Total posts: 1,331
Posted in:
you worship satan when you should be worshipping carrot God.
blasphemy!
Created:
i know i'm condemned cause i have eaten carrots. but i still have converted to Carrot God. let Carrot God be true, though every man a liar. if Carrot God condemns me, i deserve to be condemned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I have not not not not eaten a carrot.
then Carrot God will not not not not eat you. that's the way it works in this afterlife, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
be honest... have you ever eaten a carrot? i suspect that you have
Created:
Posted in:
it aint just a wasted vote on third parties. even if third parties had traction, all it does is the spoiler effect... two candidates who are similar get split in two, even if they're more popular, and the third party gets the nomination. if it's two dems and a republican, and the vote is split into thirds, even tho more voted for the dems, the republican might get the vote if they can edge out.
the current form of voting is called plurality voting, cause you have to get the biggest faction, a plurality.
the current form of voting also encourages people who are unpopular into the mainstream, simply cause they had the biggest plurality in primary. think of hillary and trump, both unpopular but they had the biggest plurality in primary. so that is who the election came down to. or you could say the same about trump and biden.
there's also a form of voting called 'approval method' voting, where only those with the highest approval ranking wins. someone like tom hanks would do great in this scheme, but if he started getting into the devilish details, he might not be as popular. i think rank voting is better but approval is at least better than the current plurality voting.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
instead of capital gains and sales taxes, a property tax would be better. that way, the limited resource of property would be discouraged and labor or work would be encouraged. capital gains taxes would scare off investors and sales taxes would discourage buying things. yes people would have more money so could accept higher sales taxes, but many people would opt out of economic activity to hoard wealth. both academic liberals and conservatives often agree on the property tax idea, so i think you should consider it too.
also i dont think a huge influx of immigrants would be good. prices would sky rocket, cause there'd be more peopel expecting the american standard of life. poverty would sky rocket, cause there would be fewer people needed to work jobs at least to some extent and since prices would sky rocket more people would be stuck in low paying jobs not being able to afford anything. yes expanding our economy could expand potential jobs, but in my mind it's diminsihing returns. we only need so many skilled profession people. a water treatment plant can service fifty thosuand people or it can service five thousand... the point, there's more p;eople but fewer needs for jobs, the economy of scale for many things would simply increase, so we'd have more p;eople and fewer needs for jobs.
if we took the buffet method, we might be able to use a referendum and get the people to by pass congress, but i'm not sure this would be p;ossible. i think the ordinary person would support the buffett method if they understood it, there's just a lot of variables here to deal with.
Created:
maybe warren buffet's approach to the budget was best. he said, pass a law that says any time our deficiit exceeds inflation, the current members of congress are ineligible for reelection. then, we'd be guaranteed a managemanble debt and deficit
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
your plan is convoluted and too complicated. you should be able to explain it in simple terms, if you truly understood our tax and spending situation. even albert einstein said that.. if you can't explain it simply, you probably dont really have a good grasp on it.
even if we followed your plan, though, it's one thing to state somehting that is workable. it's another thing to get a country with hundreds of milions of people to agree on it. any dictorator could solve our finanicial situation... that's not proving anything. the real solution for practical purposes, is figruing out a dispute resolution way of fixing our budget. i dont want to say it's impossible, but the status quo tends to get lobbyists to torpedo any descioin making process that would likely derail their benefits that they derive from our system. you need a dispute resolution process that can overcome the status quo lobbyists. talk about this, and then maybe you would sound enlightened. like i said, showing one way out of millions in a way to fix our budget, doesn't prove much of anything other than that it can be done. (which for some people, is a big feat, granted)
Created:
the problem is that the republicans would attack any tax increases and eventually get it lowered. which would result effectively with lowered spending. since democrats dont want that, i can see why they dont like negotiating on it.
yes, spending needs lowered, but it's more of a structural problem than bad programs, for the most part. we have a meager welfare state. so cuts to that would be hurting regular people. our defense is bigger than the next ten countries combined, and our medicare/medicaid is the same size as other countries even though they cover everyone while we only cover half our population with government healthcare. point, the healthcare is bloated. and they've been borrowing against social security for decades and now it's time to start paying it back. these are the real drivers of the debt, not welfare, yet these are imp;ossibile to cut politically.
if someone could be a dictator, they could increase taxes and decrease spending, with a scalpel approach, trim the fat. i remember john mccain and obama had that debate... should we take an ax to spending or a scalpel? back then, i thought ax... but after seeing the budget quiz with committee for a responsible budget, i see that we can get our debt to a managemable level with just scalpel level spending cuts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
is carrot god merciful? what if we ate a carrot but now regret it? or is it absolute... anyone who ate a carrot, even prior to conversion to carrot god, will now burn? do carrot god heretics burn in literal fire or is it just them being eaten by carrot god? what if someone doesn't eat carrots but never worships carrot god do they go to heaven too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
praise be to carrot God. worship carrot God, or burn... your choice.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
even the link you provided seems to suggest that they didn't agree on what fraud was committed, just that there was fraud.The link doesn’t address whether they agreed on what the fraud was because it has nothing to do with the jury’s deliberation. It was a link to a Forbes article explaining the laws he is accused of violating and how they work with regards to these specific charges. Is that not what you started this thread asking for?Why would you ask me to prove to you what the jury concluded apart from the verdict when there isn’t a single publicly available source out there on that?also you didn't provide a statement about what the election law was violated, or make a statement of what the law actually is, you just cited a link. that's a gray parrot move right there, and i know you dont like it when he does that.The article goes through each of them and even names the federal law at the center of the case. If you couldn’t find it it’s because you didn’t read it.even if the election law was not disclosing a financial gain, and the jury agreed that was unlawful, it's still a cheap move to call hiding hush money a 'financial gain'.It has nothing to do with not disclosing a financial gain. It’s about the fact that the payment to Stormy Daniels was a campaign contribution, which means it was subject to public disclosure. That’s how campaign finance laws work because if you’re running for public office the people have a right to know what money is coming in and out of your campaign so they can see and judge for themselves who you might be beholden to.But Trump decided we wouldn’t get to know about the money being spent here to get him elected, so he falsified his business records to ensure we would never know about them. That’s crime #1 - falsification of documents, with the intent to commit crime #2 - the concealment of a campaign donation.
okay i should have read the article closer. but the article still says there's many fraud and felonies the jury could agree applies, and the article also said they dont have to agree on one of them as long as they agree there was an additional charge. that still means, as i originally argued, that they are saying there's a felony, just because they say there's a felony. there is no coherent way of saying what they felony is, because the jury didn't even agree to that, to my knowledge. you pointed to the 34 counts he was found guilty of, but my link that shows those, show they are all about concealing information, the misdemeanor part. it's still a leap to call it a felony if they can't even agree on what the felony was. 'it is the way it is, cause that's the way it is'. also, i see that the payment to stormy was suppose to be a campain donation, but that's super tenuous. it's like the urakrine thing not disclosing a finanical gain... to call hush money a campaign donation is just stupid. i realize some people who are otherwise reasonable may have thought that was the case, but like i said, they couldn't even agree on those points of law. if even they coudln't agree, it's fair to call a spade a spade... it's super tenuous and a stretch, stupid, to call hush money a campaign donation. nothing you are arguing is making this seem like less of a witch hunt... you're just too bias to think objectively.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
i realize you're mentally ill, but try not to be so ignorant too. if you're not willing to actually debate, you're just insulting people. you do that a lot... try to be a better person from now on.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I've done a reasonable amount of research. I asked others to do the same if they are going to argue with me. Instead, all I see are empty assertions. Thats both for those pro trump and anti trump. More humility would seem fitting. I admit I could be wrong, but nothing seems to indicate that that's the case. I admit a jury found him guilty of a felony but my reasearch indicates that all they agreed on was that there was a felony, not the details. Ive done enough research to conclude its a witch hunt. All I see the anti trump people do is bare assert that a jury found him guilty of a felony and that that's all that matters
Created:
That link shows each if the 34 counts. They all have to do with falsifying business records, nothing about fraud or a felony. It still looks like a legal leap to get him for a felony, and the more u look into the more it seems that way. Yall trying to argue with me keep making bare assertions... it honestly looks super ignorant
Created:
-->
@ebuc
you just said a lot without saying anything, congratulations. an actual argument is when you use facts and law and actual arguments. calling people ignorant and not having an argument... just makes you look ignorant yourself. good job with that. i'm not going to respond to you until you use actual logic next time.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
you can fact check me, but my understanding is that they couldn't agree on what fraud was committed, just that there was fraud.There is no evidence the jury “couldn’t agree” on what fraud was committed, and the fact that they unanimously agreed on all 34 counts suggests the opposite.The law does not require the jury to agree, that is an entirely different thing.also, you dont cite the law that hiding info about the election is fraud.
even the link you provided seems to suggest that they didn't agree on what fraud was committed, just that there was fraud. just because they agreed there was fraud and got him on thirty four counts doesn't prove your point, necessarily.
also you didn't provide a statement about what the election law was violated, or make a statement of what the law actually is, you just cited a link. that's a gray parrot move right there, and i know you dont like it when he does that. i couldn't find the relevant law in the link either, so maybe you could try again
even if the election law was not disclosing a financial gain, and the jury agreed that was unlawful, it's still a cheap move to call hiding hush money a 'financial gain'.
you basically said a lot in your post, without saying barely anything at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
i dont think it will work. also, when a person makes a thread, it says it's automatically subscribed... but yet that feature doesn't work either. it used to work, but doesn't any more. i think it all boils down to it being a glitch, on a poorly managed website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
does your subscribe button work for you? it used to for me a while back, but now it's dysfunctional.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Nonsense, the jury unanimously agreed that Trump was guilty of committing 34 specific cases of fraud with the intent to defraud the American people by concealing information about the character and conduct of a presidential candidate.
you can fact check me, but my understanding is that they couldn't agree on what fraud was committed, just that there was fraud.
also, you dont cite the law that hiding info about the election is fraud. a lot of those election laws, are that a person can't get financial gain for an election if it's not disclosed publically. that's what the issue was with the ukraine controversy for trump and the election. the problem, is that calling 'hiding hush money' a financial gain is tenuous at best.
you are being like all the trump haters... citing vague references to laws, and vague references to what supposedly was the crime here. basically, like all those haters, you speak a lot, without really saying anything.
Created:
Posted in:
trump has been winning in the polls for a long time. it looks like he's going to win the election. biden has refused to make ukraine negotiate with russia, but trump will probably force a negotiation. that's what russia wanted not long after the war began, but ukraine and biden wasn't having it. since ukraine is dependent on the usa, the usa has the power to end the war within a week, or thereabouts, as long as russia is willing to talk, which i bet they still would. trump wants to look like the cause of the war end, and russia wants trump to look good... so ukraine will probably be forced to give up some of their eastern territory that speaks and is ethnically russian. then, both countries will acknowledge their concession and both sides will declare victory. that's how diplomacy works in the real world.
Created:
Trump was convicted of falsifying business records, which normally is a misdemeanor. No worse than and actually less serious than shop lifting. It only becomes felonious when fraud was also committed. The jury I think didn't agree what fraud was committed, just that there was fraud.
So it looks like the reasoning is circular... it's fraud, just because it's fraud. It's a felony, just because it's a felony.
It's all a joke anyways. Who cares if he trying to hide hush money? It's like Bill Clinton lying about a blow job. Who really cares? At most its just a technicality, cause dems r weak politically.
I don't even support trump. But I can call a witch hunt a witch hunt when I see it
Created:
Posted in:
Instead of just listing the last 5 most recent topics on forum page, list the last 20, or more is better. They draw a lot of traffic, but usually end up getting lost in the maze of forum sections cause they don't stay on the list long enough
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's almost all of them... they show no signs of heart and brain activity, then experience coherent elaborate afterlife stories that are more real to them than their earthly life and they don't doubt ad true and they no longer fear death, and experience common themes like tunnels light beings being told its not their time to die meeting dead relatives etc. Drugs dreams and hallucinations elsewhere in life don't cause experiences like that
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No, they're not. They're evidence that the brain has the ability to continue picking up information even after our ability to detect brain activity ceases. Nothing about that necessitates an after life.
this is another example of an irrational response to my points.
yes, perhaps, the brain is able to detect things after all currently scientifically accepted signs of life have ceased... but that wouldn't explain how it's almost always, in a way that's 'accurate or consistent with reality', the case that a dead person can determine what happened outside his body. plus you didn't even try tackling the sight to the blind thing.
the only possible rational response to this stuff, is to question the credibility of the science. the problem with that, is that the science looks credible. given you dont even make that argument, you resort to just ignoring it, and half thoughts that don't explain it.
Created:
there's also something to be said about savants and people who can remember everything, or thereabouts, or can calculate anything, or thereabouts. and all these mind bogglingly gifted and genius people.
Created:
is our default conclusion that there's no evidence, thus we can't know if we're just elaborate flesh robots?
here is my response to someone who tried debating this with me... what say ya'll?
"Complete and total BS. The most you've ever presented are anecdotal stories of NDE's which is not science."i presented evidence that out of body experiences are almost always accurate or consistent with reality. there's more than one scientific experiment that shows that this is true. either there are people who can verify what happened outside the dead person's body when they were dead, or the description is at least consistent with reality. the AWARE study had someone describe the operating room with specific details that no one who was being operated on could have known, and they also had auditory ability in a dead person when they were dead. this is a good example of 'accurate or consistent with reality'. then there's lots of stories like pam rynolds and other common stories that the dead person coudln't have known the details. this is more than just one or two anecdotes, this is a trend that is almost always accurate.then there's the blind people coming to grips with seeing for the first time while dead.these things are objectively evidence of the afterlife. it's good evidence. the most i see anyone here do with this stuff, is ignore it. the few times they respond to it, it's irrational ramblings. incoherent.so yes, i maintain that there's ample evidence and other common sense things that point to humans being more than elaborate flesh robots. yet, you irrationally ignore or respond to it... then have the complete lack of awareness to say we can't even know if humans are more than elaborate flesh robots.
plus there's the arguments for God's existence. while it's objectively possible to say it' not actually evidence, it is completely lacking in common sense to argue that.
evidence: God, christianity, miracles, NDEs, the afterlife
it is irrational to argue that there's no evidence for the afterlife
Created:
-->
@Double_R
"Complete and total BS. The most you've ever presented are anecdotal stories of NDE's which is not science."
i presented evidence that out of body experiences are almost always accurate or consistent with reality. there's more than one scientific experiment that shows that this is true. either there are people who can verify what happened outside the dead person's body when they were dead, or the description is at least consistent with reality. the AWARE study had someone describe the operating room with specific details that no one who was being operated on could have known, and they also had auditory ability in a dead person when they were dead. this is a good example of 'accurate or consistent with reality'. then there's lots of stories like pam rynolds and other common stories that the dead person coudln't have known the details. this is more than just one or two anecdotes, this is a trend that is almost always accurate.
then there's the blind people coming to grips with seeing for the first time while dead.
these things are objectively evidence of the afterlife. it's good evidence. the most i see anyone here do with this stuff, is ignore it. the few times they respond to it, it's irrational ramblings. incoherent.
so yes, i maintain that there's ample evidence and other common sense things that point to humans being more than elaborate flesh robots. yet, you irrationally ignore or respond to it... then have the complete lack of awareness to say we can't even know if humans are more than elaborate flesh robots.
Created:
He's back, let the trump bashing begin again
Created:
-->
@cristo71
I have the book that has the science in my room... I'll get back to you on more details
Created:
-->
@FLRW
That's not a credible authority as a website. Also I realize your explanation might explain some incorruptibles I'm skeptical if it explains all of them. If u want confirmation that skeptics might have some basis to be skeptical then u got it. Ive seen studies that conclude a certain body has been investigated by science with no way of showing a natural explanation. I don't have this study and can't verify for sure the science. I guess all we can do is retreat to our asdumptions
Created:
There r some Marian apparitions that looked supernatural, such as the one in Egypt or Fatima etc
Created:
-->
@Double_R
you've been presented tons of times with hard science that indicates we are more than elaborate flesh robots. you reject that science, with irrational reasons. then lack common sense, and conclude to yourself that we can't even know if we are more than elaborate flesh robots. you are a special kind of lost in your own twisted logic.
Created:
there's also the incorruptible bodies of dead saints, that take a long time to rot. skeptic claim it's things like adipocere and good conditions to prevent rotting, but believers say this has been studied scientifically and no explanations given. if skeptics can assume that's wrong, i can assume it's right. maybe my standard of proof of just believing the proponents isn't adequate, but it looks good enough for me.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Google the logical argument, "argument from the absurd". It's absurd to think humans r nothing other than elaborate flesh robots
Created:
There's also something to be said about the inexplicable origin of life, especially human consciousness
It's also kinda stupid to think humans r nothing other than elaborate flesh robots
It should be added that the atheists that don't become theists with ndes just gained no special knowledge of god
Created:
Posted in:
There's also something to be said about letting certain things slide. St paul said as Christians we have to learn to let things slide.
The nonviolent resistance thing is a good point too.
There's not enough to go on that self defense isn't at least an option sometimes but like Jesus we have the option to let it all slide as a sacrifice out of love
Created:
Posted in:
If there's a train going at 5 and all u have to do is pull a lever where it changes course and kills only 1... it's immoral not to pull the lever even tho ur action resulted in someone's death
Created:
Posted in:
It's based on Judeo christian but to call it that is just playing with words. I think there were lots of antagonist figures in the past before chirtianity. There's even religions that look a lot like Christianity before it that skeptics could say its based on
Created:
I always thought debateart was a lame name but it's hard thinking of another.
Debatecentral? I dunno
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I think they boil down to whether the ends don't justify the means, or whether proportionalism is moral. I think dogmatism goes too far with trolley problems and things like terrorists and torture and abortion etc
Created:
Created:
-->
@Castin
u do have a good point, that it's certainly plausible biblically and historically to argue penal substitution. but it's fair for me to criticize other christians and state why i think my theories are better. as i said, penal substitution is rooted in paganism, and it wasn't very established until st anslem wrote about a thousand years after jesus. i would also point out, that the old testament passages you point to, could just basically say a scapegoat or jesus bearing our sins, is when he deafeats our sin and death, he bore the sins of the world on him, even in my theory. i admit there's a certain 'pure logic' to penal substitution, i just dont think with my spiritual eyes that it's what God intends. i realize a lot of the other atonemnt theories are hard to rationalize as right, but recapitulation seems pretty solid as a christus victor model. i understand my love conquers death point isn't very established within christianity as a central tenant of atonement, but it's always been part of every theory of atonemnt. if st anslem can break ground a thousand years after jesus, there's no reason i can't break ground two thosuand years after jesus. i think a skeptic would argue the jesus atonemnt thing just doesn't make sense, and all us christains trying to come to terms with it and being scattershot with it, just shows we're 'rationalize' something that dont make sense. but i prefer thinking with spirtual eyes and biblically... and as i said, it's fair for me to say why i think my or our version of atonement is better. this is a debate website, after all.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
i think your argument is somewhat formidable in the USA, at least to the point that maybe the minimum wage should be something like 10 bucks or what it is now.... just that we should have one i think is hard for you to argue against.
i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. you did a good job arguing your case. you are a smart and capable and fun sparring partner. if we were arguing free v fair trade, i would be a lot more likely to insist on my ideas of fair trade, cause laissez faire free trade would necessarily lead to 'a race to the bottom' given that there is effectively an infinite labor pool globally.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You keep harping on the consent of the worker, but that doesn't remove exploitation, because if there's effectively unlimited labor or subpar workers, it's easy to take advantage. I know we're talking about minimum wage but this is especially true with fair trade globally.
You ask if I can do better than what it seems to be best to me. Neither of us can prove we're right, but I do have the history of the USA and the rest of the developed world who says minimum wage is good. I'm just sticking to what works and not allowing for your untested theory. If we had no minimum we know for a fact people would be expolited and we'd be outside of civilized society.
If mcdonalds sells something for 2 bucks, they r maximizing profit. They can't just ask for more money to make up for a minimum wage... they'd be forced to cut their workers in on profit. It is true that wages in aggregate can effect prices but only at the margins, not at the levels I'm proposing.
Not everyone can unionize etc.
I accept u have a point that paying decent 10 and having two unemployed could morally be argued with. I just disagree that it's worse, it's a principle. Plus if the wage works the way I hope then in the aggregate people won't lose their be unemployed to begin with. It might cause shifts in employment and the market tho
Created:
Posted in:
N8nrim and my former account n8nrgmi... innate energy am i. I could have left the mi part off but I want it to be the same as other websites and apparently I'm not the first to have thought of n8nrg
Innate energy
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
So if u believe in penal substitution... do you think God punished Jesus on our behalf? I think it'd intuitively not sit right with a lot of Christians to say God punished Jesus. If you don't view it as punishing, how do you distinguish to say he wasn't punished but yet was our penal substitute?
Created:
Googles ai intelligence says there's no consensus on if Jesus was a scapegoat. It depends on how u define scapegoats. Eastern Christians and the various theories of atonement of course allow for bloody sacrifice but the meaning varies by regions and by theories etc
Created:
-->
@Castin
I think it's possible to look at Jesus's death beyond scapegoats. A proper understanding of sacrifice is offering one's gifts, ones first fruit. Bloody sacrifices with the intent to substitute one's own sins is rooted in paganism.... bloody sacrifices with the intent of offering a gift is not pagan. Intent matters. As I said the bible says burnt offerings and such r not what matter, it's a heart matter. Yes Jesus death was substitution in that he defeated sin and death on our behalf and was a sacrifice of himself, the greatest act of love.
Bloody sacrifices boil down to intent and proper understanding
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
i think belief in reincarnation is growing among christians. the catholic church taught against it, and there's that bible verse that says something like 'we're appointed to die once, and then the judgment'. so that's why christians dont believe in it. i think it's being too literalistic, and i think considering it's so common with NDE type of people, and that there's good science behind it... it only makes sense to be open to the idea
Created: