Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I understand, they're baroque by design, regulations, but it doesn't make a strong argument to just sweep around that we should "get rid of" regulations. Sadly, history has demonstrated repeatedly that a lack of regulation leads to massive class inequality, and as a person who supports the middle class as you mentioned, I'm surprised you want to get rid of them. They protect people from exploitation, and the people who are often wanting to get rid of them are the ones who'd benefit financially.
How about one close to home: do you think we should get rid of the regulations that protect the beautiful landscape where you live, in Arizona? The regulations, for example, that protect Native lands, or keep casinos off the rim of the Grand Canyon? TO me, those are crazy important ones, and I don't even live there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Can you name a healthcare regulation you'd like to see eliminated, for example? I'm glad to engage on it but I want to know what you're objecting to, not just assume you are just saying "big government" without having a vector on what makes it so big or ineffective, regulation wise. For example, OSHA standards are economic regulations. Child labor laws, economic regulation. Healthcare regulations like making sure all pharmaceuticals are vigorously tested prior to making it to market? And given your anti-regulation stance, do you think the government should regulate pre-natal healthcare for women?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Not all regulations should go as I am not an anarchist.
WHich regulations do you think should stay? Or which sorts, not necessarily specifics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
I would run up and slap him while he was reading a book (or something of that sort) and he finally had enough of me doing this and turned around and slugged me HARD on the arm. I was taken back as my little slaps were hardly painful and on the edge of annoying. When I said indignantly "I didn't hit you that hard!", he just said, "So?"Point of my story is the antagonizor does not get to dictate the severity of the response of the antagonized.
Clearly the antagonist does not get to dictate the severity of the response, I agree...but that's quite different from saying what your brother did was justified, right? Can we agree that if his response was to punch you in the balls, then as your writhed in pain on the floor, kick you in the back until you had three broken ribs, then punch your face until both your eyes closed, then drag you out of the house to take a piss on your back, that such a response is not justified?
Or are all responses to aggression justified?
Created:
Posted in:
How many topics about vasectomies are you going to make? We get it, you think everyone should have their nuts clipped. Go do it then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Being attracted to something does not objectify it by default.Yes it does.Objectifying definition:
Read that definition again. It does not, in any way, say that if you're attracted to a thing that you've by default objectified it. Objectification divorces all other aspects of a person from their appeal as a sexual partner, which then is based entirely on physical appearance.
They don't want to date autistic men; I don't want to date ugly women.
I think everybody wins here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Are you willing to marry and have sex with a woman that you personally find ugly?
This has nothing to do with being objectification. Being attracted to something does not objectify it by default.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Is this like a 'character' you're doing? Serious question. I'm sorry if I can't pick up on your performance art, if that's what it is, I'd like to appreciate it a little more, and as a bonus, be less vexed by your absolutely bizarre posts. It's insane how much you got wrong in three sentences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
So to be clear, to you, abortion = rape in terms of moral code?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Just don't have sex broI will do this until I get the vasectomy.
Yeah, I think it'll be quite some time either way. I'm pretty sure it's not the lack of a vasectomy that's keeping you from having sex. Can you check in with a mental health professional? Your topics lately have been concerning, it's like there's less coherent thought behind them even once they're decoded. The response to the privacy question, where you say it's the same thing as raping a girlfriend in a private area...I mean come on. Pregnancy is a medical condition. Raping your girlfriend is a crime.
Created:
Posted in:
Tremendous truth bomb right here, guys. Soooooo much unconventional wisdom.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
More ignorant than you asking this forum, where there is nary a lawyer to be found, and maybe five active posters, to explain it to you, rather than doing more than surface level research on your own? Fraud is a crime. In service of another crime, it's a felony. In this case it's against the law to try to win an election through dishonest means (like if you faked your birth certificate). Whether or not you think that's a good law or not, it's the law in the state of NY, where the coverup and fraud were being committed. A jury found he broke the law to cover up more breaking of the law, ergo it's a felony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They may not like being on welfare, but they understand it's purpose and want it fully funded by raising taxes on the globlaists.
Which is why I said "like" is the wrong verb in your OP, because it might just be careless language, but it reinforces outdated stereotypes that people on welfare prefer it to earning a living wage otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
One group appreciates that the government helps with their basic needs, and those of others in similar circumstances. The other group feels entitled to their individual assistance, but resents that others are also getting it. Of course there are exceptions to each, but by and large that's how it works. To say the Harlem guy "likes" that the government feeds them would imply you've never actually interacted with people on government assistance. Almost none of them WANT to be on assistance, and fewer still LIKE that they are on assistance. They'd much rather be self-sufficient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
One of them actually likes the government feeding them.
I'm not sure "likes" is the right verb.
Created:
Posted in:
Except it's uniformly white dudes that complain about it. Blocking me after @'ing me, cool bro.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh, let me try! "An easy excuse for fragile underachieving white dudes to make when they can't understand why they didn't achieve some level of success, after overestimating their own talent or value?"
Created:
Why don't you guys just start saying it?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm not using the N word yet, but I'm waiting for the 30% figure to fall to even lower numbers among blacks (because many will adopt the majoritarian position solely because it's the majoritarian position, making the majoritarian position even more majoritarian)
Why aren't you doing your part to lower the 30% by exposing to everyone how hypocritical it is to think that word is a "no no" according to your reasoning? You say you're a free speech absolutist, but here you're regulating yourself because of a measly 30%, I mean if you were someone of principle, who really believed in it, you'd just be doing it and explaining it, with everyone who objected, saying "Ohhhh, now I get it, how could i have not understood that? Thanks!" I just don't get what's stopping you, because absolute = absolute.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The people who get mad would be in that 30% of black people. But once they realize they are in the 30%, that percentage would fall pretty quickly (because most blacks don't consider race with the N word).
Cool, so you'd only have a 3 in 10 chance of offending anyone then, and by your own assessment, as you do it would go down and not up. When are you going to start just using the N word in public then, how have the results been so far? Have you said it to a black person and then said "I guess you're in the 30% of black snowflakes who think that's a racist word, it's really just like bitch"?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Only 30% of black adults think it's ok for blacks to say the N word and not whites. Among young black adults, it's even less.
So? I'm sure once you start saying it in stores and dropping it into casual conversation, like even with your fellow white people, everyone will come around to how silly they've been, all thanks to your pioneering perspective. Just explain to them, it's because someone says bitch, and I'm sure the light will dawn, then the world can start healing.
And I can't be racist; I think the confederate statues should be torn down and replaced with bald eagle statues.
I'm convinced.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think you should be the change you want to see in the world. Start using it, then explain your reasoning, I'm sure people will understand it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You know what, based on what I've seen, I think I agree. You should definitely get a vasectomy.
Explain to me why the probability over twelve years is 78% again. You start with a birth control that's 99% effective in year one, then in year five, how effective is this birth control?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Real question, you are aware that there are options for birth control that aren't abortion and vasectomies, right? These simplistic dichotomies you set up are something else bro. Comparing cigarettes to abortion is quite a choice.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
i dont understand how evolution would create such elaborate afterlife stories, with all those common themes like tunnels and light beings life reviews etc
Evolution doesn't create them. The tunnels and lights and all that, it's just the effect of oxygen deprivation on your brain. The stuff assigned to them ("It's heaven!" or "I saw my granma!") is not created by evolution, it's informed by the individual after the fact from notions and ideas in their brains at the time, INCLUDING what people think an NDE should have in it, same way we all basically think aliens are little green or gray humanoids with big eyes. That's so unlikely to be true it's insane, but our culture has memeified that image so that everyone who "encounters" aliens has the same description, and people think that's evidence that it's real. I get it, you really love this topic, you think for some reason some other dimension exists after people die, because like the vast majority of humanity before you, you want to be special, you value your life and don't want it to end, you think it has to "mean something." You don't want to hear the real arguments otherwise, which is why you think "Someone saying something" is evidence. It isn't, any more than me saying "That guy fucked a monkey" is evidence that you fucked a monkey. It's just assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
I am curious as to the thoughts folks here who say they're pro-life have on the implications of the latest ruling in Alabama, which says embryos, stored for the purposes of IVF, are in fact people. No one's said a word about it yet.
Can a married couple claim 50 embryos as tax deductions, for example?
Can you use the HOV lane if you're pregnant?
If someone who has a child successfully through this method then leaves 40 embryos behind, are they legally responsible for paying for the cryogenic storage of same?
If they refuse to pay for this, are they now criminally liable as negligent parents for lack of care?
Do the embryos become wards of the state, supported by tax dollars, if abandoned by parents, or if the parents die, knowing they will be stored indefinitely?
There's a ton of these questions and implications. What's the current thinking?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The explanation is very simple, once you recognize that DNA only has two drives, and they drive literally everything else in life: (1) survive so you can (2) reproduce. It's that stark. This happens not at a conscious level, it's at the cellular level. The drive to reproduce is so strong, so innate, that it can actually threaten the ability to survive in certain mutations. That's kind of how cancer works. Why's that important to NDE's? Your primal brain, the parts of it you cannot control, like your "startle response" reaction, ONLY wants these two things. When that part of your brain finds a mortal threat, a real problem with a vital sign that you can't control, the theory is that it begins to emphasize the first priority: survive, so your cells can continue reproducing. How does it try to convince the conscious part to keep fighting, not just quit, because your cells want to reproduce? It finds the touchstones you've stored in your brain over the entire course of your life, your most cherished shit, and says "HEY! REMEMBER THIS! WE CAN DO THIS AGAIN!" or "LOOK, HERE'S JESUS, FEEL BETTER?" or "HERE ARE YOUR CHILDREN, THE PRODUCT OF SUCCESSFUL REPRODUCTION [except they're usually as babies, not adults]! LET'S SURVIVE AND GO BACK TO TIMES LIKE THIS." It's a trick that DNA plays on the conscious brain to try one more time to move the needle.
Does that help you understand?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Since it's a universal law spelled out in religious/spiritual texts, as well as human literature, it's kind of silly to think the/a creator wouldn't have the right to execute judgment if a perpetrator avoided human law enforcement. If he robbed a bank, people suffered as a result. Are you against the concept of retributive justice?
So are we talking about a god that only applies to the texts of Muslim and Christian here, therefore not tied to a specific religion but definitely an Abrahamic one? If so, I can quit this discussion, I'm operating under a different assumption, that this is the 'deism' argument. I don't want to waste your time. Those laws and morals are far from universal, though. THey're common between the two perhaps, but that's far from universal.
I don't understand what the spelling out of a law in a text in has to do with the creator's desire to keep people from stealing. I also don't understand your question as it relates to a creator. If the creator created a law that was so important for people not to break, then relied on people to do the enforcing, that doesn't make sense to me at all. We also may be using the word 'law' in different ways (you, I think, I using in the way that there is a "law of averages" or "law of physics," I am using it in the legal sense, as in laws that can be broken).
Perhaps we'll meet again in another thread, good to see you back.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If someone takes something valuable that belongs to you, you're going to react.
Sure, but this doesn't have anything to do with the law against stealing. I'd react this way if there were no laws about stealing, right? Watch what happens when a predator tries to take a carcass from another predator, and animals don't have laws, religion or any concern that we can see for the creator of the universe at all. They still manage to make very clear that you can't just take what I hunted. Again, exclusive of the idea of law.
The law against stealing is a universal law. Every nation in the world honors this law. In spite of categorization, any religious text demanding laws being practiced among humans will include do not steal.It's a universal principle that taking something belonging to someone else is a violation against the victim, requiring retribution.
This is an assertion and presumes that you've examined every religion for all time, the laws of every nation on earth (including those that have multiple definitions of stealing, as well as cultures that do not acknowledge personal ownership) and every culture for all time. Narrow this down some.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Since the creator created humans, it would stand for reason that the laws man creates (establishes) originated from the creator.
How so? Ultimately this is your hypothetical, so your sandbox, your rules. I'm sincerely asking. Why would this creator of everything not just create the laws, if it cared about laws? It sounds like you'd credit it with creating the idea of laws but not the laws themselves. Why create the entire known universe and skip that part?
Still, my statement did not in any way render the creator impersonal.
Fair, but it neither did it say personal either. All it said was 'creator not attached to a specific religion.' This is an added condition, that it's personal. I'm not sure what it means, but probably neither here nor there.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If the creator designed the law, inspired humans to create the laws, then they would of course be the creator's laws.
The creator's laws would have to come from the creator, human laws come from humans.
The issue is if the creator only created everything, why would it care about laws?
Again the only property you've defined is its ability to create physical matter. And it still doesn't provide the necessary link from "created" to "eternal dominion over."
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If someone robbed a bank, but was never caught, the creator (the higher power) would have no right to pass judgment on that person after they pass on?
No, because as you've laid it out, this creator only created everything. It didn't say don't rob banks, or issue any rules, it just made everything. There's nothing to "judge", as there's no infraction.
And there's still no inherent link between "I created this" and "Therefore it is forever subject to my demands."
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
For the sake of argument, let's assume a creator not attached to any religion. If someone commits a crime, but is not found out, would the creator have the right to invoke justice on that person after they pass on?
There's nothing inherent in creating anything that bestows complete and total jurisdiction over it, so no. You've set up no rules that have been violated according to the creator, so there isn't any justice to be sought, as there is no violation at all. It's just a thing that happened. Justice only exists, as far as I can tell, in the presence of law or crime, good or bad, all of which differ all over the world and across time.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Would you, having had that exchange, think "That's justice, now where's my cloud mansion?"If that were the literal exchange, I think I would slink away from St Peter quickly before he changed his mind about me and dart in through the pearly gates and hide among other people.
It's funny, I thought this exact same response as I was typing it. I'd try to mask my horror, the fact that I was thinking wow, that's fucked up, and tiptoe on my way past like "Cool, so these sky mansions, they have keys, or is it more like a smart lock thing...or....?"
I will preface this again that I only have the Bible as a reference and I do not believe that the Bible contains ALL the words, thoughts, works of God that has ever been said, done, etc. I only have my own life (and my friends and family that are in the same faith as I) to attest of how it worked for me.
I read the rest of your response, but it kind of seems to contradict this important part here: all every Christian has is just the bible, which, and I don't mean to presume you're one of these, but many, many many Christians believe to be the perfect word of god himself, and all laws in it are valid forever because they're his laws. And his laws clearly state, in the bible, there's only one way into heaven. That's to be a Jesus believing Christian. It's one of the things almost every Christian agrees on: heaven is for Christians. Not Jews. Not Muslims. Not Hindus. Certainly not atheists. Definitely no one who's avowed a faith that violates the first commandment. To say otherwise is evidence, in my view, that you're a better source of morality and justice than the character in the book itself, which again, is what many Christians purport the bible god to be: the source of morality and arbiter of justice.
I don't know you beyond a few posts here, but I would guess you'd rather live next to a Ghandi than a known sexual predator, right? Unfortunately, according to the bible and to Jesus himself, Gandhi is out, didn't tick the box that says "Christian" on the application, and every child rapist who repented and accepted Jesus from their deathbed, they're in. Every Muslim mother who made food for her community food bank, who counseled young people to keep them out of trouble, who became a doctor and saved lives, they're in hell, but every knucklehead hooligan who beats up a gay kid, or a person who harasses a trans person who just wants to go to work, those people are doing the lord's work, because they can point to bible passages that say so definitively. I'm not saying you think these things as a person, to be clear, I'm saying that this is what Christian theology is, technically.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZZ
As for Ludofl3x, that guy did run rings around me and asked me questions that I never even thought about.
Hey! That's ME! :)
For the record, I rarely think of it in terms of who gets the better of whom. I value the, to quote Major Partigaz, provocative exchange of ideas, particularly opposing ones, when spoken through rationally and thoughtfully. Wish there were more of that here, but most people seem to be doing some sort of schtick.
I didn't say that cannibal heathens go to heaven. I said that my theory is if the heathens would follow the code given, then they would be rewarded somehow. I did not say they would go to heaven. I told you that I do not really know what will happen to them due to our conversation above, BUT I do know where you and I will go if we refuse his word
Can I ask, what would your opinion be if you found out, on your entrance to heaven someday, that there aren't any cannibals in heaven? Or any aborignees, or asian folks? Or ancient Greeks or Egyptians? Wouldn't you think "Huh...that's odd." Maybe you ask St. Peter (I'm ex Catholic, I don't know if this is how protestants view the mechanics of heaven), "Hey man, why isn't Gandhi in here?" And St. Peter says, "Oh, that guy, yeah. Did a lot of good things for his people, I know, but missed one big one: didn't tell them to repent and accept Jesus, so, he's being....(Looks at heavenly iPad)...currently he's being roasted on a spit by some torture demons, he;ll be there for let's see....another ten thousand earth years, then it looks like he's scheduled for....yikes, that giant goat headed fire demon is going to sodomize him with his spiked flaming wang for at least another 20,000 years. So, I see here you're a Christian, nice work!"
I used Gandhi because most people agree he was a net positive for the people in India, but it could be whoever you think it genuinely a decent person, but is demonstrably not a Christian. Would you, having had that exchange, think "That's justice, now where's my cloud mansion?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sorry, thought I'd tagged you.
I obsess about politics (so do most of the people here) but how is my personality that terrible?
Perhaps this is a little harsh on my part, but the whole "I'm above all this" and this weird "look at how smart I am compared to anyone who I think is in a political party" is exceptionally off putting. And this board is full of absolutely awful personalities, don't feel alone. It's just not how you'd act around real people, not if you wanted to enjoy human interaction in some way.
I don't need sex. I'm happy without it.
And this sounds like "You can't fire me, I quit!" You're only happy without it because you haven't had it. Get you a blow job and tell me you think "Well, I don't need that again."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Sorry to hear that on the job stuff, but it sounds like you came through it okay. Hang in there and let me know if there's a topic you'd want to chop it up about, almost always interested. Otherwise stay healthy amigo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Cranky, thanks for asking, how about you? :) ANd also not around much, there's not a whole lot of serious discussion to be had around here, I miss it. I know, I'm guilty as charged too, my one interaction on this place in like six months has been to get fed up with this person's fake intellectualism and inflated self assessment, sorry!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZZ
Your name looks decidedly different with the extra Z, brother :).
Created:
Posted in:
Man, it's really hard to go around just not getting any attention from women at all, huh? Maybe it's your terrible personality, like saying this sort of dumb stuff unironically, I find most women aren't into it. I do, though, encourage you to get a vasectomy, because eventually the lucky lady who takes pity on you and regrets letting you fuck her within twenty minutes of it being over would probably prefer to say "if he had worn a rubber, I'm not sure I'd have felt much of anything at all, oh shit, he's calling again" (you're in her phone as Beta Cuck)
Is this like a character you're working on? You're not really like this, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
As a pro-life guy, who doesn't want anyone to get abortions, then, what is your solution to unwanted pregnancy? I presume you're not big on social programs like food stamps and welfare and housing assistance as it is today. Would I be wrong that you'd be against expanding these programs to support the number of unintended babies that lack of abortion must inevitably lead to? I don't mean just increasing the amount of government funding that goes into these programs, but you'd also need to invent new programs. Like 100% subsidized day care for the children of parents who can't afford it, let's say. Nothing luxurious, but proper preschools for kids whose single parent has to go to work. Would you vote for that?
What about 100% government funded medical care for the child for its first five years of life, when a child absolutely needs professional medical supervision in the early stages of development? Ready to say an enthusiastic yes to that, vote for it, then have your paycheck taxed (well, your parents' paycheck, you're still a kid) to do it? I'm sure the answer is yes, look at all the babies you saved, you must want them to have a long and healthy and fulfilling life!
Bah, maybe that's too expensive, those two things, right? Let's try a cheaper alternative. First, you'd have to support a completely medically accurate and fulsome curriculum of sex education, from about 10 years old. Why there? Because puberty and all those Satanic urges are right around the corner for almost all children. They ought to go into the battle well armed, right? Doesn't seem so bad, right? Well, unfortunately, many of these kids are going to start experimenting sexually early on. Are you willing to put taxpayer funded condoms in every school nurse's office, which children can take without telling their parents? I know you want mom and dad to know that their daughter is curious about giving a blow job, and once she gets a taste of that sweet dick, she might want to hop on it and give that a whirl, but most kids don't tell their parents, and, shockingly, STILL DO IT WITH THEIR PEERS. So telling their parents becomes an obstacle to them using the free birth control you offer, and uh oh, we still have a bunch of unintended pregnancies.
Would you offer government subsidy for IUD's regardless of income status and age provided you're at the age of reprodution? So any female who's had her first period can say "Just to be safe, I'm going to get an IUD because I don't want to have a child." And the government pays for it? They're inexpensive compared to welfare for 18 years, right? And the government buying power probably makes them even cheaper. Sure, some kids might not tell their parents they need an IUD, but those kids might be able to tell their partner to go get some of the rubbers from the nurse's office.
What's your solution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If we are just a product of a cosmic burb, that just happened to create our very intelligent and complex minds, that would mean that we serve no purpose, we have no meaning, we are meaningless, and we don't have a free will
How would any of this follow "product of chemistry and time"?
What is the 'purpose' you serve as someone who believes that we're intelligently designed, and how does the latter inform the former?
If you're granted intelligent design, can you advance the ball towards christianity being true? The former in this case does not in any way support the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So if God has a plan that you don't have to follow, is he all powerful and all knowing?Yes.
How? If he's all powerful and he has a plan, then you don't have free will, just the illusion of it. He's already planned for everything you or anyone else will ever do in their lives. He can't be surprised, because he's all knowing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So if God has a plan that you don't have to follow, is he all powerful and all knowing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Does god have a plan for all things / people / animals / molecules that spans all time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Turns out Colbert doesn't have any original thoughts of his own.
Irony!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The idea of AI playing a role in governance is a topic of debate and speculation.
Unlike in this post, which it authored pretty clearly. Good thing it doesn't get mad if you don't cite it.
Created: