
This isn’t even responsive to the point I made but since you want to open up yet another can of worms I guess I’ll address it. First of all when Double_R first introduced said hypothetical example the burden of proof was on him to prove its coherence, but I guess since he’s on your side of things is why you don’t keep the same energy for him. Second I explicitly said why I took issue with the hypothetical feel free to go back and look, don’t expect me to put you up to speed especially since none of this was originally directed to you to begin with.
The fallacy you committed is the straw man, for I have not said otherwise.
Your just being pedantic at this point dude. Fact of the matter is he did more than just embrace implications, he said it was separate from the message and in the next breath said it wasn’t which is just deliberate lying on his part. Read between the lines man.
You are mistaken. Basing one's beliefs on reason and evidence does not prevent one from having beliefs.
No you are mistaken because that wasn’t even my argument, that also isn’t what skepticism is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I can just quote you… back to yourself on that matter:
Well that quote just further proves my point that there’s no document of you addressing what Whoopi actually said, you could’ve easily nip this in the bud by quoting yourself but instead you chose to quote me instead, I wonder why that is? Maybe because the liar is actually you.
I might go have a lie down now… getting a bit sleepy.
Go ahead, I would be tired too after all the nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Indeed. Yet, for whatever reason, it didn’t stop you from trying.
I beg to differ, it did however stopped you from referring back to where you actually addressed what she said (maybe because such thing doesn’t exist). One thing you can’t accuse me of is not quoting myself and the interlocutor for emphasis of a point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It’s easy to discern when you are lying in regards to me and what I’ve said in order to save face in an argument.
Our back and forth dialogue is all documented through this site, I don’t have that luxury of “lying” to save face.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Just out of curiosity, do you describe yourself as a “race realist”?
Considering how you deemed me a liar, I don’t know why you would believe any answer I give.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Ms. Goldberg failed to say “it’s about ethnic hatred” didn’t she?
Your so fixated on what she didn’t say where you fail to address what she did, that’s the real problem here.
What do you not understand about this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Antisemitism is a subset of racism:
…Really is that what we’re doing? This discussion runs a lot deeper then what a thesaurus can solve, you don’t think I can cite multiple more relevant sources that contrasts race from ethnicity and/or culture?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Judaism is the religion you fool.
Regardless Jewish still isn’t a race (the focal point of the whole discussion) it’s an ethnicity and/or culture you fool.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
In other words, I’m not pontificating here. I’m not telling others what to think, as Goldberg is.
It is when your problem with Goldberg’s words is predicated on false pretense, which it is.
I’m not telling others what to think, as Goldberg is.
And that criticism is completely valid if it’s an opinionated issue we’re discussing but we’re not, whether or not someone is white isn’t a matter of opinion it’s a matter of fact so telling someone that they should see a fact for what it is isn’t problematic at all.
Saying it’s about “man’s inhumanity to man” isn’t at all informative.
True, but I acknowledged this point when I said
perhaps she should’ve offered a more specific term rather than the vague one she used since getting the narrative right is the goal, maybe she would’ve gotten less heat if she called it for EXACTLY what it is, antisemitism.
Make no mistake there’s a distinction between being uninformative and being wrong, the fact that you said “DUH” to that lack of information is an acknowledgment of sorts.
At the same time, she attempts to subtract insight from the discussion, saying what it ISN’T about.
No she just didn’t add (a point I already addressed) not adding isn’t equivalent to subtracting and the only ones saying what it ISN’T about are the ones that called a subject involving white people a race issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Tarik’s all over the place.
Nope that’s you buddy, asking me the same questions over and over again without bringing anything substantive to the discussion warranting it. I’ve refuted every argument you’ve made and all you’ve done is filibuster and contradict yourself. You shouldn’t expect anyone to honestly take you seriously, get over yourself your pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Point being, she doesn’t have the knowledge of the subject to pontificate as confidently as she did.
She had more then the others that deemed Jewish as a race separate from white.
In this case, “race” is just a catch-all for ethnicity and group identity.
Except it’s not (Ms. Goldberg’s point all along) maybe YOU don’t have the knowledge to pontificate on this subject.
The point is the same— Jews were hated, scapegoated, and genocided based upon group identity.
Which no one denied, perhaps you should rewatch the clip especially when she discussed inhumanity in her diatribe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
If you have seen the clip, why do you need me to recite what she said “EXACTLY”?
Because I don’t recall anything strident, that’s why.
The Jews in Germany were indeed separated… from non Jewish whites.
But those Jews in Germany were white as well irrespective of their religion, that was her point.
It was hatred based upon identity.
True, but there’s many non race related identities FYI. Gender, sexuality, and in this case religion are all different identities distinct from race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
strident in her words
Can you be a little more specific, what did she say EXACTLY?
carves out an exception to racism
Highlighting the common denominator between Hitler and the Jews he killed isn’t carving out anything it’s correcting the misconception that those Jews were separate from whites.
3. I’m pretty certain Goldberg is pro: more stringent penalties for “hate crimes.” Here, it seems like she is saying that the Nazis were certainly guilty of crimes, just that it didn’t rise to the level of hate crimes— hatred based upon immutable or identity based characteristics.
I didn’t catch that from the clip I seen, are you talking about the discussion on The View or an extended version of this subject elsewhere?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
You didn’t answer my question why you don’t consider antisemitism racist.
Yes I did, your the one that insists on going in circles (hence why I ignored more than half your post because I’m tired of repeating myself).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
You seriously consider what you claim as an argument?
Well that’s what a claim is, an argument.
It’s wrong on multiple levels.
So gender roles, masculinity, femininity, and flamboyancy aren’t relevant terms? You think I just made those concepts up out of thin air? Dude read a book.
You don’t give any reason, so why should I?
I don’t need to provide reason because I’m not arguing for either side but to dismiss these concepts as facts of life is just flat out ignorance.
Do you still think antisemitism is not racism?
Seriously? What’s transpired between now and then for you to revisit that question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Seriously?
Not an argument.
It’s a shit opinion.
It’s not an opinion it’s a fact, which I proved when I cited the two quotes.
Now it’s my turn to ask seriously (for the utmost time) because as far as I’m concerned your just going around in circles with nothing new to add to the discussion, so please lmk if/when you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
*sigh* You think homosexuality is a lifestyle (culture) right?
No, but it’s promoted as such, kinda like how Hitler propagandized Jews as separate from whites, catch my drift yet? If not my point is culture has no bearing on race or sexuality, only society puts those stereotypes in the weak minded peoples heads, don’t be a sucker and fall for it.
You already said what word? It’s good you’re learning that words overlap with one another.
Maybe it’s about time you know that finding a common denominator between two different subjects doesn’t make those subjects overlap holistically, I can do this all day.
By definition it does.
Seriously dude your contradicting yourself all over the place, the two quotes I cited of you are proof of this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
That doesn’t answer why. I’m assuming you’re just quoting yourself.
That’s because my quote covers it, your definition is predicated on culture is it not? My quote addresses culture.
They are words that describe a variety of beliefs and circumstances which often overlap.
Yes, and I already said that word, Whoopi said inhumanity and I said prejudice.
Did I say xenophobia and tribalism fall under racism?
Not explicitly, but you definitely implied the sort with this rhetorical line of questioning
2. doesn’t it make perfect sense to say antisemitism falls under racism?
Created: