Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The fact that we are here, is a demonstration of the existence of God.
How so, specifically? To me, the fact that we are here only demonstrates that we are here. Can you show me how that conclusively demonstrates a god exists? (Bonus: can you show me how it's your version and not, say, the Norse pantheon)
how unlikely it is that random coincidences caused all of this to be precise enough for us to live in.
This sounds like about five different fallacies. Argument from incredulity would be the lead here I think, but I'm not sure. In any case, the argument for a fine tuned universe isn't great when you consider the actual properties of the universe rather than the anthropic principle, which I also think is in here somewhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Addendum to explain the difference more clearly. I am not omniscient, so the only way I can know for certain what my program will do is if I explicitly tell it to do that. If I give the program free will, then I won't know what it will do because I didn't tell it what to do, because I am not omniscient. God, however, is omniscient, so he knows what people with free will will do, even though He didn't tell them what to do. He knows what people will do because He is omniscient, not because He made them do it or because He didn't give them a choice.
Thank you. So, if you don't know what the program will do, and it does something you didn't expect it to, you'd still be mad at the program itself, and not the programmer? You'd not go back and try to fix the code line that needed a tweak to perform better?
Does your version of god have a plan in place for every person? Or is he just kind of observing and reacting to what people do? In other words is god ever surprised? (not the god in the bible, because there are outcomes he doesn't expect in the text)
Sorry, forgot to address this:
Let's say you have a son who crashes your car after borrowing it without permission, and thankfully no one, including him, is hurt. You have three choices for punishment:
- Ignore it so long as he says "sorry"
- Make him work off the bill to repair the damage to the car, and severely restrict his privileges until such time as it's paid off (no phone, no driving, no access to friends, etc, commonly known as "grounding")
- Send him to a torture chamber from which there is no escape including death
Which punishment would you choose?Likely the second. As the father in this situation, my goal is not punitive punishment. My goal is to help my son understand what he did, feel the consequences of his actions in a way that helps him understand, and to make it less likely that he will do it again in the future. In this scenario, I am a father, not the judge of the universe. I would also maintain that this scenario is not analogous to the options presented under Christianity.
Options one and two are directly Christian principles: ask for forgiveness and you're forgiven without condition (isn't this the Jesus promise?) and obviously Hell. THe middle one is closer to just, but it's a principle that a vast, vast majority of humans would adhere to, and Christianity is a worldwide minority. That would mean the middle option can be arrived at independent of a judeochristian principle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
In the case of running a program with an error, that is true, because the program can only do what I tell it. In the case of an omniscient God creating beings with free will, that is not true. God's knowledge does not cause them to make the choice. Their choice causes God to have the knowledge.
So god doesn't have knowledge of the future, even though he is omniscient? I'm confused. My choice causing god to have the knowledge is not omniscience. I'm not saying god's knowledge causes them to make the choice, to be clear, it's a programming problem.
You need an example of what children do wrong? Lying, stealing, being mean to others, disobeying their parents.
These are all pretty minor offenses, and while I'd not be pleased and certainly would consider consequences, especially as these are fairly vague descriptions. If I knew before my child was born that they would grow up to be a mass murderer, then still had the child, ultimately, I am responsible for all of the murders that child commits, because I could have decided not to have a child. Since no parent knows for sure what sort of good or evil their child will get up to, it's not really an apt comparison. Also, none of the wrongs you put up there would warrant a torture chamber, we agree?
By what objective standard of morality can you say that His standards are wrong?
I don't believe morality is objective, and I don't think you do either. Morality is and always has been subjective. For example, at one time it was okay to sell your daughter as a sex slave, and now we see this practice as abhorrent. It was at one time widely accepted as "okay" to beat another person's child (corporal punishment at school is only one example). Now it isn't. In some places, the death penalty is viewed as totally wrong. In others, it's commonly prescribed in many societies. I can therefore say I wouldn't take my moral standards from a book from however many thousands of years ago, and rather from my own assessment of how my actions impact me, my family, my extended family, my community, and the world at large, basically in that order. For me, it is absolutely immoral, for example, to punish someone who isn't guilty of a crime that I know someone else committed.
I would also maintain that this scenario is not analogous to the options presented under Christianity.
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
We believe it because we have faith in that possibility.
So, would another way to say it be that you believe it, because you believe it?
Just because you can't see something or its effect on you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Almost think I agree here, as I can't see "gravity" or "time," but then I can demonstrate quite easily the existence of both. Given that your topic is "God exists and I can prove it" explicitly, can you demonstrate the effect of "small G god" in reality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
My knowledge of what it would do has no bearing on the fact that it freely chose to do something wrong.
Your knowledge that it WOULD (not could) do something wrong means that it didn't freely choose. You programmed it not only with the ability to make the error, but you programmed it and ran it KNOWING it would make the error. But no big deal, you're mad at the program you wrote. So, how do you fix it so you're no longer mad at it?
Are parents wrong to be mad when their children do wrong?
Can you give me an idea of what "wrong" looks like in this context? I never got mad at, say, getting the answer to a math problem wrong, I'm sure that's not what you mean, I'd just like you to define it so I can respond accurately. Give me an example. I will pose a counter question in the meantime:
Let's say you have a son who crashes your car after borrowing it without permission, and thankfully no one, including him, is hurt. You have three choices for punishment:
- Ignore it so long as he says "sorry"
- Make him work off the bill to repair the damage to the car, and severely restrict his privileges until such time as it's paid off (no phone, no driving, no access to friends, etc, commonly known as "grounding")
- Send him to a torture chamber from which there is no escape including death
Which punishment would you choose?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
If I were to program a computer so that it truly had rational thought and free will, and it did something I didn't want, then yes, I might be mad at it.
Great! So now, what if when you programmed it this way, you KNEW it would do something you didn't want it to? Not guessed, but knew absolutely, would you be mad at the program?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Well, it would be rather pointless to create beings without free will. I can write a computer program to make it say "SirAnonymous is the greatest", but it would be a waste of time.
If you wrote a computer program knowing that you'd written into it the ability to (and desire to) do something you didn't design it to do, would you then be mad at the computer program?
He knew that in the long run it would be a good thing, even though it would bring about a lot of bad things in the short run.*
Why would god want to take "the long way" to a good thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Satan was created by God. What for? The Bible doesn't say.
What do you think?
- Did god know that once he gave humans free will, they'd choose to sin?
God is omniscient, so yes.
So then why did he give us free will if he knew we'd sin and he was going to get super mad about it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I do not think that Satan was created to cause sin, nor that Yahweh initiated sin. Rather, God gave both Satan and humans free will. They chose to do evil, causing the fall.
This raises many questions.
- If not to cause sin, what was Satan created for, and by whom?
- Did god know that once he gave humans free will, they'd choose to sin?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes. The circle argument is just to help prove a deistic belief. Not any in particular.
It's completely uncompelling, though. If some nameless being in a dimension we can't confirm exists decided to somehow 'start' the universe in a way that we can't describe, and it doesn't interact in any demonstrable way with reality...well what's the point of believing in it? And how, more importantly, do you get from this nameless entity to the god you believe in? That's the important part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If you are a true Christain, then you base the majority of your beliefs on the Bible.
But the are basing their beliefs on the bible. Why are they wrong and you right? And I'd question how you arrive at "majority" of your beliefs on the bible, like where do you draw the line, but that's probably a whole different topic. For example, what should be done with a woman who's not a virgin when she gets married, based on the bible?
The Bible goes against hating people just because of what they want to do.
In some spots yes, in other spots no, and the bible's full of groups of people hating other groups of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
As Christians, we base all of our teachings on the Bible.
These Christians would like a word. They seem super into being inclusive and loving , and they're also using the actual words in the BIBLE to support their position. And they're not REMOTELY alone. I'm glad for any Christian person who's not hating on gays, but to say you speak for most Christians seems to need a little more background.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, you guys are admitting, that there are still things out there that you don't know. You just haven't discovered those things yet.Therefore, could God not exist, in a dimension, that you haven't discovered yet?
Is it not possible that literally ANYTHING could exist in a dimension that's yet to be discovered? I presume you don't have the entire circle filled in either, right? So, let's try and see.
Could a Priffleprimp exist in a dimension that hasn't been discovered yet?
Also, your argument isn't for a capital G god. It's a terrible argument, but it's a terrible argument for Deism, not for any specific religion. Watch again:
Could Zeus exist in a dimension you haven't discovered yet?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Someone told those police to stand down. I want to know who did that.
Qui bono.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes, but were not talking about her womb. Were talking about the fetus/baby.
Ok, then the woman should have the right to evict the fetus, it should be fine to survive on its own, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It’s also absurd to tell people that their voice has been stolen from them by people who don’t care about them
It seems to me that "our voice was stolen! our votes weren't heard! what I voted didn't get counted!" is currently being used in place of the "I voted for the candidate or idea who lost." Your vote counts if you vote for the loser, you just don't get what you voted for. "Our votes didn't count!" isn't the same thing. It's really frustrating, like if you voted for Romney in 2012, your vote COUNTED, your voice was HEARD, it was just that democracy dictates "whatever you voted for isn't what the majority wants, so sorry."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't do appeals to authority,
You literally did. You just didn't cite the authority, instead pretending it was your opinion entirely. Try to keep up. I gave you my opinion on the topic, I presume you're combing through reddit, uh , "crowdsourcing" your response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hang on, I gotta go google some answers to these piercing questions of yours...which sites would you recommend?
Created:
Posted in:
Nothing. You're dead. What happens to the flame when you blow out the candle, sort of thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The topic that the "poland attack may trigger WW3" seems to be a moot point by now, as it wasn't an attack and is clearly not going to lead to WW3, about which you were wetting your pants prematurely. That's my opinion. Google it, you'll find that I came up with it all by myself. You can do it lil guy, give it a shot!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, like I give a shit about "clout" on an anonymous site. I know exactly zero people here and nobody knows me either. Your attacks are dumb.I have never and will never cite anything here. Either reply or don't. That's what the site is for. To bounce ideas around, not clout. Go back to facebook and get some followers with actual info instead of anonymous people on a debate site. It's clear that's what you want.
Who mentioned "clout"? What you're talking about is integrity. I'm not surprised you don't seem to understand what it is vis a vis a site where you 'bounce ideas around.' Those ideas should be your ideas in your words if they're not cited. You very clearly presented that as if YOU thought it and YOU wrote it. You just copied and pasted it, like a lazy, intellectually incurious and incapable 10th grader. And then you got busted and now you're mad. Awww...sorry snowflake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, it's not clear that it's shared at all. It's just clear that it isn't your words, and it's clear that you didn't cite it, and it was clear enough that a simple google search found it. And now you've been outed and I doubt you have enough shame to be as embarrassed as you should be, but at least everyone knows you have trouble forming original thoughts and expressing YOUR OWN opinion. You'd rather just rip off someone who's smarter and better than you at it.
Being busted sucks, bro. Go back to posting the youtube links, at least those are clearly not your work. Phony douche.
How about chilling with the appeals to authority and address the content. Just a suggestion.
This is pretty rich: I appealed to nothing at all. All I did was point out that you lifted someone else's opinion and presented it as your own. Which one of us is closer to appealing to authority, the one who plagiarized someone else because they couldn't think of it on their own, or the one who figured it out?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You should cite your sources, this is lifted word for word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
but you pretend that isn't the same as "being a racist"
Is it, if I find out after the fact? I don't think so. Doesn't make me thrilled, but what can I do, I signed a legal document with no "promise you're not a racist" opt out clause. Also in my example, it might not even be a conscious thing by the building owner...it might be that some realtor who isn't mine wouldn't show a black person my building.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
and provide an alternative explanation of why exactlyeveryone thinks general acceptance of "white privilege AS-A-MATTER-OF-FACT" is worth considering at all
It's worth considering so it can be addressed at all. Pretending it isn't there isn't going to help. Acknowledging it earnestly is the way to healthy honest debate (NOT FEAR MONGERING), the path to fixing a lot of problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, but don't you maybe think that some people might believe the only reason you're where you are now is because you had the "advantage" of "being white" ?
So what? What difference does what one person thinks about what one other person has accomplished make to anyone but those two people (and very likely only ONE of those people even cares)?
meanwhile, the descendants of the actual american plantation owners are currently in the oligarch class (and the poor are taking the heat for the crimes of their slave-owning-grandfathers)
No argument here, but what do you mean by "the poor are taking heat for the crimes of their slave owning grandfathers" when you say those same people are currently in the oligarch class? Aren't those the same people (descendants of plantation owners...slave owning grandfathers)?
if you were "in charge", what items do you think would help "'cognizance'" ?
I'm not an educational expert, but again, pointing out that not having equal rights for the first 175 years of US History, and then teaching what that really means (a 300+ year head start for white people as far as influencing legislation, owning property, etc.) is a decent start. No one is teaching a child that they're racist because slavery existed in reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
but if you're not one of those people, you know, harassing people on your personal suspicions (based on skin-tone), the term "white privilege" seems to lump you in with the "racists" by default
I suppose, but because I'm not a racist, I don't really care. In other words, so what? I find that complaint about the recognition of white privilege as a real and demonstrable thing is mostly a component of a bizarre victimhood complex a lot of people have (not saying you specifically, see, I can be guilty of generalizing just like anyone else!). ETA: "you're a racist" is not of a kind with "white privilege is real." One is a personal accusation, the other recognizes a systemic issue. I guess if someone said "You're a racist" and I said "Why do you say that?" and their answer is "You rented this apartment easier than someone of color could have," I would point out that those are two VERY different things. Me having an easier time of renting an apartment might be the result of white privilege, but the person who rented it to me is the one you have a problem with (assuming the person has a problem with racism and isn't trying to get me to join their cool white hood club). Make sense?
it shouldn't be considered a "privilege" to be treated like a citizen
Agree...all citizens being treated equally is indeed NOT a privilege. And before we go on a "I hate affirmative action!" trip, one which I don't TOTALLY disagree with, we have to recognize that of the few things we can do about white privilege, that one's pretty painless: affirmative action makes an attempt to "catch up" less "equal" demographics, it isn't perfect but optimally, it shouldn't PERMANENTLY be needed to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Is that why you leave your personal information as unknown?
There's nothing of any conversational value in anyone's personal information, mine especially, I figure if someone's interested they'll ask, if not it matters little to whatever subject is at hand. Not to mention that information invites bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
but what specific policy are you proposing
I'm not proposing any policy ('cognizance' isn't exactly a policy). I'm just saying I've seen white privilege in action...like every time the shoplifter alarm goes off and a white person just keeps walking, while a POC has their bag checked prior to being waved through. That's a small example, not something to do with, say, the ability to borrow money or the 400 year head start on building of wealth and making of laws.
and how are people who are NOT descendants of slave-ownerssupposed to "not feel attacked" when they keep hearing about "white privilege"
I don't feel attacked at all when I hear about it. Why would I? I don't propagate it even if I recognize that I might have had some advantages because of it, unwittingly...like when I applied for a mortgage. Seems to me pretending something doesn't exist isn't an expeditious path to resolving it. We have to recognize it as a problem that maybe NONE of us had anything personally to do with, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem.
what does GDP have to do with how many individual humans are ruled by "white people" ?
I don't know, I didn't bring up GDP, I just pointed out comparing "Africa" to "USA" is not like to like. Continents =/= countries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most of the world is Asian and African, so no. Whites do not rule most of the world. That's basic demographics.Asia alone has double the GDP of the USA. Africa is expected to surpass the USA GDP in a few decades.
Wouldn't basic demographics also dictate that we compare like to like? As in continent to continent rather than continent to country (a subset of continent and therefore not apples to apples) as pertains to GDP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
SO, IF A RANDOM WHITE PERSON'S ANCESTORS WERE RAISED IN IDAHO, OR NEW YORK, OR WISCONSIN, HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT ANY OF THIS ?
Hi! Random white person whose ancestors didn't get here until about 1935, I'm second generation born in America. Bringing historic data about slave ownership into a white privilege debate is folly and likely to just muddy the waters.
I don't feel GUILTY about SLAVE OWNERSHIP, but that isn't the same thing as understanding what white privilege is, the forms it can take, how slavery and other legal subjugations helped create and support it, and recognizing that if there's something sensible to do about it in the short term, it should be examined for feasibility. We are bound by the Constitution to "form a more perfect union," in my book, and just because America's imperfect doesn't mean it isn't great. Just that it can be better.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
He's talking about the voter approved switch to rank choice voting. You know, the ones ALASKANS VOTED FOR.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Is evolution then a process that eventually leads to civilizations destroying themselves?
99.99% of anything that's ever lived on this planet in its billions-years history is extinct. Draw your own conclusions :).
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not clear on how it's evolutionarily advantageous; to me it seems more a byproduct of evolution combined with specific blind spots left thereby. Hundreds of millions of years ago, when more than one species of hominid populated the earth, we can reasonably assume tribalism existed and was, for one group particularly (homo sapiens), quite advantageous, as we're the only ones left. Once homo neanderthalis went extinct and left sapiens as the only hominid, there weren't any obvious "out group" parameters. That meant that the subtribes within homo sapiens, and the DNA they carried that drives to reproduce, start to invent reasons to eliminate competitors within their own species. As we invent agriculture and eventually civilization, making critical resources much easier to manage / access, we start to contemplate what we don't understand, what we can't understand. Eventually we invent a 'reason' for everything: why are humans so special? Why do we dominate resources while larger, faster, stronger animals, like lions, exist? Where did we come from? Why is the sun so warm, so important? Why do rains fall, and what does it mean when they don't fall for a while? What are those white dots in the night sky? Etc. etc. etc. Religion, all of them in history, answer these questions very succinctly, but without verification, and the religions that survive and grow and thrive are the ones that answer these questions in ways that appeal to us: you're so special because some god somewhere loves you more than he loves bears...when you die, unlike animals, you're going to go live someplace EVEN BETTER than earth...you endure hardship because it's a test, not because it's meaningless bad luck...etc etc etc. These religions then add something for us to create "in groups" versus "out group" parameters over, and bang, religion seems inevitable.
TO be advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, it seems to me religion would have to somehow propel the reproduction of the species forward in some way (like how being a faster fox would be evolutionarily advantageous to being a slower fox, for example).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The man is abusive; he should get sterilized. The woman did what she had to do to escape him.
Is sterilization your panacea? Why should he get sterilized if the woman doesn't want his money or anything to do with him, and thereby becomes a drag on your tax dollars?
If you can’t afford a reversal, you can’t afford a kid.
Do you know how much it costs to have a reverse vasectomy in America on most private insurance plans?
I don’t understand why people want sex unless they want a kid.
Sex for recreation is pretty popular, dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Less children should be born to poor parents, so the solution should be to give vasectomies to guys if they have a kid without being able to pay for that kid.
What about parents who are poor, but by choice want to have a child? Like two immigrants from let's say eastern Europe who've moved here. They have a child, get ready to live the American dream, and wham, the guy loses his job (we'll leave aside the fact that you think a minimum wage job is somehow close to enough money to raise a care for a child for now). Uh oh! Now he has to go on welfare. Should he get sterilized NOW, or does he get a grace period to find a new job? Or is it "Along with your welfare application, sorry you've hit tough times, by the way, here is your mandatory sterilization paperwork, you'll need a surgical procedure in order to collect your first welfare pay out"? Is that kind of how you envision it? Is the vasectomy government sponsored? I presume yes, since the person's too poor to afford daycare on their own. Does that mean the reversal of same, which is considerably more difficult and not 100% successful, is ALSO government sponsored?
so the solution should be to give vasectomies to guys if they have a kid without being able to pay for that kid.
Is there NO OTHER solution you'd consider? Obviously you're against bodily autonomy in principle. Let's say a poor WOMAN gets pregnant, by a man she's living with, who is supporting her. He wants to have a kid, he has a good job, he can certainly afford it...buuuuuuuut he also enjoys slapping her around when she gets out of line, a fact she discovers only AFTER she's pregnant. She decides she wants nothing to do with this guy, so she goes off the grid, like in the movie Enough, and creates a new life for herself. Two questions: does the man have to be sterilized? He is not paying child support. Does the WOMAN have to be sterilized? She has a kid she can't afford. What's the penalty for her? The point is ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS are solved by giving women the right to choose what happens medically to their own bodies. The solution is NOT to take away the rights of a man in response to the loss of the rights of the woman. This is not only a further tax burden on society, it's counter to what you want to have happen. With bodily autonomy, the FIRST pregnancy never becomes a tax burden. In your system, IT ONLY BECOMES MORE OF A TAX BURDEN. That also ignores the widespread ramifications on society at large, long term.
If you get someone pregnant at 16 and you and your spouse agree to keep the baby, then your life’s mission should be focused on giving your child a better life. Deadbeats should be less selfish and start taking personal responsibility for their kid.
So I'm clear: if you get someone pregnant at 16 and can't pay child support (no minor can effectively pay child support), the government can mandate a MINOR gets a vasectomy, but the CHILD / MOTHER and her PARENTS cannot decide to have an elective abortion. Is that correct? Your idea is to permanently affect three lives, forever, rather than allow an abortion. That's your solution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Start a thread about that then. Here it only serves to muddy the waters, the cynic might think it's by design. Do you have no thoughts on forcibly sterilizing men who miss child support payments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sorry, forgot to tag you.
Created:
Posted in:
This would significantly reduce childhood poverty and death if the kids never exist to begin with. I also don’t believe in abortion. But if couples are going to have sex, it’s best for them to not reproduce unless they can afford it.
Is the goal to reduce childhood poverty, death, maybe crime too? Not increase your tax rate (this isn't really how taxes work, but I think this might be how you are thinking they work) by supporting unwanted children via welfare, tax-based social safety net programs? How then are you against abortion but in the same breath proposing forced sterilization, apparently as a punitive measure? What due process are you then inventing in order to accomplish this bodily modification, which is PERMANENT, in a fair and safe manner? What if you're a deadbeat dad when you get someone pregnant at 16, then you have to be sterilized, do you have no chance to be a parent when you're ready? What if you want to support the baby at 16 but you can't get gainful employment to do so properly, are you then forcibly sterilized? And doesn't that still ALSO mean prior to the person being sterilized, by definition, you are allowing each male ONE child they can't support? What problem does that solve as it allows the population you're trying to reduce (unsupported children) to INCREASE?
Wouldn't allowing bodily autonomy and elective abortion for women be cleaner? Because abortion accomplishes all of the things I think you wanted to accomplish. It just didn't eradicate them. It's also crucially NOT PERMANENT for the woman.
What a bizarre idea.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Liberal, conservative, or independent - Doesn’t matter as long as you have a firm grasp of reality.
This is the part that seems in short supply. And if you think it's weird here NOW, you should have seen it before a bunch of bozos on both sides were banned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
All atheists think that all theists are liars. All atheists think that theists are sub-human.
I definitely do not think either of these things. Now what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m a capital A Atheist, morality is subjective, market capitalist recognizing the need for social involvement in corporate business. Highly socially liberal; I run and cycle a lot. Have two small kids whom I am filling with 90s references and 2000 pop culture references because I can, and while they will disagree in 12 year - I won’t categorize as abuse . I believe strange new worlds is a pretty decent Star Trek series, Picard was okay, discovery is a guilty pleasure - the new star wars films were a bit crappy; the last Jedi was actually pretty decent ; the new miniseries - even boba felt were pretty cool; westworld is pretty good once you figure out wtfs going on, the world is on a bit of downward spiral of authoritarianism, but has ability to get better, Total Anihiliation is the best game of all time, pineapple does not belong on Pizza. Capybaras are the best animals, Toronto is the least canadian city, and; I cannot stress how firmly or unwaveringly I believe this: Han. shot. first.
I read this in the same tone Kevin Costner as Crash Davis recites his famous personal beliefs to Annie in Bull Durham. Excellent :).
Also, to the two bolds, in order: HOW DARE YOU, as it's clearly Red Dead Redemption 2, and I will die on that hill right next to you, friend.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Look. A biological man is NOT a biological woman. The social, cultural, business etiquette and employment law operate on the former noted clear distinctions. A biological man simply cannot come to work expecting to be treated equally with that of a biological woman. Period. Fact. Period.
Employment law in no way functions on how anyone dresses, provided said dress is appropriate for the work environment. Period, fact, period. Why would it? It's been litigated and the text is really clear. You're making no argument at all, you're stamping your feet and having a baby meltdown about something you don't like or agree with, or something that makes you uncomfortable. What difference does anyone's personal style make in your life?
There is absolutely NO sex discrimination involved in the case highlighted in the OP, nor in your fictional example either.
In my example? All I said was if a biological man comes to work in business appropriate women's clothes, there's literally nothing anyone can do or say about it without legal ramification. It's just dumb to think otherwise. Not even sure how this is a thing in the times we live in.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
It's okay because she [is] a biological woman conforming with not only societal, cultural standards/expectations, but also the employers dress code which is permissible under the law (i.e., not illegal).
Is the transgender woman dressing in a way that would not comply with the employer's dress code for females? If they are dressing appropriately for the gender they want to present, then taking action against them would definitely be discrimination. It's pretty simple. If the transgender woman is coming to work in a bikini, then you have a different legal argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can't get a single Democrat to testify under oath anything against Biden.
What democrat has been called to testify under oath about Biden, in what context? How many Trump guys are ignoring subpoenas from Congress?
People can't even say publicly that Biden should not run in 2024 without serious blowback.
A lot of elected Republicans out there saying "I won't vote for Trump because of all the stuff I've learned since?", are there? Cheney you're lauding, as she's getting drubbed for re-election in her state BECAUSE she stands on her principles and Trump has sicced his voting bloc on her over it?
The Democrat party is becoming increasingly closer to Stalin's party where all dissenters are systemically purged.
Have you read the General Milley story today? Surely you aren't serious. Which primary has Joe Biden stepped into and said "This person doesn't support me enough, don't vote for them!" like Trump did with Kemp in GA (even at one point saying Abrmas would be better for GA!), or with Lake in AZ? If you aren't a big proponent of the baseless electoral fraud claim, then you're out. That entire post was a prime example of the behavior and philosophy I posted about, it's a joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
But I don’t think it’s fair to imply one side is fundamentally honest and one side is fundamentally dishonest when they both have tons of work to do
I can wholeheartedly agree with this, but I don't think anyone's contending there's a monopoly on DISHONESTY. For me, at least, the stark difference is in the expectation of accountability, or of some sort of "principle" on what is likely the vocal minority in the Republican party. For example, at least for me, the accusations about HIllary Clinton's emails, my response is "Find them and let's look at the evidence." Her 'involvement' such as it was in Benghazi...for me, "present the evidence and let's see what it tells us." The answer in both of these cases, according to the evidence, is that neither of these things amount to much, and certainly not enough to turn her into what REpublican voters seem to think of her. But just today, there is EXTREMELY strong evidence of Trump committing an actual crime, destroying or attempting to destroy presidential records, which is explicitly against the law. There's photographic evidence, presented by a reputable reporter, which, if it's actually wrong, Trump and co. should sue for defamation, right? If Joe Biden, Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton had done something like this, it would rightfully be a gigantic story, and me, as a guy who likely votes democratic more often than republican, would ABSOLUTELY be at the front of the line, demanding an explanation and an independent investigation, and most assuredly, whoever did it doesn't get my vote, as this is extremely dangerous behavior from the president and his people. Where, pray tell, is the republican outrage on today's Haberman story? Sure, you see a couple of soft tweets from formerly elected republicans, who aren't up for re-election. Really, every American should be extremely disturbed and demanding accountability. Republicans, led by "I love the cops" Trump himself, who all talk about law and order, are pretty quick to handwave this stuff as it comes up under the guise of "they're just out to get him" and "fake news." Again, there's no monopoly on political hypocrisy, AMONG POLITICIANS. Find me the Trump supporter who saw today's story and said "This needs to be investigated fully." Find me the house member who said "Completely inappopriate and absolutely a clear crime." It's a lack of accountability that should bother everyone, but nope. Everything's met with "whatabout" as if no two things can be true at the same time.
"HUNTER BIDEN'S LAPTOP!" Let's have the evidence presented and see if it's worth caring about, how it connects to the current president, I say! Of course, no republican voter was outraged when China's awarding patents to Trump's kids during his tenure, or how many foreign nationals "chose" to stay at a Trump property, or the secret service was put up at his resorts at higher prices...this is the difference as I see it between the two.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Homophobe will be the first word out of peoples mouths that do bow to the homosexual political agenda.
Would you prefer that these people just label you, I don't know, "garden variety asshole" be preferable? Because it's less specific? I'm not sure what would be the best option, like what's the BEST outcome you're after?
Can I guess?
Is it that gay people aren't comfortable in society in general, because of something they do that is in no way society's business?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
the homosexual political agenda
Can you illuminate what you mean, specifically, by this? What exactly is the homosexual political agenda?
Created:
-->
@Kritikal
Can you tell me how you came by your religion?First off, in the modern day it is clear that Christianity is the most realistic religion that adheres to the best set of values. Many other religions have been scientifically disprooven, while others hold many harmful views. Beyond this, I think that the historical evidence is very supportive of Christianity.
More non-Christians than Christians on earth...but that doesn't answer the question. How did you become a Christian?
Created:
-->
@Kritikal
One relgion has to be true.
Why, and how did you pick the one that was?
Created: