Total posts: 3,383
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If guns deter violence then why do all mass shooting involve guns?
they also always involve people, chicken and the egg thing LOL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
you admitted that they can't account for a lot of events, because they never get reported, reported incorrectly etc, their "evidence" is based on selective things they could look at or chose to look at which is too narrow because you can't factor all the things mentioned in the links I posted which was not an exhaustive list. all of it is anecdotal evidence at best and I dismiss it for those reasons.
here's an analogy for better context of my perspective. of the crimes lists on the fbi site, do you believe those are all the crimes committed in those categories? of course not, what % do you believe go unreported, investigated etc, 1%? 10%? 50? 90%? gimme a guess, do you think whatever the number actually might be that it's statically unimportant or it is important?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I fully expect an echo of the talking points the zealots tried to produce after Ben had finally had enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is no different than you or I. We can choose to do our jobs, OR quit.
I work for an employer and by doing so I have agreed to the details and expectations of my job.
The cake guy could have chosen to quit making custom cakes. For everyone. No problem. No "forced labor".
either he has to quit making custom cakes or make any custom cake anyone desires, sounds forced to me.
The cake guy presumably made a custom cake for the very next person who offered to pay.
if he chose to, yes, he's not a slave that I'm aware of, it would be up to him to choose to do so.
Well, you agree with "forced labor" it's now just a matter of drawing a line between "routine" and "creative" tasks.
not exactly, I agree they can't discriminate based on a race they hate, race being a noun directly related to the individual, where as a marriage is a ceremony in the previous context, as far as being 'forced to' that's probably too strong a word, if they don't perform within their job scope that can be fired.
society has already decided that you can't discriminate on race, religion etc but denying something that is custom, off the menu isn't the same thing in this context of an event,ceremony whatever you want to call it
Was he willing to sell them a cake, yes.
no discrimination, no issue
Was he willing to make them a custom cake for their gay wedding, no.
he claimed an objection to the gay wedding, not the gay individuals.
until very recently gay people were not legally allowed to marry so this objection has been well known and existed for a very long time, this is nothing new.
so in that case what was the remedy to his refusal, a lawsuit and to put him out of business just because he refused to do something that he believed linked him and made him part of something he had an objection to. that's a threat of forced labor, you either do x or you'll be punished, fascist imo
would you force me to make a custom cake for a bris if I don't want to because I consider it genital mutilation? Can I just refuse or do I need to justify it and or have a religious objection to it? I'll sell them a cake sure, but not one that celebrates that ritual. Should I be sued, put out of business or in jail for not complying?
are people allowed to have different moral objections and act accordingly in the context of what I have posted? Doesn't do me any good to have a moral objection to something if you are going to force or penalize me for it, again fascist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
and they still can't understand how or why Trump was elected.
all this time I thought Idioactracy was a movie but it is proficiency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I love the crazy left.Attack with gross generalizations, metaphors, and biased labels, then demonize the person when they become predictably irritated.
then they talk about fascist etc when he decided he no longer wanted to take this abuse LOL
People like those will be the downfall of humanity.
this Andrew is a nobody who is looking to be somebody. He thinks this will bring him to some level of notoriety by attacking a big named person. If that was his best, he should just fade off into obscurity where he belongs.
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.
that's true, it's funny because I was think of something very similar, what if 2 men who somehow lost or didn't have sex organs wanted to get married, interesting question to be sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Show me the text.I'll be extremely generous.I'll even accept your choice of non-canonical scholarly "authoritative" biblical analysis.You're making a naked appeal to ignorance.
why do you think I could do that based on the countless times I have told you about my level of knowledge on the subject?
I assume something must exist for this issue to even arise, historical stories and the like. Hasn't there been a long tradition and teaching on the subject of homosexuality? Those who interpret it differently broke away and formed their own. Is it within the government's power to pick a winner and a loser in any religious debate?
here lets even take it a step further, let's make them prove their religion is real, how about that? If they can't then it's all null and void. Problem solved, fascism at it's finest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
my wife was vegan, she does eat eggs and fish now, but the though of killing a mammal is just upsetting to her. Vegans tend to be very low in important vitamins like vitamin D. She is obsessed with diets and dieting which annoys me because she is skinnier than when we married, a bit too skinny imo. Extreme diets can and do work for some people, but not all. There are some who do well and thrive with a vegan or vegetarian diet, same is true with paleo, keto and even carnivore diets. I've seen some very sickly looking vegans.
there's a lot of discussion as to whether humans are designed to be vegans or not etc. My opinion is generally humans were meant to be omnivores generally, though carbs and sugars in the amounts they are available are not good for us. I wouldn't say I follow a keto diet because I don't test my blood and I do cheat. Being that committed and strict is not in my nature or personality. However I have seen a lot of benefits from high fats, low carbs and sugars.
My wife as also reduced carbs and sugars with positive benefits.
Created:
Posted in:
Andrew is just trying to attack Ben and failing miserably, claims to be an objective journalist LOL wow. Ben made him look so dumb he should hide in shame. Wow Ben owned him big time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
good question but you will never get a straight answer, but I'm sure you know that already. you won't get an answer because it could make them look hypocritical.
Created:
Posted in:
to the actual question
How Did You Become An Atheist?
no one is born believing, I've never heard of anyone that was anyway, believing is something you have to actively do which is opposite of atheist when you don't have to do anything, you don't have to try to not believe right?
so everyone is an atheist until they are not and can become so again.
pretty simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Even so, you still have to show the rule.
but again I believe many of these things are open to interpretation are they not? If they are, does the individual have the right to their interpretation? Who decides if the individual's interpretation is wrong and who's is correct? If you think they are wrong do you think it's ok to make them accept yours?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
First of all, the cake guy does this all day long, this is not "forced labor".
lol dude come on, it's forced labor if he doesn't want to do it isn't it? I mean that IS the definition.
The objection was based on their sexual orientation alone, not that they were asking for a ridiculous cake.
the objection was based on a gay marriage as they were able to pick a cake from the case, so it was not actually based on their sexual orientation because he would have still provided a product to them.
Can we force a restaurant employee to make a milkshake or a cappuccino for a minority they hate? Yes.
correct as I have been explaining to secularmerlin it's about an action/verb and not a noun, please read those posts I don't feel like typing it out all again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No the difference between skin color and sexual orientation. If one can object to a ceremony/act/verb based on sexual orientation then one could also object based on skin color. What is the difference?
quite simply you don't have to do an action, the verbs I listed, you can not change your skin color. There are very religious gay people who believe gay sex is a sin so they don't have it (action/verb)
you also don't have to get married, totally voluntary and optional, skin color, not so much.
I hope that explains the difference that I see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) the "objection" is based on the idea that "I don't want to endorse sin" (THEN) there should be a reason to single out that one sin.
ok, I believe in that case that was part of it. Really though I don't think he should have even given a reason because he didn't have to being a free person who isn't a slave.
They've offered no attempt to explain why they refuse to make a cake for homos (a sin) and yet have no problem making a cake for divorcees (also a sin).
people and their opinions/beliefs can be inconsistent, that's human nature.
All of the sins that have the same penalties are the same priority.(IFF) homo marriage is claimed to be a higher priority than other sins (THEN) there must be some supporting evidence for this claim.For example, if you suppose The Seven Deadly Sins are "the worst of the worst", then pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth should all be treated equally, (OR) perhaps in order of appearance with Pride being the Worst.
that does seem logical when discussing something you don't believe in and is illogical. I don't know enough about religion to discuss the context you have presented.
though I will say you are demanding them to prove their religion/religious belief which doesn't seem to be compatible with a freedom of religion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
there's no way to prove either opinion true, thus I reject what I believe to be your biased studies and opinions, you haven't proven anything, it's your burden, not mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
the irony is not lost lol
hell there's violence on tv
so fickle and pedantic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
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.
for whatever reason some seem oddly confused between a marriage granted by the government, legal contract, and a religious ceremony which includes a marriage recognized by the government as a legal contract.
you can have a ceremony without being legally married or be legally married without a ceremony, they can be exclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And there is also an equally long history of objecting to eating bacon-cheeseburgers and marrying a divorcee.
lol you are really trying hard here I see that but come on LOL
you don't ask to enter into a mutual contract to have a person eat bacon-cheeseburgers do you?
so only your interpretation matters then, because you believe theirs is incorrect?
because, as you claim, they allow for other sins or things you think are prohibited in the bible that they can't object to homosexuality, it's all or nothing for you, correct?
The issue is not a failure to reach a financial agreement it is refusal of a service that is ordinarily open to the general public. We already have legislation that deals with financial agreements so if that were all then we would not need a "religious freedom bill" and we would not even be having this conversation.
correct, with a contract there has to be an offer, acceptance and a "meeting of the minds" and some other things depending. Which is why I have previously stated no reason has to be given.
you ask me for something or to do something I should have the right to say no because I'm not a slave.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm afraid that I do not see the difference. Please tell me specifically what the difference is?
we are going in circles here, how can I explain the difference between a ceremony,event,act (verbs) and skin color (noun) in any more of a plain way than I already have?
If you wish to reap the benefits of opening your buisness to the general public then you must open your buisness to the entire general public.
honestly I'm trying hard not to get frustrated here, the business was/is open to the general public, they could have purchased a cake from the case, his creativity, skill, artistic interpretation, his physical labor for which someone wishes to enter into a contract with him for is at his discretion. Do you recall people who were forced to work and had no choice, we called them slaves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
sure, so is football and lots of other sports
Do explain yourself.
honestly you don't know there are violent sports? what country do you live in anyway?
How does bias mean wrong? If you are using this against me I can use the very same argument against you if you actually think bias=wrong.
they set out to prove what they already believed, where exactly did I use the word 'wrong' oh that's right your the guy who just assumes and puts words in people's mouths, my bad.
the numbers and logic prove your statement is wrong which is why you didn't add it to the quotes
Guns are primarily used for violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What specifically makes homosexual sex acts between consenting adults immoral and heterosexual sex acts between interracial consenting adults moral?
as I have previously explained, I know little about religion and am far from a religious scholar, but there does seem to be a long history of objecting to homosexual sex, or is that incorrect?
I believe the muslims have a pretty specific idea about homosexuals even from my limited understanding and specific things and ways as to what do to on the issue of homosexuality. Since it sounds like they have specifics on this issue to they get a pass on refusing to provide services for a gay event?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
lord these guys are getting pedantic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How does this differ from objecting to am interracial marriage or a Jewish wedding in religious grounds? I'm afraid you cannot have it both ways. Either religious freedom gives carte Blanche to discriminate on religious grounds of it does not. If you feel that the baker would be justified in refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual person's wedding then you are also saying that he can refuse to do it for a disabled person's wedding or a black person's wedding. Is that your contention?
as I said objecting to the act of homosexuality or a religious event is not the same as objecting to someone's skin color, vastly different things.
@Snoopy
put it very well
they are being requested a service where they haven't been able to negotiate a mutual agreement.
and if we are to have freedoms then people shouldn't be forced to reach agreement under threat of force in the context I have outlined already.
I believe many religions have a long history on various issues. Afaik divorced people can't get remarried in a Catholic church, or that was the case at one time.
do you believe the bible is black and white or mostly open to interpretation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
(lower key, not smaller) I meant servers where rp is more causal than serious. it's just a statement of my preference not a judgement
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Hunting is a form of animal violence.
sure, so is football and lots of other sports
your take aways are impossible to prove, how many self defense situations don't get reported, no way to know.
harvard study yeah no liberal bias coming from them lol
your one source used tweets, blogs and facebook as evidence? um ok LOL
CDC study finds guns used MUCH more for self-defense than CRIME
CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’
The CDC’s findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research..
David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.
yup no bias at all
"part of the reason experts are so divided on the number is the difficulty in obtaining reliable survey data on the issue.
Another problem is that there is no consensus on the definition of defensive gun use."
your claim
Guns are primarily used for violence.
has not accounted and can not of guns used for target practice, collecting or historical uses.
there are what 300+ million guns?
if they were as you say primarily used for violence which includes hunting there wouldn't be any animals left to hunt and there would be far more murders, such a terrible exaggeration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Risk aka The game of Risk (I see I made a typo) is basically a world conquering game, very basic for the most part, old game, what you described just sounded similar to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree. How is refusing someone the services necessary to perform a wedding different?
that is not what happened, they had the ability to purchase a cake from the case, they wanted to enter into a contract for his creativity,skill,physical labor to make a custom, unique cake/thing to acknowledge,celebrate whatever their gay wedding and by agreeing he felt that would be accepting and legitimizing a gay wedding which he objects to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What is moral is opinion. What causes harm can be measured in many cases. What specifically makes homosexuality immoral and interracial marriage moral? Certainly neither one harms the person baking the cake.
I don't know, it's a religious thing and if we are to have freedom of religion then their beliefs must be accepted.
I'm not defending religion, just freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Many racists have historically couched their objections as religious and I fail to see the difference between refusing to bake a cake for a black man and refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual man.
one includes the act of homosexual sex, the other does not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
sounds totalitarian to me, and I disagree with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
One of the ways they did this was by refusing services to certain individuals (say baking wedding cakes for interracial couples).
the lines do get blurry, but again I would say that objection is purely on the bases of someone's skin color which is not the same as a gay couple and in the context of what I have said.
And since objection to homosexuality is mostly religion based is interracial marriage objection religion based?
homosexual sex has been deemed immoral for a long, long time and in just about every country, I'm not sure if that's true for interracial couples.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If I sell someone a very fast car, and that person is convicted of speeding, I am not a "participant" in that "event".
that's correct because in the examples you gave they have used what you have sold for illegal or purposes or that are unintended.
you are talking about things, you sell very fast cars already, that is nothing unique, much like the baker he sold cakes which he offered, they were not unique, the request was to enter into a contract for a unique cake.
if you ask me to do some kind of unique or custom service etc don't I have the right and freedom to say "you know what, I just don't feel like it"
Created:
Posted in:
so it's basically and expanded version of "The gave of Risk"
I prefer the lower key D&D servers, pbp
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
By the guidelines you have outlined a majority acting in concert can deprive minorities of certain freedoms entirely. This was the case before the civil rights act and why they were instituted in the first place.Your intentions may be noble but you ate creating a very slippery slope when you say "any reason".
no, before civil rights they were denying people, not actions,celebrations and things I've already outlined.
we have to allow any reason to maintain freedom over one's self and their person. this includes refusing to make,create, participate in any religious settings, or just the ones I agree with.
if you believe people have bodily autonomy and the right to do with it what they wish, then they also have the right not to use it to work,create or labor for an event they don't want to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
so what you seem to be saying, if you were in such a position you'd rather choose a gun than to try and tackle, grapple or use your bare hands to stop a gun man? Seems logical to me, even Captain Obvious would agree lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How is celebrating a gay wedding any different then celebrating a marriage of divorcees, or a wedding between two felony convicts, or a wedding between a Christian and a non-Christian (which is specifically prohibited)?
I'm not as knowledgeable about religion as you are, so I don't know. You seem rather insistent wanting to apply logic to something you consider so illogical to begin with.
Everyone has different values and things they object to, that is their right and should be. As I have said this is one of the prices for freedom, letting people choose freely rather than being totalitarian and making them prove it or justify it to your or the state's satisfaction.
To me this is very similar to a speech some white supremacist, nazi would might have, no matter how much I may hate it, it still needs to be protected if we are to maintain freedoms, either everyone is equal or they aren't, this includes people who make choices we would not and we would even consider repugnant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
again the refusal is not based on the person, but the reason for the proposed contract, but even then as I have said in providing certain services anyone should have the right to refuse and not give a reason so what the true reason doesn't matter, though I guess if you could show a pattern.
No you can't discriminate based on characteristics, being gay is a characteristic, a gay wedding is not, it's an event, celebration, whatever, you can choose to participate or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There must be reasonable limits on what a person can claim.
there is, we all just posted at the same time lol but my post #148 should help I hope.
I don't know what the bible says so I'll take your word for it.
you are attempting to apply logic to something you can't prove and must take on faith, believe in. Tilting at windmills
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
we posted at the same time lol
so I've kind of narrowed down exactly what I'm talking about since this is getting blown out of proportion. I hope that clears it up a bit if not lmk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
this has is going out into left field and I think we need to bring it back to a focus. The issue as I see it and in the context of what I have already stated is the objection is to the act not the person. The whole hate the sin love the sinner, something like that anyway. To have an objection to an act that you have a moral problem with is fine and should be protected imo. The cake issue specifically, he had a problem with a cake that celebrated or was for a celebration of a gay wedding, an act/event. it's kind of like objecting to the message not the messenger, not sure how else to explain it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
we aren't talking about race or sex, but rather a religious exception.
The issue is not forcing someone to do something that they would under normal circumstances refuse to do it is in insuring equality which sadly often requires legal action.
how do you insure equality? threat of force ;)
if they would not normally make a gay wedding cake then that doesn't apply to what you have said I don't think
should a muslim baker be forced to make a jewish cake?
how about a muslim cook, should he be forced to make pork dishes?
you see we can refuse services for a variety of reasons that are or don't have to have a religious objection
if I'm a baker can I refuse to make a religious cake?
I wouldn't make a cake celebrating a dictator or mass murderer etc and I shouldn't have to or be forced to under threat of law.
if we want equality we need to apply this standard equally right?
let's not conflate the issue and call it services because I am talking about specific and a narrow position for which I think they have a right to say no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
how else can you force someone to do something they don't want to?
I believe he feels people should be forced to comply, I've asked him repeatedly about that.
what happens if you don't do what the government says? they send people with guns and put you in a cage to make you comply. I don't think that is an appropriate solution to someone who won't use their time and energy to do something special for someone. My position is people are sovereign and they shouldn't be forced under threat of law aka people with guns to make them use their time, energy etc to do something they don't want.
I've stated this does not apply to employees, life saving services and the original definition of what human needs actually are, not wants. They wanted a cake, they didn't need one for example.
on a personal note I disagreed with the cake shop owner, however I believe his rights needed to be defended for all the reasons I have given. Much like the 1a speech you agree with doesn't need defending, the 1a is for the speech you don't agree with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
they fail to see the big picture and future technology, if you haven't yet, look up diy lowers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Guns are primarily used for violence.
is that true? citation?
what % of gun owners use them for violence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The following is a conditional statement.(IFF) you claim your objection is based on your religion (THEN) you need to present the specific text.
whether they choose to give a reason or not it's their choice they have the right and freedom to choose not to labor in the context I have already laid down. Their body their choice.
there doesn't have to be a specific text, it's their interpretation of it, hence belief and freedom of religion.
does the muslim religion have specific texts, I honestly don't know but I assume they do since they toss gays off of buildings etc they must, which I gather you'd give them a pass but not other religions unless they can present the specific text.
I think there's plenty of precedence of how some religions feel about gays. Can get receive communion, be priests, nuns or hold certain positions in some churches? Are there still some who will not perform a religious gay wedding? I believe these are still the cases so the objection seems consistent for those who do object.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
the real underlying issue is, he's a business man that became president, which means you don't need to be a lawyer or political person to run the country, he's ripped down the curtain and hopefully people are waking up to that fact.
he has a lot more money than I ever will, more houses, yachts etc I'd be happy to be as big a business failure as he is.
Created: