Total posts: 1,221
-->
@Bones
but it might also be possible that suffering is necessary, for our free will to be purified with the strife that humans encounter. we humans can't know the answer. but, if we are believers, it makes more sense to assume there's a reason for things.
Created:
-->
@Bones
i dont disagree, but there could still be a purpose or reason for suffering to exist.
Created:
i guess traditional christian theology is possible too. we are living in the fall of man, and the consequence is suffering. i never got into all that sorta jibe though
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
interesting, i never considered it from the polytheist perspective. makes sense though when ya consider the history of god's and their purposes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
sometimes he claims he's retired and living it up on his investments, and sometimes he's claiming to be a shrewd welfare queen. i dont think grayparrot fully respects reality or understands himself, so i dont think it's possible for others to fully make sense of him or his arguments either.
Created:
to be clear, i respect the argument of the problem of suffering. i just dont think it's enough to insist on being a skeptic.
Created:
is it possible for there to be a purpose for suffering? yes. it can help us make progress to end suffering. we are co creators in that sense. it can give people the perspective to appreciate no suffering. as jesus said, the man wasn't born with health problems because of something him or his parents did, but to give glory to God when he's one day disease free.
also, asking why we still have suffering is like asking why darkness exists. that's just the way it is. can we have just light? i dont think that is possible in our reality. same way, suffering may need to exist in this reality too.
of course, a person can just insist that if it's possible for suffering not to exist but does, then it isn't necessary. a person could rationally cling to that principle, but they have to admit that they might be wrong if everything i say is true, and they need to admit that the alternative view that i present is completely realistic. What if God and heaven exist, and the reality is how i present it? then the skeptic is just clinging to philosophy that has no basis in reality. the words and thoughts, the pointless ramblings, of mere men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
this article says the science on gun free zones is inconclusive.
i dont know anything except everything else i've said.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
so you think every person who is told they can't have a gun by gun control laws will 3d print one or get one illegally or kill with another method? again, perfection in our legislative agenda isn't necessary. you are the one ignoring basic logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
all i can do is keep harping you on the exact stats. i can't just take your word on it, sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
to be clear, i can be convinced concealed carry is good, even though i'm skeptical right now, but that wouldnt change anything else, the overwhelming other evidence, that i've posted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
since you usually ignore the most important points....
"u need to show the proportion of gun free zones versus the rate they are targeted."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
having armed guards is a unique form of defense. that shouldn't count as to whether having concealed carry or lots of guns there makes a difference. to be clear, i'm on the fence about teachers having guns, cause i know guns introduce murder more than if the gun isn't there and mass shootings are rare, but i also know teachers are usually good character.
Created:
Posted in:
i do know, most schools are gun free zones, so just because most mass shootings happen in gun free zones doesn't mean they are targeted for that reason. u need to show the proportion of gun free zones versus the rate they are targeted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
i'm willing to examine your source on that. the 94% point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
as usual, you are getting hung up on irrelevant side points. maybe concealed carry isn't that uncommon, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether that law makes a difference in mass shootings.
Created:
here's a load of science that shows the consensus in science is against the gun nuts.
it's consensus science that where there's more guns, or more people have them, that there's more murders than places that dont have guns.
it's consensus that where there's more gun control, there's less murder.
it's basically. irrefutable that non-gun murders are in line with the rest of the world, but gun murders are wildly out of whack. if this was a bad person problem, not a gun problem, then non-gun murders would be out of whack too. dont need scientific study for this though, this is such common sense, and it's obvious that you are just regurgitating stupid gun nut talking points, that there is something obviously wrong with your critical thinking skills.
gun control won't stop mass shootings, as people can just regular guns, or a few of them, and go on a rampage. but it might help some. if it's too hard to get a gun (fewer guns, more restrictions), people are more likely to give up. that helps a little.
or, like sandy hook, if they dont have assault rifles, they won't be able to shoot hundreds of spray shots with such ease in a few minutes. obviously, the benefit greatly outweighs the cost of confiscating assault rifles, given they're almost never needed for self defense.
gun control is mostly about lessening the amount of times someone gets mad and happens to have a gun when they do, less about mass schooting. i saw two strangers kill each other in road rage before, which obviously wouldn't have happened if they didn't have guns.
if you tell someone they can't have a gun, not everyone who is denied will run out and get one. if they dont have a gun when they are mad, they are less likely to kill someone than if they had a knife or other weapon. it might be possible to 3d print guns, but not everyone who is denied a gun is willing to go to that level of desperation.
this is all common sense. u need to work on your critical thinking and drop the propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
so do you honestly think criminals research whether their target area has concealed carry or not? if they dont research the point, they're gonna do the shooting regardless of that law.
do you seriously think considering how rare people have concealed carry and how rare mass shootings are, that a hero will be able to emerge than if concealed carry didn't exist? it's good for guns to be in circulation for self defense, to help stop those situations, but that dont mean concealed carry is necessary.
you're making a leap in logic here in many ways
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
look at the link in my last post. ive tried before, i'm not gonna keep trying to educate someone who refuses to be educated.
Created:
Posted in:
here's a load of science that shows the consensus in science is against the gun nuts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
it's consensus science that where there's more guns, or more people have them, that there's more murders than places that dont have guns. it's basically. irrefutable that non-gun murders are in line with the rest of the world, but gun murders are wildly out of whack. if this was a bad person problem, not a gun problem, then non-gun murders would be out of whack too. dont need scientific study for this though, this is such common sense, and it's obvious that you are just regurgitating stupid gun nut talking points, that there is something obviously wrong with your critical thinking skills.
gun control won't stop mass shootings, as people can just regular guns, or a few of them, and go on a rampage. but it might help some. if it's too hard to get a gun (fewer guns, more restrictions), people are more likely to give up. that helps a little.
gun control is mostly about lessening the amount of times someone gets mad and happens to have a gun when they do, less about mass schooting. i saw two strangers kill each other in road rage before, which obviously wouldn't have happened if they didn't have guns.
or, like sandy hook, if they dont have assault rifles, they won't be able to shoot hundreds of spray shots with such ease in a few minutes. obviously, the benefit greatly outweighs the cost of confiscating assault rifles, given they're almost never needed for self defense.
if you tell someone they can't have a gun, not everyone who is denied will run out and get one. if they dont have a gun when they are mad, they are less likely to kill someone than if they had a knife or other weapon. it might be possible to 3d print guns, but not everyone who is denied a gun is willing to go to that level of desperation.
this is all common sense. u need to work on your critical thinking and drop the propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
how is this an issue that cannot be discussed? that doesn't even make sense. i dont think trans people or the various races of the world would expect that the topic of identify politics can't be discussed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
there's nothing wrong with having a personal opinion on these conventions. it's not like i said caitlyn jenner had to identify one way or the other or anything like that.
Created:
Posted in:
bruce/caitlyn jenner is a trans woman. he is biologically male but she identifies her gender as female. if caitlyn is attracted to females, i think it would be fair for him to call himself either homosexual or heterosexual. this is because by the standard of gender, he's a lesbian. but, by the standard of biological sex, he's a heterosexual. both are fair game for self declared labels.
Created:
Posted in:
if someone intentionally or recklessly causes another person to need an organ, i would say it would be fair to expect the culprit to fork over the organ. it's not politically correct to say this, but at least i'm being consistent given i expect women after a couple trimesters to have a moral obligation to the baby.
also, the difference in forking over an organ and maintaining a pregnancy is a matter of balancing the competing factors involved. a woman after giving birth will remain relatively unscathed, usually. someone forking over an organ may incur significant damage. but yes, totally i would require someone fork over an extra kidney if a birzarre and rare situation that might be necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
have you noticed? i'm sure you have. almost none of the people who are for complete legality of abortion is willing to entertain answering the question of what happens when a woman abuses the privilege, and gets a late late term elective abortion for a stupid and immoral reason. i think it shows how weak their position is.
Created:
Posted in:
i remember back when the late term abortionist Tiller was still alive, and one of the examples of an elective abortion he did was when the mother wanted to go to a rock concert but her pregnancy was in her way.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
i'm not sure about private colleges. but either way, i've always said the government should regulate healthcare costs too, so it's not like i'm being hypocritical. (every other developed country spends half as much as we do, primarily by regulating healthcare costs)
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
this is what you said when you were suppose to make a conclusive argument..
"(Z) Government (whose policies caused the price) throw up their hands with an evil grin [guess what, price fixing and nationalization don't improve supply]"
i dont know why you think that passes as an argument. it's a very esoteric statement and i'm not sure exactly what you are trying to get at.
Created:
-->
@badger
just like i thought, you have no coherent arguments. my argument is pretty good, so all you can counter with, is drivel.
Created:
-->
@badger
you need to seek professional help
Created:
my position is actually the liberal position. bill maher, a traditional liberal, agrees with me.
it's obvious watching the back and forth that most people are just brain dead reactionaries latching onto whatever their party is promoting at the time. if this was joe biden getting banned on twitter, these same liberals fighting to support twitter banning trump would then be saying we should promote free experession of ideas.
Created:
-->
@badger
there's nothing abusive or excessive about asking people to pay ten percent of their discretionary income for ten years if they borrowed enough to warrant it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
i dont see any way around what i posted. but sure feel free to think whatever you want.
Created:
the government should regulate tuition costs to keep them reasonable. and they should make sure student loans dont hurt people's credit reports.
Created:
they already have a bunch of different types of repayment plans. one of them is even ten percent of your discretionary income per year for no more than ten years.
they also have rules for those who are disabled to get discharged.
how is that unfair? there needs to be personal responsibility too.
why should workers who have no degree be paying for their boss who has a degree? plus all those arguments that it's unfair to those who try to pay themselves.
i actually dont like part of the above ten percent scheme, cause it could encourage students to take too much out, knowing it will get discharged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
even if he's deferring loans currently, that doesn't mean it's legal. do you have a source that it's legal? i would say the presumption is that he doesn't have the authority, cause presidents are suppose to enforce laws, not just do what they want.
the dreamer regulations might not be legal either. and, even if it is legal, that doesn't mean pausing loans is legal. the justification for the dreamer deportation pause is that it isn't cost effective.... that wouldn't apply to collecting money on loans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@coal
Can The President Cancel All Federal Student Loans?The President does not have the legal authority to forgive student loans on his own. Only Congress has the power of the purse. Executive action can be used only when it has been specifically authorized by Congress.The executive branch cannot spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress, per 31 USC 1301 et seq (Antideficiency Act (P.L. 97-258)) and Article I, Section 7, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.The claims that the President has the authority to forgive student loans are based on a misreading of the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1082(a)(6). That section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 provides the U.S. Secretary of Education with the authority to:“...modify, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”But that quote is taken out of context. The preamble to that section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 limits this authority to operating within the scope of the statute:“In the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary may—"In other words, when Congress authorizes a loan forgiveness program, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Teacher Loan Forgiveness or the Total and Permanent Disability Discharge, the U.S. Secretary of Education has the authority to forgive student loans as authorized under the terms of these loan forgiveness programs.Without authorization by Congress of a specific loan forgiveness program, the President does not have the authority to forgive student loan debt. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., (531 USC 457, 2001), Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes.”In addition, the “this part” language refers to Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which applies only to loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.There is similar language in Part E at 20 USC 1087hh for the Federal Perkins Loan program. There is no similar language for Part D for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program.The "parallel terms clause" in the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1087e(a)(1) (also, 20 USC 1087a(b)(2)) requires Direct Loan program loans to have the same terms and conditions as FFEL program loans. But this does not apply to the waiver authority because waiver authority is not part of the terms and conditions of the loans.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
aside from dangerous speech, what does it hurt everyone to have ideas freely passed around? im not saying it isn't the right of the company to make those calls, so you shouldn't keep harping on that point. it makes society better for ideas to be freely spread around, and stupid ideas should be countered by better ideas.
how can you claim to support free thought if you dont think it's an idea non-government should espouse too? clearly, you dont support free thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
what law gives him the authority to cancel student debt?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
so do you only agree with the private sector banning speech when it's something that you personally disagree with? you say that you support banning trump from social media, but i couldn't see you supporting it if barnes and noble decided to ban books by joe biden or i guess if social media banned biden. i happen to agree with you that trump's speech is bad and biden's isn't, but dont you at all support the idea of ideas spread freely even when it's something you disagree with? do you admit you only support banning speech you disagree with, and if you dont say that, how can you make that claim? trump had plenty of speech that was worth not censoring. maybe it makes the jobs harder for the mediums like social media, to have to pick and choose what's censored, but that's the price we have to pay for free expression.
Created:
Posted in:
i also doubt that biden has the authority to cancel all that debt
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
see my last post. you guys are guilty of the straw man fallacy. attacking arguments i didn't make.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
"So like S1 said, the idea of government getting involved in any way is not protection, it’s a violation. You cannot protect one’s right to use a platform without violating the right of those who wish for their platform to not be used."
i'm not arguing that the government should get involved in the private sector to promote free speech. i agree with you that would be inappropriate. but i still maintain that if we support the government facilitating free speech, we should support non-government entities promoting free speech for the same or similar reasons. you can't claim to be a big free speech proponent, if you only care about it when the government is involved.
do you think it's virtuous for facebook to ban trump? even if i agreed he should be censored sometimes, that doesn't mean an outright ban. as has been said, the proper way to respond to stupid ideas, is with better ideas. not banning speech. if you feel the need to ban someone's ideas, you aren't afraid of just their ideas, you are afraid of free thought in general.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
which is why i said..
"if we support the government protecting free speech, we should all support everyone even beyond the government protecting free speech. "
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
the context of my post makes my meaning clear. you're too smart not to know that, so i'm not sure your motive. im thinking either just being funny or difficult.
Created:
here is my rant....
democrats will censor speech when it's dangerous or it's misinformation. republicans censor when it's simply a message that disagrees with them. examples are book bans from republicans, and social media censoring from democrats. the reason republicans are worse, is because they want to attack substance and dont have even a plasible (not that it's excused) excuse that the speech is dangerous or inaccurate. at least, republicans have historically not been all about new ideas. from the other side, the liberals' hippie ancestors are not amused, because those hippies promoted free speech, whereas modern liberals dont as much as they should. liberals also do things like ban trump from platforms.... it's understandable to block dangerous speech, but someone in trump's position should have least have a platform, so it'd be better to pick what things to block from him instead of a blanket ban. the reason liberals are doing the censoring moreso these days, is because they hold power politically these days in the culture... so it's an inversion of power, in the past they were the ones being censored.
if we support the government protecting free speech, we should all support everyone even beyond the government protecting free speech. my focus isn't debating those that think free speech is bad... but the thing is, everyone wants to talk out their mouth that it's good, and then a sizeable number will find ways to excuse censorship when it comes from their party.
i'm just calling spades, spades, with this post. how could you disagree?
Created:
Posted in:
a couple ideas. the verse quoting jesus doesn't say that jesus condones people using the sword. it's possible jesus came to stoke division, and it just so happens peeps will use violence, not that jesus thinks it's ok.
another idea. maybe jesus allows for self defense. self defense isn't necessary, such as jesus not fighting the crucifixion and when people turn the other cheek. but self defense is a person's right if they think it's the best course of action. jesus didn't say you have to turn the cheek, just that it's a good thing to do. (i think this is accurate, though i could be wrong)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
your profile pic, should say that putin is a genius. the words of your idol, donald the trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
would you support making criminals be slaves to the state, for the benefit of the victims? the slavery would be geared towards making money, to compensate the victims. if they chose not to be slaves, they could be executed. thoughts?
Created: