Total posts: 382
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Not really. Anyone can be attracted to anything. Im sure there is a fetish for it.
Im going along the line for changing mentality. Why have the woman do all the work to change circumstace for the man who is acting on innate evolutionary traits? The man should change his mentality, not rely solely on how women dress.
We should remember that fashion industry developed from men only industry and still primarily operated by men today.
Created:
Posted in:
It may be updated at my convenience as I go along. = Never. Lol. Thats just how time flies.
Created:
Posted in:
What is proper?
Can we address the male/female dynamic that prevents us from looking at another person purely for pleasuring ourselves?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Might as well go all in
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If I understad your question correctly. I think that guy got twisted a little because I come to same conclusion as you. Unless he is trying to say, " there is no medically necessary abortion because there is no abortion at that point, if there is a medical need to remove the kid from the womb while kid is vital outside of womb during late term pregnancy.
... Does that sound like what he was going for? He is trying to explain the other guys point, who was argueing there is no need to abort because you can just birth or c section. If these options are taken and baby dies unintentially during that process, then its still not an abortion
I thought he was going to say no such thing as medically necessary late term abortion because the kid can just be delivered/extracted without being killed first.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
you are saying the presence of a gun makes no difference if someone dies or not.
Ah. I do agree that a person can change their mind. Even with a weapon.
I am interchanging the word gun with weapon. Having a weapon present makes a difference if someone dies or not - but what we consider to be a weapon can be more than just a gun. Any weapon influences the person who wants to kill just as any person can say no I will not kill despite there being a weapon or a gun. Like an increase or decrease in possibility/probability
Jamie is more likely to kill his bully, Steph, at school if he has brick nearby because nearby reconstruction caused some bricks to fall in school property and allows Jamie to cause more pain then a punch.
Sometimes it doesnt need to make sense or follow any logic. We see something like a shovel and then just use it. That's what it means to be impulsive right?
So of course a Jamie might shoot Steph if there is a gun. Thats a given because there is a gun.
If I am one of those chumps, then there is no contradiction. Just a dislike towards my opinion.
the thing is, i've shown that if a gun isn't present, they won't kill, sometimes, and then could change their mind before using premeditation.
Thats fine. I never disagreed with that because people choose weapons to kill. Pretty rare for someone to be charged with premeditated murder because they punched the person to death.
Now you gotta continue to show that all other weapons being present or available while a gun is not will still result in the same conclusion. No killing.
botttom line, the presence of a gun makes a difference, sometimes, in whether someone ultimately dies.
I agree. Just probably differ on reason why
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
....that just because someone has a weopon doesn't mean they will go on an impulsive rampage if the weopon is inadequate for the job.
For what ever reason we seem to be saying same thing in a different way. Im not saying a person will automatically kill if they have a weapon present and fit criteria for compulsive impulsive murder. What ever that may look like. Im saying having a weapon present increases tw likelihood that someone will kill because it feeds into how.
Im trying to go into the thought process for someone who is impulsive. The first thought or reaction is going to be "kill." Unless we just attack with our hands, the next inherant thought is how. A weapon is how.
if they had a gun, they would of killed, but since they didn't have a gun, they didn't kill and have the possibility to change their mind, which would necessarily happen sometimes.
I agree. This would happen sometimes.
this is where your theory falls apart. you acknowledge that if someone has a weopon but it's not good enough to go on a rampage, they won't do it even if they would have with a gun. *a person isn't necessarily bound to later use premeditation to follow up on their impulse.* - this is the key that you miss
Why does thery fall apart?
Can you elaborate on this and how a person isnt necessarily bound to later use premeditation to follow their impulse?
I agree with this.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
then it looks like you are contradicting yourself. you say it's possible for someone to change their mind about murder. sometimes murders are impulsive
So far no contradiction. Murders that are considered impulsive occurs when a person is unable to change their mind.
it's possible someone only had a knife when they wanted to kill a bunch of people, and would have killed them had they had a gun... but couldn't kill at that time due to the circumstance
Terrorists use knifes in other countries to attack multiple people. Sometimes a crazy is known to do it too. A guy with a machettee walked around the mall attacking many people some years ago. Gainned national news.
My point is that if someone wanted to cause harm, yes they will use what they can to do so. However, premeditated vs "a crime of passion" will be different. Earlier I described why an impulsive murder would still occur without a gun - unrelated to o.p. incident.
A person develops anger, wants to do harm, then sees an object that could be used as a weapon, sees said object as the weapon, then continues to seek to kill. So related to the incident, the man was already holding a weapon when he was triggered. That weapon could have been anything so long as he was holding it or saw it at that moment.
but couldn't kill at that time due to the circumstance.
If we are talking about any other inpulsive murder or desire to murder, the anger and eventually desire to kill subsides with reasons not to kill.
yet, you say whether a gun is present makes no difference, or that having more guns around makes no difference.
Im saying having any weapon around will not change course for an impulsive murder because for that person, the desire and means are all there. Yes maybe for some they will not try to kill if they see a weapon they can not yield, but that is the start of a concious decision instead of impulsive act. Now we get into premeditated because the person is now thinking about how to kill, unless they stop their desire and do not kill.
In the given incident, if the murders were result of impulse - yes the guy would have killed with a knife. But I do not think it was impulsive. Not entirely at least.
Either the whole thing was premeditated and it looks impulsive, or the killings that he premeditated started at an impulsive moment.
Why?
A. The dad went over to tell the guy to stop shooting. Impulse = the dad is the target. But what happened? Dad lived.
B. If the shooting was impulsive, why did the guy not shoot when the weapon was in his hands? Sounds like the guy shoots alot. He would have easily reloaded right then and there
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Can another internet be made in competition with existing internet?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
No I think he did premeditate the murders he performed with a gun but acted it out when he did not originally want to.
Otherwise yes, it is possible for someone to contemplate murder and then do it when they do not have a button to push and make it so easy - because looking at or holding the murder weapon gives the idea to kill. This idea then echos in our mind unless our concious stops the echo and we decide not to kill.
The murder weapon can be anything, which is why the impulsive murders use what ever is around or easy to access. Like a rock or knife.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Lets consider how the incident started because the guy was shooting his gun. If he didnt have a gun, the incident would not have occured at all.
So the question is kinda lined up for a no answer because the incident probably would not have occured at all. There would be no reason to tell the guy to stop.
Considering som reports on the oncident, shooting from the front porch is considered normal.
However, if we take away the gun and keep the motive there, yes the guy could have been just as successful in killing without the gun. Why? Because he had, in his own mind, a reason to do it. People usually follow through unless stopped.
Would the incident occur in the same wayas the shooting? I can see it go both ways. He storms over with a shovel, knife, etc. oR he waits until night or some other convenient way.
Personally I think its planned. Maybe was going to do myrder suicide but decided not to. The cops found his clothes and phone but not him? I think they found those things by tracking. Tracking doesnt just disapear because you take your clothes offf. Usually. Unless the scent on clothes is different from whats on bbody.
So the question is kinda lined up for a no answer because the incident probably would not have occured at all. There would be no reason to tell the guy to stop.
Considering som reports on the oncident, shooting from the front porch is considered normal.
However, if we take away the gun and keep the motive there, yes the guy could have been just as successful in killing without the gun. Why? Because he had, in his own mind, a reason to do it. People usually follow through unless stopped.
Would the incident occur in the same wayas the shooting? I can see it go both ways. He storms over with a shovel, knife, etc. oR he waits until night or some other convenient way.
Personally I think its planned. Maybe was going to do myrder suicide but decided not to. The cops found his clothes and phone but not him? I think they found those things by tracking. Tracking doesnt just disapear because you take your clothes offf. Usually. Unless the scent on clothes is different from whats on bbody.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
In what route should/could govt. ban or have greater control over porn?
Would anything like taxes/fees decrease use or access?
Would anything like taxes/fees decrease use or access?
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Woe woe, hey. Yo. Slow down. You missed the main part. In previous thread you quotes this::
JESUS IS GOD: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
Now you misquote various things in the bible but do you agree that in your above quote Jesus is identified as mediator?
You suggest n., but who are you to mediate in this?
Who are you to suggest such a status?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I think that is the position pro gun individuals have. That no law is 100% effective on crime. Therefore restricting something they like (we can be honest on how much of this debate is based on like) creates a bigger cost than benefit because what they do will be impacted, not the crime.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
A. My toys are medium. My dexterity is not as good as it once was. Hard to accept at first, but we have to.
B. Finger painting is bunches of fun. My kid and I do it well. We own it. As any dad should.
C. My rhetoric is historically forum based. Which means its kindergarden level. I own that well because the main topic is trashy.
Q. How dare anyone call a woman second class. Who are you to suggest such a status? What are qualifications involved, who designates the position, and where would these women be found? What constitutes the preliminary qualifications for women to designate themselves?
B. Finger painting is bunches of fun. My kid and I do it well. We own it. As any dad should.
C. My rhetoric is historically forum based. Which means its kindergarden level. I own that well because the main topic is trashy.
Q. How dare anyone call a woman second class. Who are you to suggest such a status? What are qualifications involved, who designates the position, and where would these women be found? What constitutes the preliminary qualifications for women to designate themselves?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There may be missunderatanding in "guns dont kill people, people kill people ." In regards to the question, the child killed another child - by use of a gun. This approach is to address the person as part of if not the greater part of an issue, not the gun.
Thats why people criticise gun laws on basis that the law does not prevent murder, suicide, crime, etc. Instead the law prohibits a legal consumer from obtaining a legal item. Considering the question given about a 5 year old, there are measurements taken and should be taken to prevent 5 year olds from playing with real guns.
Most common are:
Talks about gun and gun safety
Safes
Safe storage options like seperating bullets from a gun. Not having live rounds in a gun. Etc.
Overall the rederict is to raise people as the problem to focus on. I agree that people should be a part of the initial approach to gun violence or gun crimes or gun accidents. How much is in question.
Created:
Ohhh. A troll thread.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
This could be a trick question because "as good as a gun" could include killing. Automatically rejecting less lethal or non-lethal options.
If the goal of any given self defense scenario is to get away, then there are many options that may be as good as if not better than a gun. Better?
Yes. Each scenario or event is unique to itself. Self defense teaching is not complete untill one includes environmental awareness, de-escilation, and prevention. A gun may seem like a good option for most, but does not allow descilation because a gun will always be a one up.
Perhaps some may backdown to a gun fight, but some will find you a challenge to get a thrill from. In some cases, not using a gun helps prevent escilation. A high power flash light can supply the means to escape better than a gun. Like for a robbing or mugging.
There are non-lethal projectiles as well. Each providing self defense in their own appropriate way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
No they are not the good guys. They perform the same acts as any fascist regime or group. There are many reports of them swarming people like a cowardice mob to use weapons, piss, spit, and anything else to attack people who didnt do anything but have a different opinion.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
There are other means than a gun or knife to prevent harm or provide self defense. Some new ones are non leathal, providing a means to escape.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
1 Suicide rates could be higher in other states. Mental illnesss itself is something that a independent from gun ownership. We can develop more intricate and responsive measurements to mental health in general which would lower suicide rates more affective than any gun law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
1. From a neutral position. I dont know what initiated the first living thing. Some biological compound merge, develop, divided into more complex compounds
2. The thing that perpetuated first living things? Thats a phenomenom.
That thurned into an innate instict.
What would you say pinpoints what life is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
"what makes a and b work?"
Their biology makes them work if work means their ability to live or function.
"what is life" vs. a life
Are you talking about quality or experience? I see that as what occurs for an organism. How do you view it?
What occurs for any given organism can be many things. Depends on what is involved for that organism because each organism is different. Even if said organism is unable to register that experience or lacks sentience.
We can consider the early developmental stage(s) of diverse organism from jelly fish, horse, kangaroo, bird, and human. Each does its own thing. Each individual organism begins, exists, and continues to exist with similar bioligical functions, but differ in how/when/where they develop. Maybe can even add why to that. Their experience (another word may be better suited) is their own.
Their biology makes them work if work means their ability to live or function.
"what is life" vs. a life
Are you talking about quality or experience? I see that as what occurs for an organism. How do you view it?
What occurs for any given organism can be many things. Depends on what is involved for that organism because each organism is different. Even if said organism is unable to register that experience or lacks sentience.
We can consider the early developmental stage(s) of diverse organism from jelly fish, horse, kangaroo, bird, and human. Each does its own thing. Each individual organism begins, exists, and continues to exist with similar bioligical functions, but differ in how/when/where they develop. Maybe can even add why to that. Their experience (another word may be better suited) is their own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Can you actually pinpoint the essence of life, and then say that the life within structure A. is completely different to that within structure B
Im not sure what that is or means. What is rhe essense of or essense in life?
Historically humans have always seperated ourselves from animals and plants for one reason or another. What would be an essense of life in humans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Would you say that is conditional or a condition for forgiveness?
If yes. How does forgivness and love coexist when there are conditions to forgiveness?
I would think a personay not love if they have a condition for their response to you or for you to do something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I dont know. Just as pro abortionists have a varied array of supporters, so does anti abortion supporters. Not every anti abortion person is pro life. And not every pro life individual looks at "pro life" as something that extends outside the induced abortion debate. Just as some "pro choice" do not advocate for 100% choice for/in bodily autonomy.
Do some anti abortion individuals believe in 100% sanctity of life for everyone 100% of the time? Yes. However, I can understand why someone claiming to be pro life would also seperate or see a moral difference between killing someone in self defense vs. killing someone through induced abortion.
On one hand you have an actor who initiates the situation while on the other hand you have an actor who has a situation pushed onto them.
Also, sanctity of life is not a position held by all pro life. There are many like secularprolife.org that cater to humanity not spiritual human essence or value. Some like me dont cater to using value as a means to justify our position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You mean like, offer forgivness after a person repents?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Lol. Yeah their chocolate is mixed. I think they are on of some where they mix chocolate with other things cause its expensive. I could be wrong. But I agree with their lack in quality.
Thanks have good day
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Oh ok. Thanks
Side question. Has anyone made E.T. references with you? EL-LI-eTT.
Do you like resses pieces?
Anyways. Quick glance. I see similarities and differences in some of those other instances. Hm. Interesting.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Oh! Typo. Thing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I do not understand what you are trying to say is hypocritical for some or all anti abortion/pro life individuals.
If you are answering the question.
What is my regard to human life? That all humans should be identified and recognized as humans and therefore be protected by law identifying/recognizing a "right to life" based on being identifying/recognizing as human.
Hm.... Yeah that may be my regard to human life and how it could be explained in this discussion. I mean I have only talked about how unborn should be recognized as.
Does this qualify for your question?
Not necessarily as an answer but to lay out an answeer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
None of that answers my OP or is a good response to it. I was wondering mostly why a person would want forgiveness. If you rob a mother of her rent money, is it better you are forgiven or that you pay for your crime and offer restitution?
Both. Restitution is good right. I think this highlights a part that is being missed in o.p... what it means to repent. And what des forgiveness do?
Now I understand this may look different among different sects. But consider what you just put up. Which is better, forgiveness or restitution. What ever that may look like.
Lets say restitution means you pay the money back. Does this really mean anything? I can just steal the money again or some other item from the same person. So what good does restitution do? None.
To repent is to move away from stealing. But what good is it to repent? We are just making the crime void right? Like it never happened. But would the woman trust me now? She wasnt just a woman, she's Jenna! I knew her since 3rd grade. We have been friends for so long I cant even remember how we met. I did a stupid thing and now our relationship is hurt.
Even if Jenna didnt know me, I find it hard for her to have any kind of relationship with me. So how does that relationship get mended? Forgiveness.
Forgiveness starts with her and has to be noncondentional becasause its not real if it is dependent on conditions. She would give it like a gift.
Any questions so far at this point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well, times change, people change. On January 6th, when Trump's supporters gathered in Washington to protest the election results, one person brought along a placard depicting Jesus wearing a MAGA hat.
Yeah. That is a person making propaganda. An opinioned piece of art (I use that loosely) about Jesus. Doesnt mean Jesus would be republican or an NRA member.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
How? Jesus would be considered a pacafist because he said "love your enemy" (paraphrase) along with an over all message to sustain peace between individuals and groups.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is the "thing" that is hypocrital of?
The issue is not in living matter. Anything and everything can be living matter. The real issue is a living organism that is included in our species.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
True. We can see a transition in the pro abortion side - where main argument was scientific based during the early years (between 1970 to 1990) and then develop to argue for a philisophical approach between 2000 and 2010.
Sometimes the efforts are comical as science and philosophy blend - or at least this is what I have seen. Where someone uses science to identify sentience but philisophical perameters to define it. Confusing really.
Even more scary is a recent change in opinion where the humanity in unborn is accepted by the pro abortionist, but they just dont care. They dont even argue for value or anything. They push for a mindset like "vote or die," but more serious approach.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
To understand what a rhing is or why people like it?
To understand it in full, one would need to have a good knowledge of brain processes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Becoming infertile works better. Look at china's history to control their population as evidence. They did it so well they got the population to decrease. Although some groups or documentaries focus on abortion and 1 child laws, we forget how many people were made infertile to prevent procreation.
From a communist stand point (or totaltarian), infertility helps prevent nay sayers and accidental pregnancies from missing the abortion factory all together. (yes some sarcasm in my comments)
From a communist stand point (or totaltarian), infertility helps prevent nay sayers and accidental pregnancies from missing the abortion factory all together. (yes some sarcasm in my comments)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
1. Im pro life
2. I ask because there are arguments against your position that can be very tricky to translate your position for another to adopt.
3. Having multiple premises working together help your position because, in my eyes, it allows others to follow a, b, c.
For some human life is not well defined in their minds. Unfortunately some buy into the lies to exclude some humans from humanity.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Right.
Loyalists" i.e. Protestants attack Catholic children as young as five!
Ok so why does this translate to "dont baptize kids/infants?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Do you have other reasons as to why abortion should be illegal?
Created:
Posted in:
to understand the bible one has to know and have studied ancient Hebrew or Greek languages"
There is some huge cross cultural communication going on when translating any language to english. Add a few thousand years and yes. Cultural meaning behind some words can be missunderstood.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Your quote says who ever does not believe. Does not include "who does not baptize".
Baptism like many things in bible require more than one sentence to describe it.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
What are you implying here?
Why were kids hated by adults?The children in those reports I posted above-some as young as five were terrified wondering why they were hated and abused by fkn adults!!..
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
The isssue of baptism seems to stem from what baptism is or what it means.
For some who do not have infant or child baptism they have what is known as a dedication.
To explain baptism to a non-infant baptism person, infant baptism is at its core the same as a dedication. But with an extra bonus involved as it rinses humans of origional sin.
Baptism is also to take the place of circumcision, which is way more evasive than water. If circumcision was for infants, then why not baptism for the same purpose, to welcome a person into thr christian family.
For some who do not have infant or child baptism they have what is known as a dedication.
To explain baptism to a non-infant baptism person, infant baptism is at its core the same as a dedication. But with an extra bonus involved as it rinses humans of origional sin.
Baptism is also to take the place of circumcision, which is way more evasive than water. If circumcision was for infants, then why not baptism for the same purpose, to welcome a person into thr christian family.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sounds like you are already doing it. Keep going.
So long as we dont do things publicly to have others look at us and see us do things for the sake of seeing us - all good I bet.
So long as we dont do things publicly to have others look at us and see us do things for the sake of seeing us - all good I bet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How is something object and capable of change?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Eh. I'd question whether or not sociopaths know right from wrong. Along with mental illnesses. Some humans pertain adult bodies but demonstrate mental age of 5. This is way before age of reason.
Created: