TheRealNihilist

No shit, nobody asked for there to be one, and again how closely you resemble a nazi is showing. You must think this is the endgame and are fearing some sort of threat to your authority to randomly bring it up. (otherwise this would have went unmentioned). This is sad and pathetic on your parts is a small debating website and now that you feel like you have a bit of authority, you think you hold some sort of real power. It goes to show that you hopefully are never handed  any power in real life. You will feel threatened whensomebody thinks power shouldn't be monopolized. You are an evil person and you need to take a close look at your soul and decide whether you want to remain evil or if you want to be a servant leader who works to democratize power

Absolutely untrue. If it were the case the only remaining member of the mod team would probably be ragnar, and discussions leaked to me about how the mod team chooses new mods are quite revealing. Their decisions are based on statements like "You know, we could really use a conservative or female mod" and qualifications are not discussed. Mike picked BSH1 on a whim and anyone who has been a part of the community for a while could predict precisely what bsh1 was going to do, and he did not disappoint when he started surrounding himself on weaklings completely dependent on him for their social standing and enforcing policies in a way conducive of bringing "social justice". Had Mike not been stupid about that choice, this site would be 5 times bigger, he doubled down on that retarded decision by picking a mod while not as bad as bsh1 lacks the emotional and social maturity for the position. 

If I were interviewing these people I would never hire them for the job. I don't see reducing the standards merely because it is an unpaid position. There are people of higher quality willing to take the position. Previously you had a person who sat in Mcdonalds all day and typed on his computer. Now you have somebody who stocks shelves at a grocery store and is bullied by everyone in his personal life. 

My goal is to usurp power and then democratize it until Mike learns better judgement or gets lucky with one of his moderator decisions.

I assume it is an ego thing. "Only I am responsible enough to sift through reported posts in a competent way".

The lying part is bullshit. 

I can afford to do so because of my superior strategic ability in other areas.

Your main forum hasn’t had a post on three days. This site is dying, and it’s going to die entirely if there’s no excitement. Implement a presidency. 

I shall repeat myself with different wording. Third time shall hopefully be the charm. To maximize freedom, there should be laws to prevent you from taking away others' freedom. Murdering someone takes away their freedom.

the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

They have a right to life, and by protecting that right, you are also protecting their freedom. They are very much related.

Are rights something fabricated by the government, or do you believe that people innately have rights (such as to life) because they are human?

That was the best I could do by only putting in as much effort as you have been.

Murder is an infringement on your rights, which limits freedom.

Freedom includes protecting your rights

Do you believe that human rights exist, or are they just some construct that we randomly came up with?

Well, you are supposed to have some rules that prevent you from infringing others’ freedom. That is how you maximize freedom without anarchy.

As we are seeing in Virginia, people aren’t really willing to stand for infringements on their rights. Now, if they incrementally limit freedoms, people generally don’t notice and they do lose it.   

This could get into some basic territory because I believe rights exist outside the government and the role of government is to enforce those rights. You seem to think rights only exist in government.

Thought and application might be terms too ephemeral to a philosopher as yourself.

I don’t believe that it is necessary that the intolerant will overpower the tolerant, so long as we have our Second Amendment 😎

But you can be tolerant of intolerant people.

If a person says they are intolerant of something, and you do not call for them to be censored or banned or whatever, and you allow them to talk about how intolerant they are without violating their First Amendment right, you are being tolerant.

Explains why 1st amendment applies to people you do not agree with, even if you think their speech is hateful.

There are either gatekeepers for human thought, or there are none.

Bush, Obama, and Trump have been sending troops to the Middle East, many of them engaging in conflicts. Congress has the right to declare war, and presidents have been working around that.

Some countries like Iran and areas like Palestine have a strong bias against us, so it would probably aid diplomacy if we weren't involved in those.

Science means I know I am a state highway.

If you say otherwise, that means you are a nazi-commie who is against highway rights.

Exactly what I mean.

I suppose the pursuit of understanding would be meaningless to someone who identifies as a nihilist.

That's a loaded question considering France and Germany have polar opposite foreign policy goals.

I believe that I am consistently a high quality poster. 

What you get out of me is directly proportional to the amount of honest effort you put into having a conversation with me.

Simply trying to disprove my position is a waste of time when you don't understand it. You won't understand it if you reject it upfront.

I represent a very simple position, one that gets to the root of atheistic superstition. If I was believed, it would be apparent that I am only speaking the plain and simple truth. There is no reasonable argument against the position I represent, because it is flawless.

The Eternal Way of Truth.

How it is supposed to be and how I hope it to be.

European countries still have decent militaries, they just pale in comparison to ours. Compared to Middle Eastern and African countries, European countries are very strong militarily-speaking. We are definitely a boon to a diplomatic deal, but we need to quit walking back on promises before everyone loses faith in us.

you misunderstand. I don't care what they identify as. they can believe they are a martian for all I care. If they do not meet the requirements to be the thing they claim they are, then they are not that thing. 

sorry, in the context of your sentence I had thought you were referring to free as in the cost of an item. 

You aren't going to be able to get through to delusional people

We can work on convincing the majority of americans that this is what the republicans are about so that they don't manage to succeed

1) no election has a "public vote" every vote is private.

2) that is exactly what a jury is. They are a representation of society, IE a jury of your peers. They then vote on whether or not you are guilty. 

between 2 individuals, sure. Between nations there is no court for that. We do have bodies such as the UN that could very easily pass resolutions on the matter if the US didn't always block them. 

again, with the UN, sanctions etc we don't need Israel to agree they are stealing. Everyone else sees they are stealing and want it to stop. We can take steps to make them stop even if they don't agree. 

lol so pointing out how silly your question is being anti-intellectual? I think you just can't stand it when people don't immediately agree with you. 

you think that people who are dirt poor and fighting for their lives can be tariffed into surrendering? The Israeli's have been blockading Palestine for years, it only hardens their resolve to keep fighting.

Israel holds all the power in the relationship. They are occupying the land, they have way more weapons and the US as their backer. 

Investment would be for private businesses to do. If the US is able to negotiate a stable framework for peace, then that kind of investment will likely come.

We now accept life is due to evolution through natural selection so, could it be that if a God exists, such an entity was itself a result of the same process?

True, anyone can be delusional and it would be fair to say that everyone has suffered from delusion to some degree at times.

However, what I am talking about here is people who are deluded a good deal of the time.

Anyone who believes in God is deluded, a fact that I have clearly qualified in post #10.

My concern is that perhaps religion exacerbates the degree of delusion in its followers.

For example, Christian Churches not only constantly confirm the presence of an imaginary friend but also promote other idiosyncratic beliefs such as possessing a soul and earning an afterlife for being loyal.

The "God gene" hypothesis is but one of many research studies that indicate that some people have an inbuilt disposition to accept supernatural phenomena and accept things at face value.

That doesn't answer the question. And doesn't make any sense either.

That doesn't answer the question either. Can you not stick to the question. 

Well again, you haven't even  attempted the question but posed one of your own that has nothing to do with the OP.  This is how intentional diversion starts, by someone like you not even entertaining the question but prefer to challenge the questioner.  You will then complain later that I keep repeating the question because you have chosen to  ignore it altogether or have pretended not to even see it  because you have buried it under piles of irrelevant shite of your own.

You simply do not have to comment on this thread and you do not even have to click on it to look at the content, you know its my thread, it has my name right next to its title like so; Author: Stephen.  but you just cannot help yourself, can you.

Who was the god......Author: Stephen.

"if God is three and one at the same time, who was the God in Heaven within three days between the  crucifixion and the supposed resurrection"?

I would argue they are not in fact a christian. 

how does things being free have anything to do with democracy?

But that is a cop out. They actively choose to allow people to die then try to pin the blame on others.

lol that is exactly how a trial works. It is called a jury of your peers. 

I'm arguing that a country should not be allowed to steal land. The entire world sees them stealing the land and calls it what it is. 

lol I answered your question. Conflict usually has far greater downsides than upsides. Recognizing that is not "feelings driven".

trade benefits both sides. If the US treated the palestinians like actual people instead of backing Israel at every opportunity, why would they not want to work with the US?

Who is waiting 4 years for what?

The issue is whether religious followers are deluded inherently or by becoming religious.

Do you have any comment to offer on the issue?

Are they though? If you call a country a democracy, but it is a dictatorship, should we accept that it's a democracy?

If they don't have free democratic elections, then you aren't a democracy.

If you don't actually follow the teachings of jesus, then you aren't actually a christian. You can call yourself that all you want, but if you think poor people deserve to die, then you definitely aren't a christian. 

again, so what? The thief says that they aren't stealing. the rest of society agrees that it is. Israel says they haven't stolen the land, most of the rest of the world agrees that they did. Who cares if what Israel calls it?

Military contractor companies love conflict. But to society and the american people, little to nothing. 

some people reap tons of benefits. The companies that make the weapons the US gives to Israel make a killing. Lobbyists spend a fortune wining and dining politicians. Politicians get a big "friend of Israel" badge they can use to campaign with. But the american people get stuck funding death and destruction. Some of them end up dying in the inevitable backlash against america. 

Well, we have a system of checks and balances. We don't want one branch of the government to have too much power, which is why Congress should be in charge of military intervention. You need a majority consensus from over 500 different people to go to war vs just one man.

Military isn't everything with foreign policy. There is also diplomacy, which they aren't reliant on us to conduct. 

It may deter allies from helping us in future projects.

Also, the president should really need the approval of Congress to do something like that.

I said "ideological lines" because the more controversial and divisive decisions are generally the close votes. Those are based more on either a traditional or revisionist interpretation.

This shows what percent of decisions are unanimous: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/empirical-scotus-amid-record-breaking-consensus-the-justices-divisions-still-run-deep/

Tax contribution. Or, in rare cases, they could have spill-over effects, but that is incredibly difficult to track. 

I could have. I view this particular "cost" as a wasteful one, which I tried to explain through the context of my overall message.

Sure, some may pay sales taxes and other such things, but they likely won't pay income taxes for being super poor. Since they take more than they pay, and we also have the ability to prevent them from entering the country, I think we should do so.

Well, veterans have sacrificed a lot for our country. I guess this could be another manner of "contribution" that you mentioned earlier. We also pay them very little compared to the amount of risk and the importance of their work. So, I am fine with providing them with some benefits other than just money.

I am appealing to individuals on this website on that viewpoint. There are lots of people who are both liberals and conservatives who have very serious concerns about the debt here. It will likely become a bigger issue in the future if we don't get it under control soon.

that is a loaded question. If you asked a republican what is more important, religion or policy, alot of them are going to say religion. But then if you looked at their record that would not be the case. 

again, so just because there isn't a court that can try them for their theft, that means it isn't theft? That is a pretty terrible argument. 

They wouldn't have to send massive amount of aid to the Israelis or the Palestinians. They would get enhanced trade opportunities. Less conflict would likely lead to less attack on american troops and their allies in the region. There are countless ways america would benefit from peace.

What exactly do you think america is getting out of it?

There are certainly religious aspects to it. Access to religious holy sites for example. But I would argue it is much more about politics, land and power than religion. 

lol is that a joke? Just because a thief doesn't consider it theft, doesn't mean it isn't theft. Of course Israel doesn't consider it theft. Almost everyone else disagrees. 

No, not really. If the region were peaceful and not wracked by conflict america would benefit. Backing one side over the other and then pretending to be neutral only undermines american interests. 

America spends huge sums of money propping up israel. They have spent decades pissing off arab powers in the region. This has created tensions, death and destruction for decades. This is not good for america or anyone else. Peace is good for business.

9-0 decisions are fairly common. Sometimes it is just a matter of law and "liberal" or "conservative" ideas don't really apply.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/unanimous-supreme-court-decisions-are-more-common-you-think/

It will allow those in charge of giving out "green cards" some more discretion. If they believe that someone, after they become a citizen, will use welfare, they now have the ability to not grant them citizenship. A "public charge" is someone who costs the country (in tax dollars) more than they contribute.

I think that we are currently spending too much on the military. Without a military, you can't have a country, so I guess I am "pro-government" in the sense that I am not an anarchist....

I don't really think so. I think a person can be charitable to another person. However, with taxes, the "country" is spending other people's money and therefore I don't consider it charitable.

Yeah.... There are people that care about it, just not enough to actually do something about it.

The SCOTUS just voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow new changes to legal immigration. It will allow immigration officials to take into consideration whether or not a legal immigrant will become a public charge and rely on public assistance.

This seems rather pragmatic to me: why would you let someone in the country who will end up costing you money?

We are a country, not a charity, and being a charity is precisely why we are racking up trillions in debt.

The main reasons they don't want peace are political. 

They are occupying and settling land they do not own. That is theft. Most of the world acknowledges those settlements are illegal. 

That's the same argument the US used to back dictators and despots all over the world. And just as in those cases, taking israel's side on every issue is only prolonging conflict and killing people. 

Supporting Israel's continuing the abuse of innocent people and outright theft because it is politically expedient? I don't see how that could be moral at all. 

You kind of hit on my point. Israel doesn't want peace. They want to occupy as much of Palestine as they can.

If they agreed to a peace deal and put down lines, then they would have to give back alot of the land they have stolen and stop stealing more.

But since trump and his team are willing to back literally everything on Israel's wish list for screwing over the palestinians, Israel is signing onto the plan.

If 2 groups are fighting and one side is continuing to fight, then that isn't peace. You cannot unilaterally impose peace on people. Especially america trying to impose peace on the middle east by taking Israel's side on every issue.

yes. If one side is continuing to fight, in what way is it peace?

Can their be peace without Palestine accepting it?

no. 

Yes, but since one side isn't even going to discuss it

I don't understand why you are focusing on the word peace.

Trump is saying he has released a peace plan. But since the Palestinians are obviously not even going to talk to them about this, it clearly is not. 

Why would a discussion about the definition of the word peace be relevant?

for what purpose exactly? 

We could go with:

"freedom from disturbance; tranquility."

or

"a state or period in which there is no war or a war has ended."