YouFound_Lxam

And you have evidence for what Christians call the "soul" actually existing while scientists cannot even name it never mind prove its existance.

So what do you believe to have left?

What do scientist call it?...

You argument is logically incoherent: there can be no free will if god (a) planned for everything and (b) knows the outcome of every person's every decision, ever. You can't design something specifically to make errors and then get mad at them making errors. It's your design, you set up the rules, you fix it. 

This makes sin more powerful than god, is that what you believe? It's kinda like god's kryptonite?

If your consciousness isn't present then, under relatively minor trauma to the brain, how could it possibly survive death? Seems pretty obvious that the physical brain in good working condition is necessary for consciousness. Also, permanent brain damage can completely change a person's personality. Did that mess with their "soul" as well? Which is the "real" person?

So, let's say you die.

Your body is still present.

And it is  dead

So, let's say you die.

Your brain is still present.

And it is dead. You forgot to mention that the heart stops beating and that decay and rigor mortis starts immediately to set in.

But something must have left because otherwise, you would be alive. 

So what do you believe to have left?

Theoretically nonexistent" and "actually nonexistent" are different. We theoretically pay men and women the same salary per job, but somewhere on Earth there is probably some shady workshop paying men and women differently.

The topic, in respect to the leading post, is equivalent to saying (Population 1&2 have the exact same mean) when all we know is that we can't reject the null hypothesis yet.

You are actually correct on this one except for higher end salary negotiations. That is where there has been both a racial and gender pay gap.

Back to the squatter example, is this different than putting someone outside in the cold where they freeze to death without helping them.

The legal framework of you must help those you can stop from dying from preventable deaths does more to indict those with incredible wealth and those who interact with the homeless than a women engaging in an abortion.

How about this: Every drag show that lets children attend needs to hire police officers to make sure no pedophillia happens to children.

Oh, okay...so god didn't know what would happen, then. But...I thought he knew everything, couldn't be surprised?

Curious...so there's something beyond god's capabilities! Wait, but that would make him less than all powerful....

Arguing that something could happen is completely useless. Anything could happen. If you get on your car right now you could die in a car accident, but I’m pretty sure that’s not going to stop you the next time you need to go somewhere.

What matters is what’s reasonable to expect, and I just explained why this does not lead in that direction. Again, nothing about the left’s demonstrated values is contradicted in any way by the constitution, in fact it’s the exact opposite. The right is the side right now that seems to want to do away with it.

Wrong. People are crossing legally beyond the LPR numbers. Did you read the article? 

Look asshole. You created a post using a fake video showing Biden giving a racist, bigoted speech about transgender people.

You title the thread “Biden gives speech blasting “trannies” which is a offensive term but you are too ignorant to know that because of your white trash upbringing.

Then to top it all off, you declare that you now support Biden for 2024 because of the fake bigoted comments.

YOU ARE DEPLORABLE. You are the ignorant racist. You are proof that bad parents can pass their ignorance on to their children. Hopefully, you don’t and won’t have any children just like TWS, and the genetic bad seed will end with you.

“The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;  no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’”” (Leviticus 21: 16-23) 

Only a baby white trash redneck would call that bigoted speech articulate. You probably think Hitler and Mussolini were articulate too.

That’s a lie. But you do admit they are not entering the country illegally to start with, so your original statement that they are increasing crime by coming here is also a lie.

Then it is not unconditional is it?

Why must we fear him?

when I said we should just let the women take it out and let it survive. Saying that you said the issue in question is not the act of killing it and it's a matter of helping it survive is using YOUR words. If you are simply against the act of killing, then a women can remove the fetus, not kill it, and anything that happens is not her fault. If it's a matter of her having to help the fetus survive, then I go back to my previous question you keep avoiding, in your ideal world, to what legal extent, do we have to help another to survive? If you don't have an answer to the Catch 22, just say it.

These people - yes they are people, are not sneaking across the border. They are going to the authorities to seek asylum or legal residence. Just like your white trash ancestors did years ago.

So the increased crime in the US from people coming across the border is the actual acts of coming across the border? That’s brilliant.

No, just anti-white trash

Maybe the balloon is looking for Hunter's laptop.

The plan is to encourage people to live this way.

The way I see it,

if everyone agrees to not eat meat, then the meat industry will be abolished as no one will eat meat.

If plenty of people agree not to eat meat, farmers will reduce the number of cows they have.

In this case, meat industry will be reduced.

The plan is not "to make it illegal" in any sense.

I clearly said "if they agree", not "they must agree". Each individual has freedom to disagree and do what he pleases.

Technically speaking, speeding is an actual crime, but I'm sure you mean something else. And no, what I'm doing is demonstrating that more tickets don't necessarily mean speeding or traffic violations are increasing, the same way more arrests do not in and of themselves reflect a rise in crime. More cops on the street means that the guy who yesterday was smoking a joint on the street and got away with it, may be arrested today for doing the same by one of the new cops. That's not a rise in crime. It's a rise in enforcement. You can take the rise in arrests and then do further research (I know, you hate that word!) to figure out if a rise in crime is real, or if more arrests mean better enforcement, but it's just one component. Critical thinking bro. Read up on it. 

 But I’m not sure what proportion of youth drag shows involve that.

Surely a less of an evil than killing a cow.

Unless of course americans agree that one liter of milk daily is enough. That being said, 0.6 liters is usually enough, but I feel generous.

No, I already said we only need 700 million cows for milk, but we have over a billion.

Meat wont be replaced by milk and eggs, but by plants and milk and eggs. Out of those 3, plants are dominant.

Of course, we could replace milk and eggs with insects, but until I see more insect farms and eating insects is not being looked down upon, I will rule out insects as a solution.

I would have to see what you’re referring to.  I’m not sure if a kid being exposed to barely clothed people is pedophillia.  Otherwise, we couldn’t take our kid to the beach with hot girls in bikinis.

No, my friend, I'm afraid it's just one possibility.

If your town had ten traffic cops who sat on ten different roads one year, and twenty on twenty roads the next year, do you think traffic tickets in your town would rise?

How do you reduce crime, you make more arrests.

Tough on crime = more arrests

More arrests = less crime.

So if he's all powerful and all knowing, how did he fail at this goal? I mean if he can't be surprised, he'd have known that he'd view every one of his beloved creatures as disgusting filth worthy of eternal unspeakable torture. 

THen we can agree this love is in fact CONDITIONAL, right? And if we can't believe in him the way he wants, why doesn't he provide some substantiation that he's there, that he does love us, do you think? 

So where did they go?  According to the bible, I mean. Purgatory isn't in the bible, it was invented by Roman Catholicism, in response to this very problem, and is still subject to debate today. Not all Christians believe in it, specifically, Protestants largely reject the purgatory idea entirely. So, let's just use the bible, otherwise you'll end up having to explain why one tradition's addition to the bible is wrong, and others aren't. So, according to the bible ONLY, where do people who don't go to heaven end up? Where did, for example, the Native Americans end up? The ones who died through 1491. 

2 Maccabees 12:41–46, 2 Timothy 1:18, Matthew 12:32, Luke 23:43, 1 Corinthians 3:11–3:15 and Hebrews 12:29

So if I post an hour long video for you despite not even bothering to type any words to explain what it is I’m trying to argue, you’re just going to watch the whole thing without question?

Words and phrases have actual meaning.

CRT has an actual meaning.

“Subject X is being taught in schools” has an actual meaning.

When you assert something, but the something you are ultimately talking about does not add up to the meaning of the phrase you used to convey your original assertion, that’s being intellectually dishonest.

If it’s not in the curriculum, it’s not “being taught in schools”.

What you are talking about is a subject that often comes up in classrooms (because quite literally everyone in the country is taking about this) and the teachers share their opinions. But because you don’t like their opinions, you have decided to advocate for a world where educators are now barred from sharing their opinions.

That isn’t just pathetic on its own, it’s the complete opposite of what you pretend to believe with regards to free speech.

Don’t ever again argue that there’s a problem of free speech in America, because you and people just like you are its biggest offender.

In that case, they should become vegetarian. Vegetarian food is much cheaper than meat and doesnt spoil as quickly.

I doubt it would take away any rights. It is on voluntary basis. No one has to become a vegetarian or stop eating meat or stop factory farming. However, a farmer has every right to stop factory farming if he chooses. And buyer has every right to stop buying meat, if he chooses.

I've done so, and find your argument poorly supported and unconvincing. I think I've made that clear enough. Your evidence is cherry picked. 

sets and subsets. 

Like muslims and jews, they don't go to heaven, and not only that, they're tortured eternally. Or like a kid who dies at less than a year old, that was born in India...sorry Charlie, into the pit of eternal damnation, right? 

What about people who were born before Jesus? 

Also, how do you or I deserve eternal torture at all? I didn't do anything to Jesus. It kinda sounds like he doesn't like any one of us, at all, much less love us.