Total posts: 2,082
-->
@Stephen
What rights haven't they got that others have? Have these people got less rights and protection than anyone else under the law of the land?
THeir rights of self ownership, self expression, right to the pursuit of happiness, and right to assemble have all arguably been infringed upon. I get what you're saying, but the time to fight for rights is before they're taken away. The first step to taking away rights is dehumanizing or minimizing or 'othering' them, and that can begin with stuff like removing books from libraries about them.
What about the rights of women? These people want to my mind are taking away the rights of women to feel safe in their own spaces.
In what way does someone being allowed to dress how they want, request that others call them by a different name or pronoun, making women feel unsafe?
If these things are allowed to carry on we may never see another female champion in sport ever again.
Or, female sports will just get better because it's not a bunch of chicks doing layups anymore.
Seriously, though, this issue is one I'm not sure I can argue. There's a lot to it. For example, there's very little athletic difference between a 12 year old boy and 12 year old girl. They can absolutely play basketball, baseball, soccer, hockey, golf and probably others in the same league, on the same teams or even gender specific teams and you'll see very little between them. So at that age, to me, gender in sports is immaterial and if some team member wants to be him instead of her, it's no big deal. When you hit puberty though, obviously you're going to start to see significant differences. Obviously women's sports records, as insignificant as they are in the grand scheme of things, will become meaningless, which is unfair and stupid. I haven't really decided how I feel about transgender men competing against women as adults, but since i really don't give a fig about women's sports, I don't dedicate a lot of thought to it. Something to chew on I guess.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I don't click on links in forums from strangers, but I will tell you I didn't do a lot of digging on the UK story. In principle I disagree with legislating speech just because someone is offended by it, I told you, I agree with you, there should be no governmental sanctions on it, but that doesn't rule out that you could face repercussions at your work because of your behavior or things you say. If you work at a school and you're constantly saying things that upset the kids, the government can't say "you're going to jail!", but your principal might say "Knock it off or you're fired." Two different things, right?
Like I said, you can call yourself what the hell you like but don't expect me or try to forces me to agree with you. That is my pint and you know it is.A human with a dick and a pair of bollocks is not a fkn woman. And he will never get me to agree otherwise. But this is the "rights" they will be insisting on.
THere is no law that wants you to AGREE that someone with a dick and balls is a woman. They want you to legally have to treat them the same as everyone else, that's all.
I was talking pronouns he. she, them. not given names.
This seems a distinction without a difference in my book.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So...no?
Hang on, I'm trying to find some youtube that captures how unsurprising that is...
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Can you please explain your understanding of the phrase 'witch hunt'?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
YEs, a student is within their rights to get upset if a teacher calls them something other than whatever they ask to be called, this is the right to self ownership. Use the name example to see why, right? If a child's name is Ngongala, and the teacher doesn't like that name, and decides instead to say "I can't say that name, I don't like it, it makes me feel weird, so I'm just going to call you....Mark." Isn't the student right to be upset?
Wrong. My skin is thicker than that.
This is the answer to "are you offended," not "am I an asshole." It's great that you're not offended, that you have thick skin or whatever, awesome, first not everyone is as hard as you are I guess, and second, I'm still an asshole. I have a hard time believing you'd never get upset if I kept calling you Stephanie and insisting others should do the same, time and time and time again.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Did you literally stop reading right there? In the next sentence I say I don't think there should be any legal repercussions for being an asshole.
Otherwise you'd be in jail already.
ZING! Sorry, you walked me right up to it.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I tried to find that California law and if anyone had ever even been prosecuted under it (none that I can find, not even a fine levied under it), and in the research I did, it looks like your source, known for writing misleading headlines for clicks, highly overstates the potential for going to prison over the law. I didn't look up the one about the British soldier because again, that's not really a credible news site based on the way they write headlines. I can't speak for British laws on the matter, but it sure sounds to me like the law is more like a legislative recognition of someone's right to identify however they want (self-ownership). Jerry Brown might have been an asshole for all I know, the law doesn't address that part.
As far as misnaming you, the FIRST time I'd just be wrong. Once you corrected me, said "Hey man, my name is Stephen / Night Hawk," and I immediately (not weeks later while I get used to calling you Stephen) said "Sure thing Stephanie," I'm no longer operating under ignorance and wrong, we can agree now I'm just being an asshole, right? And when my friend shows up and I introduce you as Stephanie, again, I'm not just wrong, I'm ALSO an asshole. Would you disagree? My point is at some point, ignorance becomes just being a jackass, and while I don't think I should be arrested or fined for it, wouldn't you start telling people I'm an asshole? Like "Hey, look out for that guy, he's an asshole for this reason." Now do I have the right to get pissed off at YOU for telling people I'm an asshole?
It costs me nothing to call you Nighthawk. Literally zero effort or impact on my life. Once I'm informed, my position is that I'm making a choice what to call you, I'm deciding I don't care what you want me to call you, I'm going to do what I want regardless of whatever you think.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
What about the rights of the parents of children that do not wish their children (some as young as five) to be exposed this kind of stuff ?
I'd say don't bring your kids to a drag show and don't let them read books about trans people then. No one's forcing them to. And the young (5 year old) kids are going to story hours, don't conflate them with adult drag shows, that's done too often around here. Have you been to either a drag show or a drag story hour, in person?
I believe that they want the right to force me to believe something that simply isn't true. And they want the or A law to back them up.
No, they don't care really what you believe. I am not familiar with what law they're proposing to 'back them up,' can you explain it?
Isn't "misgendering" someone a "non crime hate crime/offence"?
Not in the states it isn't. It's just a sign of ignorance (as my own mistake in this regard has been pointed out to me). I don't think it is or should be a crime to be an asshole. I mean what if I decided that even though you told me your name is Stephen, I just referred to you as Stephanie, and told everyone else to do the same, wouldn't that just make me an asshole? If you want to be called Stephen, or Nighthawk, whatever, I don't care, calling you what you want to be called is just a sign of my respect for your right to self-expression, that's how I see it. It literally has zero effect on my life, so why should I make a big issue about it.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And who is that they believe are denying them those rights?
My misunderstanding, I see it in your quote now.
And who is that they believe are denying them those rights?
Places that are outlawing stuff like drag shows and story hours, places that are banning books about these issues, I'd imagine that's pretty disturbing to see if you are among their population.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Korea's contention was "castration" = "murder" in an earlier post.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Also surgeries =/= murders.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
" wanted to include both"My point being that the alphabet brigade were not excluded from buying this piss water in the first place.
I didn't claim they were, at least not without some clumsy phrasing on my part. As far as I know people of all persuasions are allowed to by whatever terrible beer you like.
They probably do not want to be seen as helping promoting anything they see as wrong and or perverted?
Okay, I guess, like I said it was a gift that the company gave to a person they viewed as commercially valuable. But shooting it with an AR15 seems at least EQUALLY guilty of the dreaded 'virtue signaling', with an extra helping of violence, I just don't understand it. You don't see me shooting up a bunch of posterboard from Hobby Lobby, or buying a bunch of Chick Fil A sandwiches (delicious, BTW) just so I can burn them in a bonfire, I just wouldn't patronize those businesses.
What rights do they not have that any other citizens doesn't have?
They're not asking for extra rights. They're asking for their right to the pursuit of happiness and freedom from discrimination, harassment and oppression.
Created:
-->
@Slainte
I'll look forward to it then, thanks!
Created:
-->
@Slainte
Without research, I cannot qualify what I said. I concede that. I can quantify the smell.. first hand and familiarly.Is that a cop out?
I hate to say I kind of think it is. It's really license to just take stuff that seems different and say "woke! THAT'S BAD!" and not have any sort of discussion on why. The pejorative "woke" is currently being used to cover everything from transgender people being allowed to express themselves, live their lives with dignity and respect, to books about slavery being too 'woke' for schools and public libraries, to M&M marketing. With a swath that wide, and an apparent inability to describe what woke really is and how it harms society in any palpable way, you can understand that it's pretty easy for someone to dismiss your concerns along those lines, and then legislating ACCORDING to this "anti-woke" stance becomes pretty problematic: it's just a catch all for anything someone doesn't like, and while today you might think "Good, I'm glad they're not teaching fifth graders that their vagina is going to be bleeding on a regular basis in schools, that's woke!", tomorrow you might disagree with whatever gets sucked up into that vacuum. When you get mad at everything, it's kind of your problem, not everyone else's, does that make sense?
I'd rather examine those concerns you have so I understand what someone's concerned about, and get a better understanding of the ideas I disagree with. And as you're new, I'm hoping we can have a sincere and thoughtful discussion, which is very, very, very rare around here.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I'm not sure what you're asking...I don't think anyone was being excluded.
There's kind of a backlash against Budweiser right now in the states because they gifted a transvestite a commemorative case of beer, and a bunch of people generally associated with the right wing had bizarre reactions to it. Kid Rock, for example, took his budweiser out to some part of his property and shot it with an AR15 in 'protest.' That senator with the eye patch made a huge deal about how he was no longer going to drink it, he was going to raid his fridge to throw it out, but then had none in there.
That, to me, sounds more like "virtue signaling" than it does any sort of real substantial problem. Basically a bunch of weirdos decided "I'm going to kill this beer because I can't be drinkin' the same thing as some tranny!!!"
Created:
-->
@Slainte
Let me put it this way.... companies will do what they think they need to do to make or retain money. There is nothing noble about it, nor does there have to be.
Completely agree! Except it doesn't advance the ball on the apparent great harm and danger that this diversity drive is causing the country at large. To put a finer point on it, how does that relate to "aggressive woke culture" and the harms it's apparently causing society?
ETA, from your earlier post,
A subquote..."the brands that can authentically connect with LGBTQ consumers win a business partner."
Why is this bad? What harm is it causing to society at large? It's not saying "We'd rather have LGBTQ+ customers than regular straight old white dudes." It's saying they want to expand business to include both. Doesn't bud light taste equally disgusting with or without a transgender person on the can? :)
Created:
-->
@Slainte
A claim on "supporting diversity" does little for companies that do not have aggressive fair trade practices, etc etc. It does support their bottom line.... for now.
Just so I'm clear on what you mean here, you don't think companies that benefit from claiming to support diversity aren't going far enough to ensure they are following fair trade practices, and that represents a level of hypocrisy, is that correct?
Assuming yes, I would have to understand better a real life example of this discordance. ETA now that I think on it, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference in practical terms, though. If you're claiming to support diversity and doing things like ensuring minority candidates for jobs get equal treatment, or having gender neutral bathrooms at the office, aren't you supporting the people that work for you, the ones that help you drive those profits? I also don't understand, and nor do I think you are claiming, to be clear, I don't understand how that could be related to some specific harm. SOMEONE, after all, is getting supported in some way, and not to the detriment of anyone else. Eventually, if we stay on that track, it would seem that fair trade practices would evolve to reflect it, down the road, you know? But honestly I don't really care about a corporation's bottom line, like who gives a shit if Bud Light sells a few less cases while people are mad they made a can with a transgender person's face on it (that was not for sale to the public, they're literally mad about a gift someone else was given). I bet the trans Anheuser Busch employees thought it was pretty awesome, and that helps them, which is fine by me.
Created:
-->
@Slainte
Businesses are promoting an ideology for profit, and not for social grace.... in my humble opinion.
Why can't both of these happen at the same time?
I'd also point out this is what capitalism does (and I'm not one of those down with capitalism types).
ETA as well, this sort of marketing happens on both sides of the aisle. I don't see anything inherently nefarious in either. THe market wants what the market wants, ignore it at peril, right?
Created:
No. I said "Democrat woke culture killed more people in USA than any mass shooter."
Oh, then it's much clearer. ?????????
You're right, I don't see how abortion = murder, castration (which isn't happening) and people getting divorced = murder. We're not going to get anywhere because you're either a complete numbskull or just not an honest participant. I'll hedge toward the latter with a splash of the former. Best of luck.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Which particular woke culture? The abortion, castration of children or the standard destruction of family values and marriage in favor of woke values?
You're the one who said woke culture kills more people than guns. I'm asking for your substantiation on that statement.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What specifically are you going to ban? You say "woke culture", what effectively can you outlaw?Well, I can think of many things.
Can you TYPE any of them?
Created:
-->
@Slainte
Thanks for the reply!
Correlation, causation blah blah blah, I do think there is a question that needs to be examined.
No dispute here, but these questions take a very long time to answer conclusively, and unfortunately won't be very clean or satisfying answers on either side of the debate, I would imagine.
Example, a nephew of mine, is very very suicidal because he does not know what his identity is. He states, "everyone has a some flag and I do not". Granted he has underling psychological pathology, however the poor kid at 15, has no idea.
This is unfortunate, I'm sorry to hear about your nephew's struggles, regardless of underlying pathology. Because I'm not at all familiar with his particulars, and obviously it's none of my business, I would have to assume there are some things that are being omitted here for both brevity and privacy. It sounds like he's upset that there's no flag for 'straight,' but then you say he doesn't know what his identity is. If he's confused, and wants a flag for that representation, it sounds like wherever he's at would have to be pretty accommodating. I guess I'm not clear on how woke culture has engendered suicidal desires in your nephew, and I'm certainly not going to ask. I would just say that it's not clear that his current mental state is directly related to 'wokeness', which seems more and more to be a stand in for transgenderism. It's tough for kids in a majority to understand why minority representation is highlighted as it is. When I was younger, I used to ask "why is there no WHITE history month?" for example. Now, I get it. Hopefully he goes through something similar with a lot of support from the people around him and gets through what sounds like a difficult time.
Passive aggressive is the media, and corporations who virtue signal for profit rather than actual substance.
Can you give me an example, and help me understand how you're delineating between 'virtual signal for profit' and 'actual substance'?
Created:
-->
@Slainte
Citations aside, I would agree that children are being irreparably harmed by aggressive woke culture. Children are agreeable by nature. They need to be fore survival. Anthropologically they have to learn from their care givers. Whilst I am politically marooned, I am very concerned about the non-fact based aggressive wokeness raining down on our vulnerable world.
Would you agree that it has killed more people than gun violence? If so, please provide citations, I don't think that's too much to ask. I don't remember the "BREAKING NEWS, A BANK IN AUSTIN TX HAS BEEN LEVELED BY WOKE CULTURE, 17 DEAD" headlines.
Please describe the specifics of "aggressive woke culture" so I can understand your concerns. I don't want to assume or lump you in with some broad generalization, so I'm asking what you mean. What I'm hoping to hear is something along the lines of "I know someone who's been harmed [in this specific way] by [some specific act or entity that qualifies as culture]."
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Democrat woke culture killed more people in USA than any mass shooter.
Please explain with citations. How many school kids died this year of 'woke culture'?
So we ban the woke culture, and restore traditional values which are: marriage and functional families.
What specifically are you going to ban? You say "woke culture", what effectively can you outlaw? How do you enforce "marriage and functional families" either legislatively or culturally on people who aren't you?
I'm looking forward to seeing who even tacitly agrees with your rankly undemocratic and anti-freedom, anti-self ownership idea. I know you're not really to be taken seriously, but this is too absurd to even qualify as satire.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The first city with the highest murder rate is St. Loiuse in the United States.A city with a democrat mayor?
I love this one, too. At some point it's going to go to "A city who has a democrat school board member?!? Of course it's rife with school shootings!" The mayor doesn't make laws. The legislature does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm responding specifically to this post of yours:
Now Democrat means pro-Democracy and Republican means anti-Democracy.This is cap. The republicans aren't against democracy. The democracy goes right wing sometimes. DeSantis winning in Florida is democracy.
It's a one issue post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
To be fair, it 'does cost money to have people in jail,Food's not the only cost.Some people 'do suffer from hunger in America,And one could argue malnutrition is a factor in some people's deaths.
I'm not arguing against either of these. They're clearly facts. What they're clearly not is any sort of justification to be calling yourself pro-life. If you at any point condone the forced ending of someone's life, by definition you're not pro life. Whether that means you think it's cool for homeless people to starve because they're not productive enough, or you'd rather a murderer get the death penalty for his crimes, either all human lives are inherently valued the same and can't be changed, or they're not and they can. Either you're pro life or you're not, which in either case is fine by me, but you can't be both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
THe easiest way to tell is which party is more interested in limiting the number of people who can vote, and which party is interested in making voting more accessible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Spare the murderer = kill good people.
I'm not arguing to spare the murderer. I'm asking you to explain how you're pro life but also pro killing a human being. It seems like you're more concerned about the timing of killing a human rather than the sanctity of life is all. I'm trying to find your logic, I really hope it's more than "a murderer consumes resources that can be used for better people, ergo murderers deserve to die."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I already answered this. The food is a limited resource. More food for murderer = less food for good people.
This is easily the dumbest thing I've read all day, your support for the death penalty is based on how much food the murderer eats. I can't even wrap my head around it, I can only hope you're not someone who operates heavy machinery for a living.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe the Bible clearly says that murder is to be punished by death.
And I believe one of the commandments is thou shalt not kill. OH NO! NOW WHAT!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
A pro life position is NEITHER can be killedNo. That is not Pro life. That is anti life. That is an impossible position to hold, since by sparing a murderer you are killing good citizens.
The murderer is in prison, where he can only kill other "less valuable" people. He's not going to kill any more "good" citizens. He's already done the killing, you're not sparing anyone but him, and only according to the principle that all live is equally valuable.
In either case, though, you're making a decision to end someone's life.Ending a murderer's life so that good citizens may live.
How does an imprisoned murderer prevent other citizens from living?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If red states turn out to have less murder or homicide rate in total, or the same rate as blue states, then your argument is negated.
Wouldn't this also mean that red states have higher instances of the dreaded "mental illness" (depression, which can lead to suicide) and general incompetence? I mean if you're saying rule out suicides and accidents to make the playing field more level, what's the other conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So its about the amount of life being produced and saved, really.
No, it really isn't, not as you've laid it out. It's about investment in the murderer. In either case, though, you're making a decision to end someone's life. That's not pro-life. You're looking at person A and person B and saying "B can be killed." A pro life position is NEITHER can be killed as all life is precious and, in most cases anyway, it's not up to you to judge, you leave that for Jesus, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Death penalty saves lives
So some lives, human lives, are worth inherently more or less than other lives. In this case you're making an economic argument: we can use resources on more 'deserving' people, and a weird 'mercy' argument, that subjecting the convict to a life where he's bullied or otherwise mistreated is more cruel than simply killing him and taking everything he has or ever can have. Is that about the size of it?
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
If people have ill intentions to kill another, yes, they'll find another way. The mindset doesn't fade away just because guns would be taken away.
This logic is essentially "we can't stop all murders so why stop any." Why does this only apply to gun crimes?
All the "mental health" issue hand waving, no one ever offers any details on what government funded programs you'd like to set up to address "mental health." Most of you can't even point to a specific mental health issue shared by all of these killers that we might want to address, I wish you would because then we could at least be addressing SOMETHING. Got any actual ideas? Because the only thing these killers actually have in common would seem to be "access to guns."
How hard is it to kill 20 people with your bare hands, or a knife, compared to an automatic weapon like an AR 15?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
While I dont support sending young people to life in prison, this case would have me support the death penalty instead.The guy is obviously mentally ill. Holding him in prison where other prisoners will beat him or rape him for the rest of his life is in itself a bad idea. Death penalty would actually be less bad for him.
Aren't you pro life?
Created:
Posted in:
That this is such a consistent problem really gives rise to a lot of questions. Wouldn't god have known language would change over time, so why leave his holy word so open for WILD interpretation (is the bible pro slavery or anti slavery? pro equal rights, or anti equal rights? etc.)? If you have to understand ancient greek to truly get the bible, is it really a book for ALL people?
Created:
Posted in:
Is anyone ever going to argue he shouldn't be indicted because he DIDN'T DO CRIMES, or is it really just because of who he is? That's an honest question. Not a single person I've seen on the conservative side, either here or in the media, has said "He's innocent of this crime." I mean if reports are to be believed, it's 30 criminal counts of fraud. It seems exclusively based on "Well I like him, so he should not be held accountable."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Women jogging just have to accept being raped because they don't have a gun as an equalizer?
Where the fuck do you see multiple women out for their morning jog with a GUN on them?
These arguments are now beyond senseless and moving into the bizarre, and every time this happens they become more ludicrous. Just be honest: the easiest solution to having a small dick and living in fear of everyone around you finding out is more important than someone else's dead loved ones. At least then all the cards are on the table.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
God can't intervene in the choices of humans, because that would be taking away our free will to choose sin or life.
This is a limitation on an all powerful being. I just realized you've done it more than once in here. You say he "WOULDN'T" do things, because if he did them he wouldn't be god. Numerous times. I've even asked repeatedly how you know he wouldn't, you never answer in any way that doesn't translate to "I don't believe in divine command theory."
He can do things not in the Bible.
This is not what you've repeatedly said in this thread though, in response to my thought experiment: anything I came up with that wasn't from the bible, according to you, had a less than 0.000000001% chance of happening, so it was pointless to engage with. If he can do things that aren't featured in the bible (except for issue immoral commands or intervene in the choices of humans, I guess?), then you can try to honestly engage with the thought experiment. Moot point now as you have confirmed you do not believe in divine command, and that god is subject to something outside of himself: morality. Which necessarily leads to the conclusion that he's not all powerful, and he's not the single source of moral perfection. It's not a trick, it's logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Therefore, God can't ask you to do that because to do so would mean he is not God.I mean it's not that hard to understand. If God were to tell you to do those things, then it would be morally wrong, but God can't be morally wrong, therefore that wouldn't be God telling you that.See you think that God can tell another to murder a baby randomly. He can, but then he's not God. God holds all of moral authority and lives by it.
Ok, then this means your actually DO NOT believe in Divine Command, now we're finally making headway. You believe that god cannot be morally wrong, not that whatever he says is morally right, like killing a random baby. Of course, this makes him subject to and not author of morality. You can try to play these word games all you like, but that's what you're saying. If god commanded you to do something immoral, you'd know it wasn't god. The other way to read your post is that if god DID command you to do something immoral, the real god, then somehow it would cost him the office of god (???). I know you're trying to have it both ways, where he could do it and he can't do it all at the same time. I'll simplify, it seems you're struggling with the idea, which is unsurprising because many Christians do. Neither answer is right or wrong, by the way.
God CAN issue a command Liam thinks is immoral, but Liam knows that's not god, because the command is immoral. Some other entity would be masquerading as god. Ergo, Liam's god cannot issue an immoral command to him.
Is that close to what you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So yes, telling someone to kill another is not moral. But God holds moral law, and has reasonings for doing certain things, that hold moral standards
So if god tells you to do it, IS IT MORAL? It's a yes or no. It has nothing to do with the reason for doing it. Is something moral because god says so (divine command theory)? Do you understand what that theory is, the one you so quickly said you agreed with? That's ALL it says. That things are moral by dictate from god and that's the only way anything can be judged as moral.
You're looking at it through the Lense of:God said to kill this person, or group of people, therefore he is a wicked God.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DIVINE COMMAND THEORY. Do you want me to make another topic so it's more clear?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Tell me, was it an unreasonable request?
Did you ask him because he had a pattern of doing this? I asked him and he answered just fine in this topic. I think you asked him because reflexively you figure believers all like to do that, maybe that's true, maybe you're right, but I don't think it's especially conducive to conversation with a new member like that. Give them a chance to prove you right. The word games are all these scriptural things you're using as a gotcha, believers just say the words are flexible, you just say the words are the words, then start name calling and all that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Then you have never held a conversation with that bible dunce the Reverend Tradesecret. Is all he ever does is redefine words in the bible to fit his arguments. In fact this all apologist ever do. See above on this very thread!!
Actually I have, and I agree, the redefining of words is pretty lame and boring. That's why I don't have conversations with him anymore, it's just board pollution. It's a much more interesting world when you can actually have human conversations with people who have different views without all the "a HA! but this word in hebrew is THIS and this one is THAT." If you don't get value out of interacting with him, then don't, there's no rule that you have to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But the things you are suggesting he would do, he wouldn't do those things.
Please explain how you know this.
If you are to use a thought experiment, you have to provide an explanation for why he did the things he did. But at that point you would be answering your own question.
YOU ARE MISSING THE QUESTION. It's not about why god does what he does, why he has asked you to kill your neighbor or beat up a pre schooler. The question has literally nothing to do with that. The question, again, is "ARE THOSE ACTIONS MORAL". You said you ascribe to divine command, your answer should be unequivocal: it's yes, they are moral. Is that what you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Interact,
So then is it possible for god today to do something that's not in the bible? If the answer is no, then fine, we'll stick to the scriptures and I've given you examples of his wickedness in scripture. I can do it all day, but word games with the bible are fruitless and boring. If he CAN do things today that are not in the bible, then you can participate in my three different thought experiments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
According to you in this very topic, that's out of bounds as it's not in the scripture.There you go. Now you understand.
Let me try it one more way. Does god still interact with the world today?
It was sad and unfortunate
This is how you're describing having to burn his daughter alive. I'm starting to wonder about your intellectual honesty and frankly your personal integrity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Why not try reading the discussion I've already had with David and raise your objections to it? Do your homework, man.
You're not even following my question, because if I applied it to Abraham, WOULD KILLING ISAAC HAVE BEEN MORAL? You will respond "but he didn't" without realizing that what that then means. I asked you about divine command theory and you've refused to engage in that, that's on you, not me.
You can though ask about a legitimate scripture in which God is supposedly "wicked" and I would be happy to get into a deep conversation with you about that.
I already tried that and you went to some extratextual reference. According to you in this very topic, that's out of bounds as it's not in the scripture. Play by your own rules. There are no rules that a thought experiment has to have some probability of happening, either, that's just something you're bringing in so you don't have to answer the question. I can come up with a ton of them and all you said is "GOD WOULDN'T DO THAT," which I didn't refute, but I asked HOW DO YOU KNOW. You're not answering that question either. I think you want to just be in here complaining and being loud.
Created:
Posted in:
Playing word games with the bible isn't going to get anyone very far, guys, you know it by now. It kinda sucks for conversation.
Sorry, forgot to tag Stephan and Brother.
Created: