Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Really? I thought you said they liked the status quo? The status quo is not peace.Israel feels like it has nothing to gain from peace.
Right now Israel has to deal with works opinion, the threat to its citizens, and the cost of security. Of course it doesn't want the status quo. It's just stupid to say it does.
Let the Palestinians see that the land is NOT theirs, and that it will never be theirs, especially not by force of arms. And then they will come to reality and try to actually seek peace.
Let them sack Hama's, and stop the self-defeating terror tactics, and peace will naturally flow.
If Israel give the Palestinians all the land they say is theirs, and kept completely out of their business, rockets would still be raining down on Israel within a year of a 2 state solution.
@Swagnarok
That was an interesting solution. But at the time Obama was in office and allowed Russia to outsmart him in Syria.
But the Palestinians would have refused outright, insisting that Israel is their land.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I Appreciate that there is already a thread concerning biblical contradictions but I feel this particular contradiction deserves a thread of its own because it concerns god directly.
So you posted a fake quote of Jesus in the
biblical contradictions thread, it was pointed out to you, you pretended you did not see it, but here you are, with another thread, and another so called contradiction, having never addressed the answers given in the contradiction thread, or the charge of fake quotes.
Ok.
In Exodus 3:6 is this statement.
And Moses hid his face: For he was afraid to look upon God.
I'm sure you are familiar with the burning bush passage.
Now, had Moses NOT hid his face and looked, what would he have seen?
God, or a burning bush?
You read the bible like a 3rd grade literalist when you want a "contradiction", but at other times you will assume stuff not in the text and pretend your assumption is reality.
No man has seen God AS HE IS.
Your verse in 1st Tim 6 says, "whom no man hath seen, nor can see[God]:
In other places we are told we cannot see God AS HE IS or we will die. God must appear to us in some other form we can perceive, so that we don't die.
Later in the Epistles, we are told we will finally see God AS HE IS at the rapture because we shall all be changed to be like Him.
Your 1st verse,
The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day (Genesis 18:1).
God appeared as a man. One of three men in fact. This isn't seeing God AS HE IS.
Your 2nd verse,
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.(Genesis 32:30) King James Version (KJV)
Jacob only says he has seen God. When in fact he had only wrestled with a man. This is not seeing God AS HE IS.
Your 3rd verse,
The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).
I will post more of the passage so as to vanish your claim of a contradiction, OK slick?
9. And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses.
What did Moses see? A cloudy pillar or God? Face to face here means proximity, not what Moses could see. God was face to face close to him.
How do I know I'm right? In verse 18, Moses wants to, and asks to, see God. Why would he ask to see God in verse 18 if he had just seen God in verse 10?
But God replies in verse 20., you cannot see my face: for there shall no man see me and live.
So even your example you use to show a contradiction, has no contradiction. No man has seen God, in fact, No man CAN see God.
Only one man has ever seen God AS HE IS, and that is the man Jesus Christ.
When Phillip asked Jesus to show them God, Jesus asked Phillip, "Have I been with you all this time and yet you don't know me?" When Phillip looked, what did he see? Jesus or God?
Because of your ignorance and immaturity in Christian doctrine, you read the bible as if words can have only one meaning, and you cut verses and then act as if the little snippet you have cut is the entire verse.
So, no man has seen God AS HE IS. We see what God appears as so that we don't die.
1Co 15:51 - Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 - In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Jo 3:2 - Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
This "contradiction" is kaput jedthro.
Created:
Posted in:
This is an assumption without logic.They [Israel] are getting everything they want from the status quo. They have no reason at all to compromise.
Consider America and the Native Americans. America was in even a stronger position with Native Americans than Israel is with the Palestinians, yet America compromised.
Israel has Palestinian citizens. Some of them in the Parliament. Israel is a democracy where Palestinian citizens can and do seek redress in free and fair courts. How free is an Israeli in Gaza?
If the Palestinians would renounce terror and truly seek peace, they would get it because that is what Israel has proven it wants.
Israel did not have to accept Palestinian citizens. It could respond to Palestinian aggression with massive lethal force, yet it doesn't.
It is actually you who condemns all Israel as wanting to abuse all Palestinians forever. You are the bigot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Every time you beat a liberal with facts, he goes into a huffy-fit and accuses you of being a homophone, racist, bigot, warmonger, misogynist, (insert any liberal hate word here) and runs off in self-righteous indignation.
Here are the facts:
1. The Jews were in Israel first.
2. Israel has never been devoid of Jews.
These two facts prove that Jews never lost possession of their country.
Virtually the entire world, including the US government until this week, disagrees.
Untrue. I travel the world over. What most countries are afraid of is a bunch of jihadi morons raining down terror if they don't tow the UN liberal line. The citizens of most christian countries do not agree with their governments votes in the UN against Israel.
You are saying that you want to engage in perpetual warfare until 1/4 of the worlds population submits to your will.
No, that is your liberal take on what I said. Islam is the problem, not the people. It is a violent, primitive ideology that has proven to be a bane of any people adopting it.
Are you aware there were Muslim terrorist events against America under both presidents Washington and Lincoln?
Do you know of any place on earth where Islamists have lived peacefully with their neighbors? Even when those neighbors were themselves Muslims?
The Palestinians get treated the way they do because of their behavior. Nothing else. They could have had their homeland by now, but they don't want it. They want jihad.
There were 30 bombing incidents in Sweden in the month of October alone. 30! In Sweden!! Guess by whom?
It is the, what did Greyparrot say, historical international ignorance and moral vapidness of liberals like you that allow things like that to happen.
And just like in Chicago and Los Angeles, and Seattle now, liberals will never see the connection between the horrible situations and their idiotic liberal policies that caused them.
Like the liberals in America, they will accept reality, or they will die. Every time people take liberal nonsense over reality, they pay the price.
Vaping? Check. Drug culture? Check. Aids? Check. Reality, or death.
Created:
Posted in:
Telling me you have contradictions is not the same as showing me the facts and the reasoning behind your claims.
Hmmm. Irony? Hypocrisy? Cluelessness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Of course. Your posts are empty of substance.As usual, your quote above had absolutely nothing to do with my post #108 to you,
Furthermore, you just don't get, in the way that I DO NOT have to even try and tackle Stephens bible verse contradictions, and that is because, THEY ARE ALL CONTRADICTORY, PERIOD!
Yet you want me to tackle them huh? Lol. If you don't have to, then I don't have to either.
Do you think I want to look like you and the equally bible ignorant PGA2.0 by turning into a Satanic pretzel and becoming a fool for Satan by trying in vain to comically show that said verses are not contradictory?
No, I don't think you want to look like a fool for Satan, but....
It only counts when you logically, and without wishful thinking, show that all are contradictory!
So when will you do that? Because so far, you've done nothing but post silliness.
I guess you couldn't shake the caps, bold, and underlining bug could you brother dee dee? But I did seem to cure you of your mirror posting stupidity. Wise choice.
When are you meeting Jesus again?
Created:
Post #2 in this thread genius.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are a fountain of informative, pertinent, information. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I like it a lot.
Oh side issue: It was brought to my attention that another user feels that you feel ignored by me in this thread. If there's any truth to this, say the word, and we can discuss how I can correct my wayward behavior.
I continue to be pleasantly surprised at the behavior, judgement, and openness of the new mod team. I have no complaints.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You just don't like it when I frame it in different terms.
I don't like it when you frame it in a lie.
The israeli's are occupying land that doesn't belong to them.
Total nonsense. The country is Israel, it belongs to Israelis. Always has. Always will.
The israeli's aren't the homeowners. They are the guy breaking in.
Yet the home bears their name? When did they lose it?
That's funny. Because it hadn't existed for thousands of years until Europeans decided it did.
Is Israel a European word? Where was Europe 6,000 years ago when Abraham roamed the Golan heights?
Has there ever been a country called Palestine?
Palestine has been the name of the region for thousands of years.
I'll take that as a no. The name of the region is Israel. And has been so since man began to record history.
The people who live there are therefore Palestinians.
Then why isn't the land called Palestine? No one has denied the people are called Palestinians. The land though is Israel, and belongs to Israel.
We have 10,000 years of Israeli history. Old coins and artifacts. Old buildings and monuments. History of ancient kings and customs.
So?
Lol. I'll let that simmer a bit.
For most of that history the majority of the Jewish people didn't live in modern day Israel.
Untrue. Israel is mentioned at least 8 thousand years ago. Palestinians have lived there only about 2 of those 8 thousand years. And Israel didn't lose their land because some of them were away.
Most of the jews left and were gone for centuries. That doesn't give them the right to come back and displace the people who have lived there for centuries.
But Palestinians have the right to displace the people who had lived there for even longer?
Jews have always lived in Israel. There was never a time when there were not Jews there. Nothing gives the Palestinians a right to the land of Israel.
But the land should belong to the people who have lived there for centuries, IE the Palestinians, not people who until a few decades ago lived in other countries.
It is the Jews who have lived there for centuries. Why should ownership change just because a group has lived in a country for a long time?
If the Palestinians laid down their weapons they will never get any of their land back. You are essentially asking the victims of a crime to stop seeking justice so that other people can benefit. It is stupid on the face of it.
Israel is the only democracy in the region. It is peaceful and runs on the rule of law. There are Palestinians with Israeli citizenship and they can vote and move around freely. Stop being disingenuous.
The Palestinians are violent and corrupt, they enslave their own people and buy bombs rather than baby food. No HB, it is true on the face of it.
There will never be peace until Israel stops blocking the peace process. They will never stop blocking the peace process until they give back the occupied land.
The land is Israel and is occupied by its rightful owners, Israelis.
No one is asking Israel to lay down their weapons. They have the right to defend themselves. They do not have the right to occupy land that doesn't belong to them.
And when they do that, I will join you in condemnation, but they certainly have every right to occupy their own land.
Peace is not possible because of Islam. No Arab country is free or fair. Until Palestinians give up the doctrine of Islam, there will never be peace.
They could not be peaceful in their own countries, but have spread death all over the world. Even if Israel gave them everything the want, they would simply want more, and continue killing and exporting murder.
Trump is doing the right thing. The Palestinians need to know that terrorism will NEVER get them what they want, and Israel will NEVER be theirs. The sooner they learn this, the better it will be for them.
Created:
Posted in:
Your analogy is a little backwards there slick.lol. So a guy breaks into your house and says that three of the rooms now belong to him.
The police arrive and say, well we don't want to prejudge, ownership of those three rooms should be left up to the home owner and the guy who broke in.
Who's the police? The US? The US said that the homeowner was correct to take ownership of the 3 rooms.
That is the argument that the trump administration is making.
Untrue. That is the argument you're making.
That the group who is illegally stealing land shouldn't be called out for doing so
So the homeowner is stealing his own house? Liberals are amazingly immune to reality.
Basically what they are doing is refusing to call reality what it is to strengthen the hand of Israel when they decide they are never giving the Palestinians their land back.
There is a country called Israel. It has existed for more than 6,000 years.
Has there ever been a country called Palestine?
We have 10,000 years of Israeli history. Old coins and artifacts. Old buildings and monuments. History of ancient kings and customs.
But for the liberal, all that is imaginary. The land is owned by a nomad group from Jordan that has never had a country.
If the Palestinians lay down their weapons, peace would break out in the middle east.
If Israel laid down their weapons, a slaughter would break out in the middle east.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It was not the same question, and your answers contradicted each other.
But I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Created:
Posted in:
People don't magically become republicans as they get older.
They become more conservative. And it isn't magic. Like Doc says, they just grow wiser.
Created:
Posted in:
Israeli Prime Minister's Office:
Today, the United States adopted an important policy that rights a historical wrong when the Trump administration clearly rejected the false claim that Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria are inherently illegal under international law.
Notice he used the names of the areas, instead of the liberal ploy of calling Israels own country, "occupied territory".
What a great President Trump is!
Created:
Posted in:
Pompeo said that Washington is not expressing a view on the legality of Israeli settlements or the status of the West Bank, saying that the matter should be left up to Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate.
The shift will not prejudge what the status of the West Bank will end up being under any potential peace agreement, he said.
Created:
Posted in:
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Monday the U.S. is changing its position on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, dismissing the State Department's 1978 legal opinion that civilian settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are "inconsistent with international law."
The announcement is the latest in the Trump administration's moves that weaken Palestinian claims to statehood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
They don't care that there's no evidence of rape Dynasty. They only want to make the charge.
Like a person yelling out "Homo!!" They don't want a discussion, they only want to poison the well with the charge.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Dee dee answered you bully. And you promptly ran away. Why?
Worse, you keep repeating the same incorrect question to other threads.
Do you have a reply for him? A comment on your error concerning the verse? Anything?
Created:
I guess answering my questions was not worth it to deb.
Like all liberals, they want you to answer their lame questions, but don't want to answer any themselves.
Religious groups existed before 1975. What a bombshell. Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
What would happen is that the Arab countries in the region will for a 4th time attack Israel, and then promptly export terror to every corner of the globe.
We will be forced to fight them, but this time, with them in a much stronger position.
It would be a grave mistake not to support Israel.
Trump knows this, and has just changed America's position on Israeli settlements as consistent with international law.
My God, what a great president!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey dee dee,
Now I have another one of you geniuses following me around the board mirror posting. What is it that makes you all think that is a smart thing to do?
But I see I got you to tone down on the bolding, underlinings, and caps. Good! Isn't it easier to post without all that needless clutter?
Basically an internet tough guy.
I was moved by this. You, the guy barging into threads yelling and screaming trying to bully people with silly bombast, thinks of me as an internet tough guy. Awww.
If you're still in touch with your pal Harikrish, ask him about me. I was formally trained for trolls. I don't get angry, frustrated, or confused. I don't tire and cannot be embarrassed. Nothing a stranger on the internet can do can overly concern me.
I will tell you that mirror posting is considered a kind of spam, and spam is against the CoC.
You must be frustrated if I already have you stalking me and mirror posting. The next few weeks don't look too happy for you dee dee.
But I'm interested in your talks with Jesus. Did you go to Him or did He come to you? Did you shake hands or did you hug? I heard Jesus is a hugger. But you don't seem like the hugging type dee dee. Am I right?
Its so interesting! Tell us all about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Thanks for your time. It was enjoyable.
Feelings mutual...
Lol. Really? It didn't seem so, but OK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey brother dee dee,
You should have followed my advice.
I see you still haven't tackled any of Stephen's mass dump yet. You're still at zero. Sad for such a great Christian as yourself huh?
Next time Jesus is sending you somewhere, ask Him for a few answers. I'm sure Stephen will wait.
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I am going to make this simple.
Simplicity is not stupidity.
MoralityFor you to be in a position to question my morality you would need to appeal to an objective standard.
Not true. My objection to your morality was logical, and you conceded. Run away if you want, but I demonstrated by your answers that you were unfair and irrational.
If you don't then your claim that "It is one of the absolute worst moral systems to have." has no bearing.
You asked me to show how. I did. You have not addressed my points. Your moral system is bad by your own standard because it causes suffering for others as you seek to maximize your personal happiness.
In order for you to even attempt to do that present your moral system but first tell me how it is objective.
You have to address the argument up to date, not now run to another debate. I have not claimed objectivity. The state of my morality does not save yours. The questions have been to your morality.
God"TRN: You have no justification in reality for this.
ethang5: Sure I do."
If it wasn't clear nothing you said after this provides a point for God.
No one was making a point for God. The question was to the qualities of God. The justification was logic. You have not addressed it.
You say " The logical concept of creator and creation is seen everyday" but then don't bother to acknowledge the double standard you commit with God.
I spoke at length about your silly requirement to have one standard for everything. You cannot address it so you pretend to be obtuse.
Here, I'll post it again.
I have different standards for different things, and so do you. For example, I have a different standard for cows than I do for people, and a different standard for children than I do for adults. This is especially true for moral standards.
So you' wanting me to have the same standard for different things is illogical, and not something even you do. It is spurious.
I think I've demonstrated that your moral system is unfair and irrational, and that you have no defense for why it is so.
If your moral system was coherent, you would not now be running away from questions and pretending not to see arguments against it.
Now that you've stopped answering questions, and I do not want to be interrogated, our time on this subject has come to an end.
Thanks for your time. It was enjoyable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So, one year later, did it invent anything on its own? If yes, did any of it impress you?DArC is doing well because it mimicked what the clientele already proved it liked. I will be interested in seeing what it invents on its own.
Created:
Posted in:
It happens to everyone Dudz.
Everyone who doesn't die that is.
Created:
Posted in:
None of this is unfair or illogical.
Punishing another for not following your own personal moral code is unfair.
Remember we are talking about morals not logic.
Moral application should be logical.
We need rules. I would use that as a justification.
But why your rules? You have no justification.
Though you give everyone the right to chose their own morality, and admit all moral standards to be morally equal, you still would punish someone who did not follow your personal morality
You pointed out a fringe example not the norm.
That is my point, your morality works only for the typical, the majority. A better morality would work for everyone.
I have no problem with that until they harm other people which I would have a problem.
Even harm is judged differently by different people. What happens when you think its harmful and the other person disagrees?
That my confused friend, is fascism.
Explain.
Fascism is forcing others to live by your rules.
There you go. You have no morality. You have only your tastes.
This is a morality. It doesn't have to be objective to be a moral standard.
I said nothing about objectivity. There is a difference between your tastes and a moral system. If your moral system is your tastes, why should anybody other than you be expected to follow it? Why would you punish the pedophile who didn't follow it? How is he worthy of punishment for not doing what you liked?
When people are expressing there 2nd amendment right to kill people. It becomes fascism. Do tell me how I am wrong.
The second amendment has nothing to do with killing people, or what we are debating here.
Your position on morality makes you unable to judge or condemn any other morality. All you can say is, "It differs from mine". You cannot punish anyone for choosing a different moral standard than you did, all you can do is follow your own.
Neither does your moral system.
Hold on. Did you just concede my point? Am I right? If not, please say where.
Not once have you told me how your moral standard is objective nor have you attempted to do so.
Because right now I am not talking about my moral system, I'm talking about yours.
As far as I am concerned you are in no position to condemn someone else if I go by your standards.
That sounds to me like a concession. We can discuss my morality if you want, but please let us settle this point first. Am I right about your morality?
And is your defense that no morality has the right to judge or condemn any other morality?
If he is justified under his standard, as are you under your standard, why do you think you have the right to sentence him?
I don't believe in rights as in things given to you by God. Do change what you said.
No, I will not. I said nothing about God. I'm asking you why do you think you have the right to sentence him? If you do not believe in rights, that is even worse, because you don't even think you need a right to sentence him.
Basically you're telling me you will simply do what you like to others based simply on your tastes.
I see no difference between how the constitution was written.
Then you contradict yourself again. Hitler cause enormous pain and suffering to millions. If your moral system seeks to avoid suffering, how can it see no difference between what hitler did and a document intended to protect people from harm? Do you think Hitler was justified in attacking other countries?
If a person thinks suffering is the greatest evil, he will think pleasure is the greatest good.
Your moral standard doesn't ensure this would be any different.
Yes it would. My moral system does not see suffering as the greatest evil and knows not all pleasure is moral.
So there are conditions where you would abandon your moral code.
How am I abandoning my moral code again?
Fighting Hitler would cause the greatest harm to the most people.
I did state I would fight but if I knew how to fight. Surrendering seems like a less happy position.
Less happy than world war? Really?
Any moral standard that has to be abandoned under certain real world conditions, is a poor standard.
This has nothing to do with video games. You may not know what a moral standard is.
You have no justification in reality for this.
Sure I do. The logical concept of creator and creation is seen everyday. If God is creator, He cannot be part of creation. I am saying this is logical. We can debate whether it is true after.
Nothing has the same standard that you apply to God.
Of course, nothing is God.
Meaning you have a double standard and I don't think it is justified.
I have different standards for different things, and so do you. For example, I have a different standard for cows than I do for people, and a different standard for children than I do for adults. This is especially true for moral standards.
So your wanting me to have the same standard for different things is illogical, and not something even you do. It is spurious.
What are you using science?
For some of it. For some, logic.
I know it could not be from man, much less men from 6,000 years ago.
You can't prove this.
Sure I can. There is not a single other work of literature before A.D. era that contains the concepts found in the bible.
Islam disagrees
Empirical facts prove Islam wrong. The Koran even validated the bible.
looking the populations between the two, Islam is increasing while Christianity is decreasing.
Not only is this untrue, it would not counter my claims even if it was true.
What do you have to say about Islam?
Nothing. I'm not talking about Islam, and I have no reason to. I'm blowing holes in your nihilist worldview, which is why you want to pivot to Islam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Alec is a conservative;
It seems facts are not relevant to your argument;
Lol. OK slick.
Alec does not call himself a conservative. And he is not, given his views.
My claim was that the bias went against known conservatives and theists, both positions not applicable to Alec.
I don't need to debate you. Your behavior is evidence enough. My suspicion is that the new mod team will not let you and the clique run roughshod the way you've been doing.
You will fight them of course, but the DDO non-elites, and the Dart elites will back the new mod and the non-clique mods.
Dart will finally be fully wrested from the clawing grasp of of DDO. The new generation taking over now doesn't know the old DDO elites, and doesn't give one flying fig about how great they think they are.
Let the debate forum be free. The debate forum is no ones private bank to stack elo. You think because most people say nothing, they don't see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Empty barrels.....It is hard to understand what is going on here. Caps sometimes denote anger, sometimes emphasizing a point, and sometimes denote raising one's voice. Is he screaming at the top of his lungs to be heard?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I tried once, and it was pretty disconcerting to have everyone talking around you about whether you were a ginius noob, or a monumental idiot.
Not a single one of them seem to remember they were once new to the game, and how that was.
Worse of all was the faint air of irritation at me being a new player. I saw they needed players, so thought I was doing them a favor by allowing the game to run by making up the needed numbers. They seemed not to think so.
I never tried again. The game should be fun the the first time player. That should be the focus of a series for beginners.
Not a slaughter grounds for experienced players to Halloween out.
If we had that, I'd try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Please no....if members of the Religion forum desire the name to be changed to Divinity (or something else)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Well, during the debate I hope others deduct demerit points for poor grammar.
That's why he can't debate. He didn't think his parody through. It gets old fast, and leaves him open to ridicule he can't address without breaking character.
No wonder he does not notice the cap lock is on while he types. (^8
I think there is a law for internet ....guys ... like brother dee dee that they must have a certain amount of caps, bolds, and underlines to stay in their union.
We would have to actually read their vacuous posts to see it was empty if it wasn't for their ....unique posting styles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Brother Dee dee,
When you have nothing to say, it's better not to post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You said that the moderators all had 100% record. That was a lie.
I said the mods in the clique all had 100% win ratios. It was true when I said it. The leaderboard changes, it isn't static. Sometimes it changes to avoid sunlight suddenly being splashed on it.
Alecs debates are almost all completely in line with core conservatives beliefs....
You said Alec was a conservative, that was a lie.
...and he won so many he was top of the leaderboard.
He won so many perhaps because he wasn't a conservative, and said in his profile that he approved gay marriage. We know that was the magic formula to getting clique mods to vote in your favor.
You haven't been paying attention.
Look Ram. There is no need to argue. You think the voting system is fine? You continue. You think I'm wrong? No problem. We will come back to it when the you know what hits the fan.
Your defensiveness contradicts the ineffectiveness you assign to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
See Paul's post above. He calls them suckers.
Just because he's using insults doesn't mean anyone else should.
I didn't think it was an insult, and I doubt Paul did either. Anyway, it was not justification for my comment. I just wanted you to see that others do not share your view.
Counterproductive to what?
Changing people's minds.
That has not been my experience. But as I have no interest in changing minds, it isn't counterproductive to me.
Those were not insults
"Poor voting slave" is an insult.
Then we disagree. I value truth over tolerance.
I am uninterested in changing people's minds. Changed minds are just a happy serendipity of my good arguments.
Why would people join the conservative movement if we don't change their minds?
I am not campaigning for any "movement". People will become conservative when they see the stupidity of the liberal position. Calling it anything other than stupid is both dishonest and incorrect.
But please, you do you.
Created:
Posted in:
TRN tends to think in absolute terms.However, that is not an absolute statement (which I think is the point of confusion).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
why not? A pedophile can also be a nihilist.
This in no way helps me understand your position.
Lol. I'm not trying to get you to understand my position. I'm trying to get you to understand your position.
Him being a nihilist doesn't change anything.
Exactly! Which is why he could have the same moral standard as you.
Everything starts off morally neutral and we assign what we like to be good or bad. I don't think you are understanding.
I understand perfectly. You are being unfair and illogical. Both you and the pedophile started off neutral. Both of you chose your pwn moral standard. You freely admit his choice of morality is not morally different than yours, but you admit, if you were in judgement, you would punish the pedophile, (even if it is only sentenced to a mental institution).
On what basis would you judge and punish him? Simply because you think your way is right, though you admit it isn't really "right", and there is no "right".
Though you give everyone the right to chose their own morality, and admit all moral standards to be morally equal, you still would punish someone who did not follow your personal morality. That my confused friend, is fascism.
Would he be punished if you made the laws?
Yes as in he will be sentenced to a mental health institution where as a society we can rehabilitate him. I think would be reducing recidivism which will lead to him being a functioning member of society.
There you go. You have no morality. You have only your tastes. That itself is fine, but when you begin to punish others for violating your personal tastes, it becomes fascism.
Your position on morality makes you unable to judge or condemn any other morality. All you can say is, "It differs from mine". You cannot punish anyone for choosing a different moral standard than you did, all you can do is follow your own.
he isn't under your moral standard. This is a yes or no question.
Under his moral standard he would be justified. Under mine no.
Then why is he being judged and sentenced under YOUR standard? If he is justified under his standard, as are you under your standard, why do you think you have the right to sentence him?
I thought this would be clear. A person would do x because they think it is good. It is no different with a pedophile, The Joker or Hitler.
That is understood. The problem is one of those people suddenly wanting to judge and sentence others on his own personal opinion of "what is good." Hitler did so and started world war two.
It is one of the absolute worst moral systems to have.
Care to demonstrate it?
It's simple really. In reality, everyone has a different idea of what pleasure and suffering is. If a person thinks suffering is the greatest evil, he will think pleasure is the greatest good.
So today we have western society that lives consumed with chasing pleasure, as the rest of the world drowns in suffering. And they call it morality!
For years I lived in Ghana, west Africa, and I saw Americans casually spend on a pizza, enough money to send a child in Ghana to school for a year, or spend enough on a gaming system, to pay for a life saving operation for a baby.
Everything is geared towards your personal pleasure. When atheists talk about causing no suffering, they mean their own suffering. They still go out and wash their cars with 20 gallons of water as people elsewhere die of thirst.
Suffering is NOT the greatest evil, and true morality has nothing to do with pleasure or happiness. The most moral man who ever lived was described as "a man of sorrow."
Because Hitler would only respond to force. Either you surrender, or fight, which means war.
I guess fight if I was capable but I could never know until I was in the situation.
So there are conditions where you would abandon your moral code. Opposing Hitler meant the most suffering for everyone. Surrendering meant the least.
Any moral standard that has to be abandoned under certain real world conditions, is a poor standard. The moral standard Jesus put forth, is applicable and correct for every possible real world condition, one never needs to abandon it to successfully meet any condition in reality. It is a superior standard to all others.
If it wasn't clear God doesn't follow this foundational premise. Meaning God doesn't abide by these rules.
What rules? You stated no rules, you asked a question.
Given the reality we live in every single instance clearly shows the cause and effect to be true yet God doesn't follow it.
Because you are confusing two different things. Creation and creator. God is not part of nature, thus does not operate under the rules of nature.
If it wasn't clear what I am going on about I am basically going to ask it in a question, what cause God?
God is uncaused. The law of causality refers to matter. Space. Energy. Created things. God is not constituted of created things. He is not matter. Or energy. He is other. Unique.
Only things that begin need a cause. God never began. He literally has no beginning. (and no end either) He is eternal. This is only one of the 5 qualities of God that are unique to only Him, and identify Him as "other" as God. The other 4 qualities being, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, and immutability.
God is a title, not a name. God has a name, and He is a living, real, person.
Many want God to be subject to the laws that govern His creation, but that is as irrational as expecting a carpenter to submit to the laws that govern a chair he's made.
You asked once why I believe the bible is true. Msny, many reasons, but one of the most convincing reasons is that the concepts and ideas about the nature of God in the bible, are so advanced, so logical, so coherent, complex, that I know it could not be from man, much less men from 6,000 years ago.
This is why the bible has been able to do what no other book has done. It has no equal, no rival, nothing is even close.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't think a pedophile would have the same understanding nor moral standard as me...
why not? A pedophile can also be a nihilist.
A pedophile under the law will be punished and I accept that.
Not the question I asked. Would he be punished if you made the laws?
Under my moral standard yes.
But he isn't under your moral standard. This is a yes or no question.
If bringing harm to others brought you happiness, would you do it?
I guess but then I would have to change my moral standard thus being a different person given the new moral standard and actions I would commit.
You ave what is called the morality of pleasure. Pleasure is good/moral, and suffering is bad/immoral. It is one of the absolute worst moral systems to have.
Why would opposing Hitler bring harm to millions?
Because Hitler would only respond to force. Either you surrender, or fight, which means war. What would you have done during world war II? Fought or surrendered?
Answer?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
If the debate is about who can post more underlined capitol letters in bold, you're in trouble! Lol.
Brother Dee dee is a parody, he can't debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A pedophile doesn't think sex with a 14 year old harms her. Would you punish him for sex with a 14 year old?This is my belief "Whatever we decide that brings about the most happiness while not harming others."
I value not bringing harm to others since I don't think it brings me happiness
1. What about the person who values bringing harm to others, is he less moral than you?
2. If bringing harm to others brought you happiness, would you do it?
Test your morality in a real world case.
Opposing Hitler would bring horrible harm to millions. Would you have opposed Hitler or surrendered to him to avoid harm to others?
Created:
Posted in:
Only one of the mods (Ragnar) has a 100% record.
The leaderboard is not static slick. We will keep watching it.
We’re very happy to vote for conservatives when arguments are there...
Like racists are happy to hire minorities when the qualifications are there right? Who decides whether the arguments are there? Self admitted biased liberals.
From Alec's profile page.
-Proud American.
-Pro life
-Pro easy borders
-Against minimum wage
-Pro tax free recreational weed, although the states can make their own decisions to some extent. All states should legalize weed for medical use.
-Any peaceful person should be allowed any gun they want.
-Gays can marry.
-Military spending should get cut in half and the money should go to NASA.
-Transgenders can use any bathroom they want.
-Income tax should get replaced with a sales tax
-No Medicare or Medicaid.
-I believe in deals between the parties.
-I want the 2 party system abolished and replaced with more ideologically consistent parties.
Alec is a libertarian not a conservative, though the difference was probably lost on you the moment you saw "Proud American".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
"the immigration of low-skilledlabour (H1) reduces the wages of low-skilled workers, but enhances the productivityof high-skilled workers and capital."
How does this contradict anything I've said?
Immigrant =\= illegal immigrant.
And the claim in your comment above is illogical nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Do you?
Why did you pass the question to me...
I often do that with dumb questions.
...and are you going to answer the question?
My answer was my question.
Your Moral standard calls them the same thing.
How so?
You said there is inherently no moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them. Thus your Moral standard calls them morally the same thing.
This isn't my moral standard.
I asked you for your moral belief.
I am simply stating what is. There is no inherent difference between the two doesn't mean I personally treat the two to be the same.
Why not? If you believe there is no moral difference between the two, why do you not personally treat the two to be the same? Why do you behave differently to how you believe?
Please this again: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3190/questions?page=1&post_number=6"Whatever we decide that brings about the most happiness while not harming others."
You contradict yourself. You now seem to believe raping babies is morally different from nurturing babies because rape harms the baby.
Which is it? And I'm asking for your view, not societies view. So, is there a moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them?
Why not? For you, it isn't immoral.
Given that it harms others I wouldn't do it.
Then it IS morally different. You either lied or was wrong about your own morality.
Would you rape a dead body?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Have you ever come home to meet squatters in your house?
No.
Did your walls impede that or is their only purpose to hold up your roof?
My walls did impede that.
Waaaaaait for it.
Legal, educated, and civilized immigrants boost the economy. Illegal, illiterate, primitives drag down an economy. As do illegal drug imports.
Evidence that "Illegal, illiterate, primitives drag down an economy"
Sorry, I'm currently looking for evidence that dirty water cause diseases.
The point was that their behavior changed even as their beliefs did not. Reality forced that.
Do you have an example of their behavior changing?
Yes. This thread. Post #1
Do you trust cooks in finding nutrition about the specific food they are qualified in?
Yes if they are qualified in speaking about it.
You have your answer about professors.
Created:
Posted in:
How do you know anything is true? It is congruent with reality.
Do have an example of reality?
Do you?
So is there any moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them?
Inherently no but I don't imagine a lot of moral standards would have them be the same thing.
Your Moral standard calls them the same thing.
What do you mean?
You said there is inherently no moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them. Thus your Moral standard calls them morally the same thing.
Do you rape babies?
No.
Why not? For you, it isn't immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I don't see how saying this kind of thing is helpful,...
That is nice to know, I guess?
...especially the part about the "poor voting slaves."
See Paul's post above. He calls them suckers.
Even if you're right, it's still counterproductive.
Counterproductive to what?
Those were not insults and I am uninterested in changing people's minds.You won't change people's minds with insults.
Changed minds are just a happy serendipity of my good arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
A border wall if you looked at my debate would realize would not help with illegal immigration,
Does your home have walls?
Yes.
Have you ever come home to meet squatters in your house? Did your walls impede that or is their only purpose to hold up your roof?
Legal, educated, and civilized immigrants boost the economy. Illegal, illiterate, primitives drag down an economy. As do illegal drug imports....drug imports and immigrants boost the economy.
TRUMP WAS RIGHT!… Denmark Closes Its Border with Sweden as Bombings Spread."
The point was that their behavior changed even as their beliefs did not. Reality forced that.
Do you trust them in finding information about the specific field they are qualified in?
Do you trust cooks in finding nutrition about the specific food they are qualified in?
You didn't exactly say what I quoted...
Right I said what I quoted. Remember, I told you I would state what I wanted, not what you wanted.
Created: