Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
No.
My case for this is that it will give this site more transparent which will lead to the users understanding what is consider ban-able or at the very least be up to date with what is going on with current ban-ings.
How is this a bad thing?
A public ban log has twice been rejected in MEEP processes, and I see little utility in stripping the process of the privacy it currently provides to the impacted users.
This person who had his/her account banned is public and there is very little information that can be public on this site which means there is very little a supposed mob can do to harm a user. If it does occur simply add a rule which I think you guys have that targeted harassment will be punished. So basically this is already a public site and very little information is given and the only way to harm the user is to harass them. If the person reports on it, that user who did the harassing can be punished.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
Are you allowed to swear?Of course not. If you fuck with him, he'll hire his goons to bully you and mock you on the thread.
Guess I won't get on bsh1's bad side then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How is this fair? You are comparing the GDP of an 8 year president compared to a president who has not finished his first year. I would like to know the average when Trump has completed his 4 years then the public can compare Obama's last year with Trump's year.Because by the Obama standard, 2% average GDP growth is showing extreme competence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Okay.
allowing them the opportunity to defend their actions, and then reaching a decision on whether to ban and, if a ban is indicated, for how long.
Can't the public of this site be notified on these developments? Like a read-only forum post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
What is more effective?Trials are prohibited. They tend to devolve into mob rule and popularity contests.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well there it is. An admission that the economy has nothing to do with the competence of the president.
Trump did something and the GDP was reduced. I showed you evidence yet you are still denying it. I would consider destroying the economy as the economy reducing to 1% GDP growth depending on if the GDP was higher than 2% or more.
It should be negative, not ranges between 2 % and 4 %
My graph showed a decrease. A decrease from before is enough to say Trump with what he did has made the economy worse at that very point with that specific thing.
3% average GDP growth doesn't show incompetence. Negative % would. Maybe even 1% average would.
Where are you getting this number? The link states this:
"The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-quarter initial estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see “Source Data for the Initial Estimate” on page 3). Updated estimates for the fourth quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on March 28, 2019."
Where is the improved version?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Only a person that can speak Arabic can go to their god basically (the rest of us be damned). That's the reply you'll get all the time.
I don't see the point of making the forum post then. In hopes there is a person who knows Arabic but is not a Muslim? That number must be small and DA is a small community as well so I don't know what he is doing.
You don't know how to speak Arabic, so your translation is flawed.
I used a translation he agreed with and it stated nothing about God being non-contingent or self-sufficient.
They think they're chosen by god or something that's why they "see it clearly" and we should trust their apologetic translations over our own eyes.
I think people like him are like that because they were indoctrinated into Religion at an early age. I was too but my parents were lenient so I am not as interested like him or forced to do so. I read up and realise Religion is really st*pid. There is a saying for people like him. If you didn't use reason to get into Religion how am I supposed to get you out of Religion with reason? Must have butchered but I am sure the message got across.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
From what I see since the second Quarter of 2018 there has been a decrease in GDP when comparing it to the third Quarter and the fourth one. Did you not see the graph? It is going down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I mean an actual negative rate of GDP growth, which is what you would expect from an incompetent president.
He is a bad president. Thankfully he is not doing worse. Is that what you want me to say?
You certainly would never expect a 3% increase in GDP from an incompetent president,
If it was down to Trump can you name me something Trump did in order for that increase instead of me chopping it to the economy working in-spite of what Trump did?
You would expect a negative %.
Why?
An incompetent president while slashing 1500 Obama regulations should at least by blind dumb luck if not incompetence, should have managed to remove the Obama regulations that were improving the GDP. Why isn't the economy tanking under an incompetent president?
Where did you get 1,500 from?
Regulation depends on if the government enforces it. If Trump basically said no were not enforcing a regulation from Obama it would be the same result. Guess Trump said I want to remove 1500 and did. The economy GDP was reduced. My claim was not that it would be in the negative. Trump can still be an incompetent president while not destroying United States economy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Oh this guy. Saw him a while back on this site. How long did it take to bust him?
Death23 in the debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/525
"So, by what Pro said of the rules, I was not bound in any way by rule number 3. In light of that, Pro's allegation of a rule violation doesn't make much sense."
Lol. I don't think I need to read more to understand how bad he is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That remains to be seen if he does continue to be like that. Agree that Mueller is more professional.I agree, Mueller has been far more professional than Comey. So far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Negative growth? I just showed you with the link. When those regulations were removed there was a decrease in GDP for US economy. Where is your evidence to support that de-regulation helped the economy? I care about the outcome of what Trump does and by looking at the outcome it decreased GDP growth. Your question is not important.The economy should be in negative growth if Trump was incompetent. Why is Trump allowing the growth to continue under Obama laws and regulations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I will allow you to pick the law you think helped the economy since I don't want to put in the time to see when it was announced and see with my source if it improved the economy. Doubtful but you can find 1 law which improved the economy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Use the filter to put it place around 2018-09-07 till 2019-04-07.
You will see a decrease in GDP when this law was announced (fall 2018). It was stated in the source you gave " amending and eliminating regulations that are ineffective, duplicative, and obsolete, the Administration can promote economic growth and innovation and protect individual liberty." From what I gather sure Trump removed laws but made the economy worse. Guess he did ruin what Obama stated.
How are these specific elusive laws allowed to stand where others were completely eviscerated during an incompetent Trump's maniacal purge of Obama's legacy?
Can you make this simpler don't understand what you mean here?
The question I am assuming the direction it may go is not important. When Trump did what he did it made the economy worse. Going against the very reason this was done which was "economic growth" in which the opposite occurred. What do you have to say to that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What exact laws did Trump allow to stand?
That should be enough. the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is one.
how are these specific elusive laws allowed to stand where others were completely eviscerated during Trump's maniacal purge of Obama's legacy?
What purge? Evidence is appreciated.
I watch Pakman to keep up with the news. I do check to see if he is correct with the evidence and he hasn't been wrong since. I don't want to watch a video about a conspiracy theory. I would like to look at the evidence but I did scroll through the video and not at one point or even the comment section did he provide evidence which I am assuming his position would be for the set rich conspiracy. Do you have evidence for the conspiracy?
Who are the left elites?
Here is what David was upset that HA Goodman was on:
Why do you think Mueller is quiet?
Don't know. He has done his job and I think wants to remain a professional instead of what Comey did which was go on various shows to advertise his book but maybe Mueller also has a book in the works. I have to see it to believe it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Public trials are more about mob culture than determining the truth.
What is the better alternative?
(The debate was Magic vs Death: “Humans depend on genetically modified organisms”.)
I can't find it. I copied everything within the speech-marks and it did not come up. Guess it must have been removed with Magic's account.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you trust Mueller? Why is he quiet?
I don't have evidence to believe otherwise.
I didn't see the message the first time which is why I am replying to it now.
The point is that if it takes a skilled politician to improve the economy, then the economy should be tanking right now under no proper leadership.
Obama did something. Trump took office. Those laws are still in place which means no the economy doesn't tank if the person who started it was not there any-more. I can use a hypothetical if you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It probably should have been longer considering he had 500 witnesses and any one of those indictments needed to be fully explained from creation to conclusion.
It doesn't take an entire page to talk about 1 witness and I am sure he didn't add witnesses which he deemed a waste of time to add. Might be the case the Mueller talked about all of them.
Not completely. There's far less documented fake news coming out of Fox to cover for political elites than Pakman and MSNBC.
Can you tell me your definition of fake news and a source of CNN or some left wing media being telling more fake news than Fox News?
If that was true, then the economy should have done way better than it did from 2008-2016.What looks good on paper doesn't actually translate to real world results.
Obama started the upward trend and Trump is not messing it up. Saying the economy is better now leaves out the fact who is responsible for the upward trend. Obama from a recession created a positive trend for the economy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
How about the option to be spammed?
Is that an option?
It will definitely reduce me missing something addressed to me or addressed in a forum post I made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fox news is biased. What is your point?It's also very interesting to see the effects of completely biased Media outlets like MSNBC and Pakman over the last decade.
Whatever chaotic ripples Bernie Sanders threw into the DNC in 2016 will pale in comparison to the bombs AOC and Ilhan Omar and others of the fringe will be throwing at the establishment candidate.
What is wrong with Bernie? Tax payer health-care and college. Are you against that?
Because the biased media was unable to critique Sanders on his policies, they will also be completely unable to critique and reign in the growing radical left of the democrat party.
When there is evidence that the single-payer healthcare is better than the alternative what is the point of critiquing? Where is fox news critiquing Trump?
and look very appealing to their base while seeming uninformed and out of touch to the independent voter.
Any rational person would know an experienced politician is better than a businessman in charge of the White House.
and that won't translate to a 2020 win for Democrats.
I wish for the opposite to occur someone like Warren, Yang, Sanders who Gabbard in charge but I do see Trump wining again. Would hope the DNC have Bernie as their main candidate instead of someone like Corey Booker.
I voted for him as the only choice against Hillary.
How is Trump better than Hillary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@bsh1
Would you guys have a trial on the next person you decide to permanently ban?
If not why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Did they know his IP as proof?
A trial would be great to watch and we can see if the person can defend his/her case or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you vote for him?Trump was never that smart to pull that off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Where the votes taken down?
What did he have to say about the matter?
Does the site do try him/her with a judge voting system where the judges are Virtuoso and bsh1 and they can pick a lawyer (like RationalMadman or Ramshutu) to present their case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What was he supposed to say? He has a 400 page report that speaks for him. Shame Trump wants to vet it before it gets to the public. If Trump does not publish it I think it would not be a good idea. He could easily win the election if he relies on the Democrats using that against him. Since Republicans supporters don't even care about that it would take away from democract position like free health-care and free college.Response to a non response? Mueller has been completely silent. No collusion.
Well, discounting Mueller's rebuke on Buzzfeed fake news. Mueller has been completely silent.
Stop using the word as if you know what it means. To be considered fake news it would require to be misleading and deliberate. I am sure you can have a case for it being misleading but doubt you have one for it being deliberate.
mostly centering on Flynn, Cohen, and others who had process crimes against the FBI and the IRS.
I doubt it takes 400 pages to talk about Comey and Cohen, FBI and the IRS.
Yeah there's stuff that was caught by Mueller, but there was no collusion. There was never any collusion.
I would like to see the report before I would say that. It can be the case where Mueller has all the evidence to indict Trump but not observable evidence at the scene of the crime or something.
continued silence from Mueller and his team about collusion.
You have to either believe they found nothing, or that they did not WANT to find anything.
False dichotomy since there are more outcomes than those. You haven't read the report and you trust an appointed official of Trump. I don't trust Trump so why would I trust his appointed official?
I'll wait until it is released. I doubt it would be and its complete state but it might.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do tell me your irrational response to this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Can't you just not swear?
If your opponent does you can report them and laugh at how incapable they are at remaining rational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I don't get all notifications to my email sometimes. I think it is because I am already on the page where someone is responding to me which is why it doesn't go to my email. Is that true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
This one:
No, because a form of government could be innately flawed and as such cannot be trusted with such leeway
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Which statement
For what part?
I am guessing this is what you mean:
No, because a form of government could be innately flawed and as such cannot be trusted with such leeway
By this logic why even have a government? Why not switch to Anarchy or Communism since you think the government is flawed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
The representatives are elected directly, by consent.
Why is direct democracy a good thing?
Although I might add this principle can be undermined by "opposition politics", by convincing people into casting votes to an unqualified lesser of evil.
Which has happened when the US were left with Trump and Hillary as their choice for presidents.
I am providing a brief example because there must actually be a sustainable means by which the people can successfully effect the ruling class.
Democracy is a popularity contest. The person who is the most popular wins. I prefer who is the best person for the job instead of having everyone's voices heard but a meritocracy I think can be easily corrupted. The corruption would be with the person who decides who the best person is. The person can make it easier for other candidates or accept bribes in order outright let them win. I think it would be easier in that system compared to a democratic one.
I may. That is a question that I deem more deserving of time
My response to that was valid to what you were saying. You could have phrased your statement better in order for me to not see what would be the best case scenario if I followed your standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
The American model is superior in this respect
How so?
Are you going to answer what I said before to you about the government?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Absolute nonsense.
Read the article and tell me if you can't find the Queen not being able to declare war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
By this logic why even have a government? Why not switch to Anarchy or Communism since you think the government is flawed.No, because a form of government could be innately flawed and as such cannot be trusted with such leeway
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Learn to read. I said apart from the ILLEGALITY
I know you said that but even saying that is a bad argument. Laws are created based on morals so saying something is illegal as a reason is not a good one.
I am saying we (17.5 million )want to keep the identity we have had for millena along with all our one laws and statues that have been developed over centuries and not be told what we can and cannot do.
The UK government does things to improve the country. As the millenia has gone on things have been removed, improved and added. One such thing that has been an improved is joining the EU. This has allowed the UK to be apart of the EU trades. Now that the UK for some st*pid reason wants to leave the EU they are now leaving one of the biggest trading areas in the world. More than likely the UK will leave with no-deal which will mean when the UK has left they are either ignore the EU as a trading partner or go back into the EU with a deal. Why the h*ll wouldn't EU make the deal worse for the UK in order to punish countries for leaving? It is like the d*mbest idea I have ever heard. You have more power inside the EU than outside while also being on good terms instead of bad ones. Do tell me how I am wrong about this.
I also said; autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-legislation, self-determination, non-alignment and freedom.
All of this is still with the UK when they were and still part of the EU. Do tell me how I am wrong and do provide a source.
Have you never heard of the Bill of Rights and the fkn Magna Carta?
How does this help your point?
You didn't ask that so stop lying. what you asked was :
Okay.
Hypothetical nonsense. . It wouldn't get passed the first reading. Stop being silly. Stop trying to be clever. You are showing yourself to be the opposite of clever.
Yes or no.
Junker is not elected by the electorate i.e the citizens of any country. Try reading what you have posted. - "by the European Council"
Yeah the European Council elected by the people who voted for their Prime Minister. Why do you want to vote on the head of the EU? Surely you can trust the person you put in charge as Prime Minister. If you want to vote on the head of the EU why not vote on every single law? If not what is the difference between the two?
Scroll down and see Thresea May is there which means the people who you vote for in a general election will be apart of the Eurpoean Council which will then vote for who is part of the European Commission.
So you have a bunch of unelected bureaucrats ELECTING their own fkn president.
They are elected by people who you elected. What is so bad about this?
I didn't vote for a single member of the European Commision who have elected a president for themselves, DID YOU? If you cannot grasp this the get off the thread your wasting my time and your own.
Do you want to vote on May's secretary of state as well? Do tell me the difference between voting for a secretary of state and a person on the European Commission.
autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, home rule, self-legislation, self-determination, non-alignment and freedom.All these above are being eroded by a foreign power.
You still have that under the EU and guess what they even protect these issues you have.
I wasn't consulted, WAS YOU!? This includes over 19,000 directives,170,00 pieces of legislation
Were you consulted on the The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018?
Oh wait so you were not elected to be in charge of voting for these laws but somehow have a double standard over foreigners voting on these laws.
What country are you from?
This does not help my position. I don't think you understand what the EU is and how beneficial it is to the UK. I'll answer it before you tell me how EU laws are passed in the UK correctly not some lie you must have heard of Nigel Farage or someone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
My main question is boldened. It cannot be further simplified. Does that make sense to you now?
As a rule should the government have a way in removing any law?
If not why?
Prime Minister can officiate a declaration of war but can't end it?
Prime Minister requires approval of the House of Commons to start a war. The Queen can simply say I want a war and she can have it but there will be consequences on her standing if she does. More than likely the Monarchy will be removed from the UK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
If there is law that makes the Queen's power null then the laws would be more powerful than the Queen. As of right now the Queen can simply on whim say she wants to go to war whereas the Prime Minister I think requires approval of the House of Commons.There is a separation of powers so when it comes to dictating laws, the monarch has no power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Depends on who has more power. I would still consider the Queen to have the most power since she can declare war without a Prime Minister agreeing on it but if she does use her power I would see lesser version of the French revolution. Basically the Queen has the most power but if she does use it then people will be mad which can lead to a removal of the Monarchy/Dictatorship.Its conceivable that a Monarch may have constitutional powers, and duties as a head of state, but laws are voted in by officials allowed in office through a process that involves democratic elections. Would you call this form of government a dictatorship?
That would depend now wouldn't it? Is it dealing with something imperative? In such a case, the process and the replacement could be a very important consideration in context.
Can you explain what you mean here? Do tell me when you are trying to talk about democracy and when you are talking about laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.
Why should this be valued? You simply stated what is but didn't say why this is a good thing.
So apart from the illegality
Bad initial argument. If it was legal to punch you in the face would you be for that?
this is total takeover of every aspect and field of a nation's identity and practices
Are you telling me the UK had no identity when they were in the EU? What are UK practices?
At this moment in time I would prefer a Monarchy but at any time I would never choose a dictatorship.
That was a trick question. A monrachy is inherently a dictatorship. Kim-Jong-Un reign is a dictatorship. People celebrate him like a God is he a Monarchy now? No so the rule of Queen Elizabeth is also a dictatorship. Sure both can be considered Monarchy but Monarchy's are inherently dictatorship.
But we are being dictated to by the EU and now our own fkn government who cares not for the DEMOCRATIC will of the people .
When the prime minister has a secretary of state is he she dictating that as well? If so what is so bad about that?
Democratic? The EU is basically a bigger version of the UK. They simply have a prime minister of each European Union member voting instead of city elected ones. What is so bad about that?
Great Britain is a democracy
You didn't answer my question. What if the UK voted to remove a law?
Yes. Although it is a fact that some laws are and do become obsolete. Such as cleaning your doormat after 8am. And of course new laws have to be created.
If lets say there was a law passed right now in the UK that made blacks become second class citizens? You would be against removing it after it was passed as law right?
I would say yes on the grounds that the 28 members of EU Commision are all unelected.
? President Junker is elected by the European Council
Each new President is nominated by the European Council and formally elected by the European Parliament, for a five-year term. As of 2019, the current President is Jean-Claude Juncker, who took office on 1 November 2014. He is a member of the European People's Party (EPP) and is the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg.
The European Council is
a collective body that defines the European Union's overall political direction and priorities. It comprises the heads of state or government of the EU member states, along with the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission.
If you scroll down on the second link every single Prime Minister of the European Union had an election for President Junker. Since the conservative party was elected by a vote and we do allow Theresa May to pick her own secretary of state why are you opposed to Prime Minister's representing the will of the UK in these elections for the European Commission?
Value what? If you mean Sovereignty, then I have already answered and explained this to you in my reply to your first question above.
No you haven't. If you haven't in your next response and you are reading this tell me why you value sovereignty and do also tell me the definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
MUHSIN KHANAllah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need).PICKTHALLAllah, the eternally Besought of all!YUSUF ALIAllah, the Eternal, Absolute;MUFTI TAQI USMANIAllah is Besought of all, needing none.ABUL ALA MAUDUDIAllah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in needSAHIH INTERNATIONALAllah, the Eternal Refuge.DR. MUSTAFA KHATTABAllah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
I did say I didn't see self sufficient what I actually meant can you point to the verse number as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Yeah it is weird that he uses the word sufficient but can't find where it is in the Islamic holy book. My 2 Gods example should also be a good enough argument and forgot to mention which is why mentioned it later on my earlier post where does it say in the Islamic holy book that God is a non-contingent being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
- Nothing in common!
Where in the Islamic holy book does it state non-contingent?.
- Already addressed.
No you haven't. Do copy what you think you address in your next post.
- Powerful beings, sure. Divine necessary beings, no. The moment a being is contingent/restricted/caused, that being is not a necessary being, by definition.
Okay then. How about 2 God's being non-contingent, non-restricted and uncaused?
- A contingent being, a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed. That is, it needs an explanation for its existence & for the change that occurs within it. For instance, a being unable to create life is restricted, thus requires an explanation for that restriction -exterior explanation, which makes it a non-necessary being, i.e. a contingent being.
Are you telling me God is not restricted is what you meant by contingent? Would like a yes or no before I make claims.
omar 2345 said: That part wasn't the problem I have. Why can't God live off our souls and then when he has used them simply put that soul into a baby in order to revitalise it?Yassine said: Whatever that god is, it's simply not a necessary being.
Where in Islamic book does it state God requires to be "simply not a necessary being"?
I would like to have had more to say but the question I gave earlier about contingent being restrictive would help me understand your position,
- Which is why that requires an explanation, something can not come from nothing without an explanation.
Do you concede this is begging the question or maybe I am wrong? You have asserted your conclusion to be true because God exists not because you are capable of giving an example of how Creatio Ex Nihilo can occur. Am I correct?
- Already done. Refer to previous posts.
I'll repeat what I said before and want to expect a different answer: So you are incapable of translating the words or finding a site which you agrees with you to cite here? I find this rather annoying when you put in the effort to find "SEVEN" renown translations even though you sent me the arabic version not the one that is translated. Where was the translated version can you cite a source?
- "=/=" means 'distinct' *not* 'equal'.
Are you saying God is a necessary being and not contingent?
No, have you actually read ANYTHING I said you'd know it's actually the opposite.
Understand now.
- God. Refer to OP.
Do you mind finding it for me? I don't want to find something you would not like or you can simply state your point again.
- I suspect nothing does.
Are you incapable of defending your viewpoint? You say
Because it strictly contradicts it.
Without explaining it.
- I'll repeat again, God = necessary being =/= contingent being.
Understood.
- Seriously, are you like dumb or something? Turn on the translations:MUHSIN KHANAllah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need).PICKTHALLAllah, the eternally Besought of all!YUSUF ALIAllah, the Eternal, Absolute;MUFTI TAQI USMANIAllah is Besought of all, needing none.ABUL ALA MAUDUDIAllah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in needSAHIH INTERNATIONALAllah, the Eternal Refuge.DR. MUSTAFA KHATTABAllah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
I am not seeing self-sufficient which is vital for you side. Which verse states this?
- How old are you?
So it is okay for you to use hypotheticals but not me? I keep using hypotheticals because it is a God debate and God's as far as I know don't have observable evidence or maybe you think it does. Do tell.
- LOL! I'm not getting mad, I'm LMAO this is too stupid.
Have a verse where it states God is self-sufficient or even non-contingent?
- No. I'm putting the Prophet (pbuh) authority higher than your stupid source, as are the theologians. Narrated Ibn Abbas, "They said, 'what is Samad?' he (pbuh) said, it is He on whom all is dependent" [Maftih al-Ghayb].
You gave me this very source:
You called my source st*pid even though I used the same source as you.
1) Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,2) Allah, the Eternal Refuge.3) He neither begets nor is born,4) Nor is there to Him any equivalent."
So basically you have called your own source stupid. Would like a response.
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, this is just precious. Are you an ostrich? You like sticking your head in the sand pretending things don't exist...
Do you even have a point? Lol would do just fine instead of spending characters on multiples HA's. I know what exists I just think what you claim doesn't exist and you have resorted to not even explaining your side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
"I think surrendering our sovereignty to a foreign power was a crime in the first place"
Why should the UK value sovereignty?
What is so wrong about redistributing power to a foreign nation?
Today we have despotic rule by the House of Commons, who claim authority even over Her Majesty the Queen.
Are you for a monarchy or dictatorship?
Are you for a democracy?
“there has been an interesting discussion on whether by passing a law, they (Parliament), can do away with the rule of law”.
What if it was democratic?
Is removing laws inherently wrong?
“No foreign Prince, Person, State Potentate. Hath or ought to have any power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, supremacy, or authority Ecclesiastic or spiritual in the Realm heretofore claimed...
Are the EU breaking this?
Why do you value this so much?
Make sure to include my name in the receiver so that I know when you have replied back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't this would take change a Religious person's mind.
My reason would be for this: More than likely they did not use reason to get into Religion so why would they use Religion to reinforce their beliefs or hear other viewpoints in a reasonable way instead of an emotional one?
I think this forum post is still good when you can point out that most claims that other Religions are wrong can be used for the very Religion they are sponsored too.
(Special disclaimer: proving other viewpoints wrong does not prove your viewpoint right it only disqualifies the debunked viewpoint.)
Making sure they do not commit a false dichotomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dylan_Kleboid
I highly doubt it is a security threat to the United States so yeah they should be released. Should reinforce people's ideas on how these people are created or maybe give them another idea that can be found on these tapes. It should be researched not stuffed away so that knowledge can be put into good use.Do you think the Columbine Basement tapes should be released?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Guess you copied my question to tejretics.
Communism. One is flawed because of how in-effective it is and the other is flawed because it uses pseudo-science as its foundation. I'll take the in-effective one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
If you would like I could look into some sources available on the internet and post some up for you over the weekend.
Yeah sure. I have reasonable standards for evidence. It has to be sourced. Meaning when the article is making a claim it can be directed to some type of data which supports their value statement or if it is only descriptive statement.
Is that okay?
Example would be this:
When they are trying to use evidence to support their point that evidence in text will direct you to the source. Those would be blue like the link above so that the reader can check if it is properly sourced. This can also happen another way with this:
Where you see all the sources used at the bottom.
I don't think I am asking too much because this is what is require for a point to have evidence.
Created: