YouFound_Lxam

No, the problem is that what I described is not necessarily a conscious characteristic. Because people are different, within two people, there will always be the more masculine person and the more feminine person. That is how tautologies work.

And when people hold a characteristic, they can amplify it over time. So yes, the feminine guy can certainly become more feminine in the future. However, homosexuality of two males is based on two males, not two masculine figures. If I have two feminine guys liking each other, why do you think they aren't labeled "lesbian"?

I gave you a specific example and left the door wide open to continue this discussion in greater detail. But if “Really???” is all you have to offer in response you really need to think about whether I’m really the one who is being manipulated.

From books. It goes back to this thing we call the enlightenment. Please google it if you are unfamiliar.

No one, it’s not being taught in grade schools anywhere. This is a made up issue concocted entirely within the minds of paranoid right wingers.

That’s the entire point of critical thinking and media literacy - to teach one to decipher through the political spin.

The fact that you heard me talk about these two subjects and immediately heard “politics” is a perfect demonstration of the point I just made.

Personhood = [a] born person. 

[A] born person = personhood.

This is totally invalid. Do you not see the circular definition here?

Personhood equates born person, and a born person equates to Personhood.

So you can't be a born person without personhood, and you can't have personhood without being born. 

Ok so what defines that. You are suggesting they equate, I am asking why they equate.personhood

[ pur-suhn-hood ]SHOW IPA

First, it is NOT circular reasoning It’s a statement of fact. 

PERSONHOOD:

noun

the state or fact of being a person.

This definition alone affirms my statement. Their equation is clearly stated within the term itself and how it is defined…the state or fact OF BEING [A] PERSON! 

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

PERSON:

noun

Human, individual

personhood

Yes, it [is] A stupid question. Words have very specific meanings dictated by the context in which they are used. If you do not comprehend the term birth, birthed, expulsion, extraction let alone person = personhood, asking how and why the latter equates = a patently asinine stupid question. Asking it makes you look like an ignorant (uneducated) fool. A fact you KEEP doubling and tripling down on. 

Your own written posts are my evidence you ignorant petulant child. Your own words. Period. Fact. Period. And every time you reply to me, and others, on this topic, you consistently prove me correct and you a continued fool on the subject. 

What part of what I have said, AD NAUSEUM, of the FACT that YOUR OWN WORDS and submitted in comments IS MY PROOF!!! You prove with each and every reply just how ignorant you are of the subject matter, AND your patent lack of reading comprehension skills. 

I NEVER called you [a] coward, the term used is “intellectual cowardice,” and in context it is an adjective describing your behavior, it’s not [a] noun. See…more evidence of your lack of reading comprehension skills.

Until you can demonstrate some measure of intelligence and reading comprehension skills…I just do not want to waste my time and effort beating a dead horse, as I continuously do here within the forums with you. 

You worship Trump, "the chosen one", and Christianity is only a prop, nobody is fooled.

You shall have no other Gods before me - Exodus 20:3

Would you say this about mentally disabled humans and very young children?

I imagine that much of this evidence is open to speculation, but even so evidence is not proof, proof requires evidence but evidence doesn’t necessarily constitute as proof and can be contested, whereas proof can’t, it is a position of absolute fact and one if used in debate attracts the burden of proof.

Very true. How are you reasonably certain that yours are right and mine are wrong? Or, do you simply concede that your perception is as likely to be errant as the next guy's and move on? 

Your profile states;

About me: "I want to have civilized debates about modern conflicts with rational people".

YouFound_Lxam (debateart.com)

I have seen no childish comments or questions from a single member on this thread.  Why do you believe that we are all childish, incompetent and irrational?

It seems you are unable to provide any proof to substantiate the reality you claim exists. It exists simply because you say it does and I can’t ague against that as such reasoning can be used to establish anything no matter how absurd.

I am interested in something beyond what you think "everyone agrees on." If there are translational differences, then not everyone agrees on it. You seem to ignore that.

OK drama queen, I take what I said back,  I seriously doubt the zoo has baboons stupid enough to replace you....maybe they can find it in the  reptile house.

Personhood = [a] born person. 

[A] born person = personhood.

You ask stupid questions, like “wait, so you mean a baby one second before birth isn’t a person?” 🤦‍♂️ JFC!! That’s not assuming a position, that’s just ducking dumb

You consistently ask dumb questions in this debate/discussion. And you clearly don’t understand the meaning to terms with obvious meaning within the context of this debate/discussion. Like born, birth, birthed, extraction, expulsion, so on and so forth. 

your continued denialism, banality, and comments lacked throughout the abortion topics (to include your own threads) = my evidence of your loss. 

Keep displaying that intellectual cowardice. 

That a lot of things point to the idea of a God and that a lot of things point to the idea of Jesus rising from the dead, isn’t proof. Can you name one of those things that gives definitive proof of God’s existence or of the resurrection.

If you are arguing from a position of faith I can accept that but faith isn’t an objective reality, it is the acceptance of a subjective reality.

The translational difference is not common knowledge and you don't look at details if you don't look at the words. You are confusing a general sense for an in-depth understanding.

This is some serious mental gymnastics: if any supernatural claim in the bible could be proven factual, it would somehow...invalidate the bible...?

Can you talk about some "things" that "point to" the "idea of God / Jesus"? 

Simply claiming something is real isn’t sufficient; it requires proof, what proof do you have to validate your claim.

The evils of factory farm

They have no control over their sex life and have no what we refer to as life.

Plan to free the animals and give them back their land

"Power decides everything" has become more clear than ever. Animals dont have power to defend their land, so it is not their land. But it is their land. It is where they lived for thousands of years, only to be captured and enslaved by humans.

To release billions of animals into the wild is a great task never achieved before. We must make sure the land  is suitable for them. That there is food. That there is no cars to hit them.

Changing to vegetarian diet

This is what humans are supposed to do. Vegetarian diet may not be as tasty as meat, but it is suitable for us. It is entirely possible to live on it.

Besides, the joy of eating meat is a joy that disappears in 5 minutes after it appears. "Extra joy" is hardly a justification for our actions that are everything except joy for billions of animals we imprisoned and tortured.

We even force our children to eat meat, lying to them that they wont grow unless they eat it. In a sense, what we saw as great could be the worst thing we have ever done.

However, we can still reduce the harm of our future actions.

Then can you establish that what you perceive to be reality is in fact real. And perception isn’t a choice as you can’t choose to believe something you perceive to be false.

If you love Trump so much, you should go to prison with him.

I'm sure  the zoo has really stupid baboons that can replace you.

He's asking which version OF CHRISTIANITY, not reality. 

Mmmm, close...I'm saying the moon and Christianity share similar levels of global exposure, and do not seem to need additional "awareness" to the tune of 7M dollars. 

Well, I don't understand your interpretation of the verse, considering I've always heard it used when trying to inspire Christians to actually DO stuff and not just claim to be Christians. You need faith AND WORKS, according to the many interpretations of this verse I've heard. Yours is the one that's different, I'm wondering why, and why anyone should share your understanding, I'm waiting for you to help explain it. 

Also I don't understand why there are denominations. 

The thread is evidence of you losing. 

Your flagrant ignorance of the subject is what I found irritating. 

I mean really, FFS!! In another threat I made a crystal clear statement about personhood and you reply with yet another fucking stupid question. It’s like, do you not read what other people write? What part of the word born do you not understand! It’s stupid statements/questions like that proving it would be an exercise in futility to get into a debate with you on abortion. You’re not obtuse on purpose, you really are that dense when it comes to this subject. Which is so frustrating because you can appear so intelligent and articulate in so many other discussions. 

I always thought the feminine gay is the passive and the masculine gay is the active, because in every homosexual relationship there should be someone who plays the man role and the other the woman role.

Which version, beliefs vary?

So you don't focus on the details and just look at the "big picture" and general notions?

Because it struck me as odd, I've never seen a commercial for the biggest religion on earth (a claim many Christians make). It's like making a commercial for the moon. I guess I'm alone in thinking that there are more Jesus-y ways to spend 7M dollars, and that it doesn't seem likely to me at all that there's any return on investment here for Jesus. I don't think there's a large population of near-Christians who are watching the superbowl and this ad puts them over the top. How many could there be? 500? 1000? 

Will the ad be for the right version of Christianity, do you think? how will you know? How can I know?

So, how do I know your interpretation of the Matthew verse is correct, and not what so many experts have said (that it means you can't get in on faith and faith alone, that you need to have acts too)? Seems a pretty big bet, given the stakes, no?

I don’t think you can have a specific “real Christianity” as Christian beliefs may and do vary, and as belief creates its own reality then that reality will change depending on your belief.

Trump = America

However, we can't measure the same way in a homosexual relationship. If there must be a more masculine and more feminine individual within the two, but both are men, one of them must be the more feminine one as different individuals cannot absolutely be the same.

You did lose. 

Period. 

Fact. 

Period. 

Denialist. 

Personhood = [a] born “person.”

Here end of the lesson. 

I asked about personhood, not life or "valuable life.

The problem is with translations. The bible isn't falsified when a translation is falsified, but the student should investigate how and why a translator made a particular choice when other translators chose differently. If one does not read ALL translations, one might think that the verse is only talking about dragons. Is it? You say it is talking about "great creatures of the sea" (which would not include dragons). How do you get to that generalization from the Hebrew?

The entire point of debating your position is to demonstrate that your beliefs can withstand rational scrutiny. 

Belief in a being, or in anything that is not bound by the laws of logic make such belief irrational by definition and as such should be dismissed out of hand.

There is a clear difference. He just doesn't want to admit  the fact that both  of those verses are not speaking of an event 700 years into the future but is to happen in Ahaz's own life time. Rosi. 

And only the most ignorant will deny it.

As I stated. Not true accounts per se.

So what "fish" is likely to swallow a Man.

And flood events occur all the time.

And exaggerated tales are the consequence.

There are so many logical reasons why the Noah's Ark story cannot be true.

So a bloke in a boat,

Rescued a goat,

Or two,

On a particularly wet day.

And on the same day,

A bloke out swimming,

Encountered,

A Basking Shark.

What a lark.

And the rest is history.

So how do you know he's wrong? In other words, how do you condemn his position as incorrect when you raise the same objection? Seems like he's studied it quite a bit to me. Maybe he even speaks Hebrew, which would definitely put him closer to the orignial text than a translated manuscript that you picked on personal preference. A preference, by the way, which rests largely on the words that you are reading, and not on accuracy. 

Well, one way is by reading in the hebrew and not in a translation, but your question can be applied to your position -- how do YOU know? You say that they all "say the same thing" but they don't. The Hebrew, by the way, is not vague and one does not need a microscope to see that. You introduced the "Many young woman could be virgins" so the looking through a microscope to explore possibilities is yours.

Your claim was that all the versions say the same thing, that they "don't mean anything different" so you are saying that "great whales" and "dragons" mean the same thing. Is that an accurate restatement of your position?

That’s not what a drag show is

Please provide the data which shows that drag queens are pedophiles. Somehow I suspect you have none.

Or, it could be that the person making such characterizations has no idea what drag is and is instead just interpreting them through their own bigotry colored glasses.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the Government are "People of the United States of America".

It's just that you are not an American person who is a member of the Government.

I'm sorry to have to tell you, that it's just how a society works.

Could be the USA could be Russia, which would you prefer?

If you want to run the USA, then you should have done better at school.

Or have a go and put yourself forwards for your next local election.

You're probably not ready yet for Senator or President.

Every time, or one time that you are aware of? Either way I’m sure you aren’t seriously comparing a segment which cut off, for which there are multiple possible explanations far simpler than some concerted effort to shy away from talking about Christianity - an explanation that itself makes no sense, to the example of Tucker Carlson - a guy whose own lawyers argued cannot be believed, using basic logical fallacies on a nightly basis to spread obvious propaganda.

And this is the number one program on all of cable news.

No, the two sides are not remotely the same, and it’s not the democrats who pose the bigger problem.

No, it should be taught in school, far before most people develop an interest in politics with the hope that they use the lessons they learn to guide them as they decide what they stand for.

It would never happen though, if any significant number of schools across the country started teaching this I guarantee the political right would start calling it indoctrination of their children and freak out just like they did over CRT. 

Because nearly anyone with a solid understanding of critical thinking and media literacy would be able to easily tell that right wing media is nothing but nonsense propaganda.

What's your answer to this question that would be substantively different than his answer?

Well, not in the original Hebrew text one. Rosends points it out above. 

Yes, Christianity, the largest religion in America, the cards are really stacked against it. 

"The media" is not a teaching tool. Critical thinking is critical thinking, I hope your school offers a course on it. Not a coarse. 

Ok, so which version of the bible is the right version to use? How does one decide?

Was Jesus's mom a virgin until Jesus (who is Immanuel?) was born?

Many young women are NOT virgins. Since to many, an essential element of Christianity hinges on a virgin's being pregnant, a translation which does not say that the prophecy is about a virgin would be significant.

the words therefore do not mean the same thing, and the agendas of the various translations come through.

In Gen 1:21's various translations, do you see a difference between "sea-creatures", "sea-monsters", "great whales" and "great dragons"?

https://biblehub.com/parallel/genesis/1-21.htm

Again, it’s a conglomerate. It includes everything from OANN to MSNBC to talk radio to even podcast networks. Information comes from many different places but you know where all of it ultimately comes from? Other people. So as long as there is corruption and dishonesty among people, there will be corruption and dishonesty in the media along with every other industry on earth.

The key here is to gain basic media literacy so you can tell when someone is selling you a bunch of bull. Like when Tucker Carlson pretends he’s “just asking questions” while the answers he pretends to seek are available to anyone with a computer and a phone line.

Disinformation has only gotten worse with technology now that anyone anywhere can say whatever they want and have it read by millions without any checks. Pointing to the media is a waste of time, the biggest problem we have as a society right now is that people do not get their information from reputable outlets anymore. Unless we start teaching media literacy and basic critical thinking our future is not looking very bright.

Anyone who is having sex with her without the intent to conceive is doing a bad thing in a bad situation.  That probably includes you if you have had vaginal sex with women.

I’m not contesting this, but your position is you would ban abortion even for rape victims, so you have to defend this no matter how rare abortions from rape were.

I’m using peer pressure to relieze that you can’t punish abortion too harshly, certainly not with the death penalty.

There is a good chance your going to deal with an unwanted pregnancy if you engage in recreational vaginal sex.

They will do it illegally (and there are ways they can do this, like getting drunk).  The state doesn’t know who is getting drunk.

It’s his fault the women got the abortion since his sex made her get the abortion.  If the guy just kept it in his pants, there would be no abortion.

It’s not paying off debt; it’s significantly reducing poverty and it’s paid for not by taxpayer money, but the money coming from the females and males responsible for abortion.