Total posts: 8,696
Posted in:
Since there is no hard evidence that the Biblical Jesus actually lived as the gospels attest it follows that all claims regarding that figure's sexual proclivities are likewise entirely speculation.
The idea of "homosexual" in its modern usage as a political or sexual identity was entirely unknown to the early Roman Empire. Free Roman men married early and often but there were no legal or social prohibitions against sex outside of marriage so long as those people weren't other free Roman men or the women and slaves owned by other free Roman men. The only social expectation was that free Roman men were always tops and never pleasured their partners in any capacity. Raping a teenage slave boy was perfectly ordinary but giving your wife oral sex was considered perverse in the extreme. Sex was considered a part of a Roman's right of conquest and raping the conquered to demonstrate superiority or contempt was normal and legitimate behaviour.
The most admired historic figure of Jesus' time was Alexander the Great, who everybody understood to have long loving relationships with men. The reigning emperor Augustus was accused on several occasions of sex with high born men, including with his great uncle Julius Caesar to whom he later became son and heir. Julius himself famously tolerated his own legions singing songs about Caesar's fondness for buggering his soldiers. Male on male sex just wasn't nearly as scandalous as it would be today.
The literature and history suggests that most men in Jesus' time had some sexual contact with other men at some point in their lives. Jews had many strong institutional barriers, physical and political, that kept men apart from women generally, very like modern Saudi Arabia. Jewish men were not allowed to touch or generally even talk to any woman outside of their own household but worked and played and ate and bathed and slept in the same bed as their male friends and coworkers. A Jewish Rabbi may have enjoyed less freedom to experiment than his contemporaries but even that is quite uncertain. Perhaps the most complete answer is that even if we had evidence that Jesus was real, any sex he might have had with other men would have been considered commonplace certainly, normal perhaps, and decidedly unworthy of public record.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
the point is it looks like you can get Covid from buying certain items from certain stores or walking down certain aisles in certain stores.
You've missed the point 100%. The law is not making any assertions about what products have COVID-19. The Province of Ontario has told you to go home and stay home until Jun 2nd. If you can't work from home, go to work and go straight home. If you need food and other essentials, have it delivered. If it can't be delivered, pick it up curbside. If you absolutely must go into a store, it should be for emergencies with no safer alternative. You can probably get by until Jun 2 without a new pair of shoes, therefore, yes, stay out of the shoe aisle, please, they've already sent the normal shoe helping employees home so that they get don't get sick from the illegal shoe shoppers. You can definitely get by until Jun 2 without buying a greeting card, much less shopping from store to store looking for a place that hasn't roped off the card section. You have access to the internet so you can buy a greeting card online or make your own.
It seems like our politicians are making up the rules as they go along.
The law as printed above is reasonably consistent and says nothing about greeting cards or shoes or any specifics. The inconsistency arises from various commercial responses to law-breaking individuals such as yourself. Of course, stores would like to maximize sales even if most of their in store customers are violating quarantine but you can't lay the inconsistency of availability on the politicians who have already made the rules quite clear. If you are out shopping for greeting cards, then you are the one fucking up and putting people at risk. The politicians have done what they can to protect the public from your poor hygiene.
Created:
Posted in:
Here is the relevant law in effect until June 2.
ontario regulation 265/21
made under the
Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act
Made: April 7, 2021 (1:02 p.m.) Filed: April 7, 2021
Published on e-Laws: April 7, 2021
Printed in The Ontario Gazette: April 24, 2021
STAY-AT-HOME ORDER
Terms of Order
1. The terms of this Order are set out in Schedule 1.
Application
2. This Order applies as of 12:01 a.m. on April 8, 2021.
SCHEDULE 1
Requirement to remain in residence
1.
(1) Every individual shall remain at the residence at which they are currently residing at all times unless leaving their residence is necessary for one or more of the following purposes:
Work, school and child care
1. Working or volunteering where the nature of the work or volunteering requires the individual to leave their residence, including when the individual’s employer has determined that the nature of the individual’s work requires attendance at the workplace.
2. Attending school or a post-secondary institution.
3. Attending, obtaining or providing child care.
4. Receiving or providing training or educational services.
Obtaining goods and services
5. Obtaining food, beverages and personal care items.
6. Obtaining goods or services that are necessary for the health or safety of an individual, including vaccinations, other health care services and medications.
7. Obtaining goods, obtaining services, or performing such activities as are necessary for landscaping, gardening and the safe operation, maintenance and sanitation of households, businesses, means of transportation or other places.
8. Purchasing or picking up goods through an alternative method of sale, such as curbside pickup, from a business or place that is permitted to provide the alternative method of sale.
9. Attending an appointment at a business or place that is permitted to be open by appointment only.
10. Obtaining services from a financial institution or cheque cashing service.
11. Obtaining government services, social services and supports, mental health support services or addictions support services.
Assisting others
12. Delivering goods or providing care or other support or assistance to an individual who requires support or assistance, or receiving such support or assistance, including,
i. providing care for an individual in a congregate care setting, and
ii. accompanying an individual who requires assistance leaving their residence for any purpose permitted under this Order.
13. Taking a child to the child’s parent or guardian or to the parent or guardian’s residence.
14. Taking a member of the individual’s household to any place the member of the household is permitted to go under this Order.
Health, safety and legal purposes
15. Doing anything that is necessary to respond to or avoid an imminent risk to the health or safety of an individual, including,
i. protecting oneself or others from domestic violence,
ii. leaving or assisting someone in leaving unsafe living conditions, and
iii. seeking emergency assistance.
16. Exercising, including,
i. walking or moving around outdoors using an assistive mobility device, or
ii. using an outdoor recreational amenity that is permitted to be open.
17. Attending a place as required by law or in relation to the administration of justice.
18. Exercising an Aboriginal or treaty right as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Multiple residences and moving
19. Travelling to another residence of the individual if,
i. the individual intends to be at the residence for less than 24 hours and is attending for one of the purposes set out in this Order, or
ii. the individual intends to reside at the residence for at least 14 days.
20. Travelling between the homes of parents, guardians or caregivers, if the individual is under their care.
21. Making arrangements to purchase or sell a residence or to begin or end a residential lease.
22. Moving residences.
Travel
23. Travelling to an airport, bus station or train station for the purpose of travelling to a destination that is outside of the Province.
Gatherings
24. Attending a gathering for the purpose of a wedding, a funeral or a religious service, rite or ceremony that is permitted by law or making necessary arrangements for the purpose of such a gathering.
25. If the individual lives alone, gathering with the members of a single household.
Animals
26. Obtaining goods or services that are necessary for the health or safety of an animal, including obtaining veterinary services.
27. Obtaining animal food or supplies.
28. Doing anything that is necessary to respond to or avoid an imminent risk to the health or safety of an animal, including protecting an animal from suffering abuse.
29. Walking or otherwise exercising an animal.
(2) Despite subsection (1), no person shall attend a business or place that is required by law to be closed, except to the extent that temporary access to the closed business or place is permitted by law.
(3) This Order does not apply to individuals who are homeless.
(4) If this Order allows an individual to leave their residence to go to a place, it also authorizes them to return to their residence from that place.
(5) The requirement in subsection (1) to remain at an individual’s residence does not prevent the individual from accessing outdoor parts of their residence, such as a backyard, or accessing indoor or outdoor common areas of the communal residences in which they reside that are open, including lobbies.
(6) For greater certainty, nothing in this Order permits a business or place to be open if it is required by law to be closed.
(7) For greater certainty, nothing in this Order permits an individual to gather with other individuals if the gathering is not permitted by law.
(8) For greater certainty, individuals may only attend an outdoor organized public event or social gathering for a purpose set out in subsection (1) if the event or gathering is permitted by law.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And to think the very foundation of Christianity relies on these confusing inconsistencies.
I'd disagree that the foundation of Christianity relies on the Bible's literal and consistent truth.
For the first few centuries of Christianity, each Christian church kept a sacred and mostly secret collection of Christian testimonies called apocrypha. There were hundreds of gospels (mostly written in Coine Greek and Aramaic) that disagreed on every detail large and small until a general Latin canon emerged around 400 BC. Then we had more than a millenia of Gospels being read out in Latin to illiterate congregations that spoke no Latin and understood little of what was in the Bible except what priests and artists depicted.
Until the printing press was invented, few people expected any kind of consistency within the Bible because every Bible was different- sometimes in large ways but mostly in little ways. From St. Augustine to Martin Luther, almost every Christian believed that stories like the Garden of Eden and the Flood were more metaphorical than real.
The idea that every story in the Bible represents a factual claim, that every character in the Bible actually existed and every historical event true is a very modern and mostly American idea. Luther taught that every Christian could and should read the Bible in their own native language and that each Christian's personal interpretation had just as much validity as the Catholic interpretation. This led to increasing rectitude on both sides until by the mid-19th Century the Second Great Awakening was claiming Biblical infallibility in America while the First Vatican Council was claiming Papal infallibility from Rome.
Whatever the actual factualness of Biblical claims might be, we can rest assured that the people who originally authored those books in the Bibles would scratch their head at the notion of an inerrant Bible or that the Bible must be internally consistent- they were never written with that intent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
photons are only visible at speed and no speed can be achieved without time. If you could move your limbs it would be in absolute darkness and you'd have to move fairly frequently just to keep moving into areas with oxygenated air- without the movement of gases in an atmosphere you'd need to continually move out the carbon dioxide cloud around your mouth every 4 or 5 breaths, probably. If you are alone and without some way to move your body constantly while asleep, you'd probably asphyxiate the first time you fell asleep.
Created:
We have a tie and Disc has suggested a dual topic. We have two winning topics:
THUMB WAR [1]-
- PRO: INDIVIDUALISM is ETHICALLY SUPERIOR to COLLECTIVISM
- UNCONVENTIONAL DEBATE FORMATS SUCH as THAT in THIS THREAD SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED
username has earned 1pt!
Discipulus_Didicit has earned 1pt!
Submit the most popular single-post argument affirming either winning topic
- earn three points
- one post only per topic per round per DARTer
- no commentary or critique or campaigning, please- just arguments and likes
- popularity is decided by number of likes
- we can like as much or as little as we want
- we don't have to argue to vote
- we don't have to vote to argue
- I won't submit any arguments but I may use likes to break a tie
- Contestants can join at any point in the contest
- Sincere and friendly participation is requested
- If we do more than one of these, all points earned will be cumulative and perpetual in radiant glory
PERPETUAL and CUMULATIVE RADIANT GLORY POINTS COUNTER:
username:1
Discipulus_Didicit:1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
-> @oromagiI'll pop this up for a few more days but it looks like I'll be picking from Username's suggestions, the way things currently stand.Post 13 winning so far (tied with post 1)Edit: Actually also tied with post 4, didn't see that. What happens in the case of a tie?
I decide
Maybe do both?
okay. why not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Is it possible that perhaps the present doesn't exist at all, in that all our experiences include remembering things from the past.
yes. time cannot be directly perceived but must be reconstructed by the brain.
If the present does exist, how long does it actually last?
- the span of short-term memory;
- the duration which is perceived, not as duration, but asinstantaneous;
- the duration which is directly perceived — i.e. not throughthe intermediary of a number of other, perhaps instantaneous,perceptions;
- and/or
- the duration which is perceived both as present and as extended intime
Personally, I think that music gives us a good analog to the present moment in the current beat- now is the note you are playing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I don't think any action is warranted, I just wanted to express my concern. Again, thanks for your contributions to the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Hey, Benjamin
Without discouraging your enthusiasm I'd like to discourage you from posting arguments that address specific debates in progress. It's not against the rules or anything, it's just that debates should have a chance to excel without the prejudice and confusion introduced by arguments made by non-participants. Suppose you make such a good argument that a debater uses it in the debate and now one debater is essentially arguing against two participants? Or suppose you beat a debater to an argument which allows the counterargument an unfair opportunity to prefute? What if your argument is so much more persuasive than the arguments made in the debate that it prejudices voters against an objective evaluation of the actual arguments made? Moreover, by taking a position within the debate before the debate is completed, you have essentially disqualified yourself as an objective voter- which is a bit of a shame since debates have a hard enough time attracting interested readers to vote.
I think this kind of counterargument is totally appropriate, even commendable in response to a completed (post-voting) debate but when submitted during an active debate, I think there's some chance of introducing unfair bias disadvantaging some hard working debaters. You're making a lot of great new contributions to the site and I don't want you to daunt your good work, I just wanted to express my concern about the potential for interference this type of post might represent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Benjamin
RM@POST#11
Don't put words on my fucking mouth fool.
also RM@POST#33
don't be a passive-aggressive troll about this. You called them out, I just made clear what you were actually saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
--> @oromagiYour premise is false. I have not quit, much less made any pretense about it.All talk
Talk? on a debate site? Unacceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Wylted comparing RM to Elliot Rodgers too.
Rodgers is best known as a mentally ill misogynist, neither of which characterization seems to apply to RM particularly but both characterizations are well established traits of Wylted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I already regret the metaphor. It's not as if mods are endorsing men in swastikas, they are simply required to pass on any request for "safe space" protections whatever the circumstance. The cowardice is entirely GP's to suffer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
1. Make unvoted ties not be registered at all
I'd prefer a system where no well-engaged debate goes unvoted.
2. Make unrated debates not affect win/loss ration
I'm fine with this.
3. Possible extension: have unrated debates be a separate number from the rated debates
fine.
4. Make tied debates not affect win/loss ratios
I don't know how this works now but if it improves the ranking of good debaters with too many ignored debates like fauxlaw or Fruit_Inspector then I am for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Oromagi will only take stuff he's researched inside-out beforehand and not ever dare risk his pretty record being tarnished if he can avoid it needing to be possible.
Well, if I initiate a debate it is probably going to be a topic that I've looked into but when I'm the challenger, I'm often uncertain about the topic. I know little about boxing, for example, but took that Ali v. Holyfield debate of yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
it was twice not three times I think.
thrice.
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/542-on-balance-the-potential-benefits-of-autonomous-vehicles-outweigh-the-potential-harms
- Let's recall this was my first debate on this site and RM was the number one ranked debater at the time.
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/1074-evander-holyfield-would-defeat-muhammad-ali-if-ali-were-resurrected-and-both-were-at-their-respective-peak-both-users-must-agree-that-over-time-the-average-boxer-has-improved-their-strategy
- https://www.debateart.com/debates/1386-moon-vs-mars-which-destination-should-humanity-colonize-first-pro-moon-con-mars
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Oromagi pretends that he quit because it reached 99 debates but he really quit because he got a loss and it was clearly so traumatic for him.
Your premise is false. I have not quit, much less made any pretense about it.
I don't feel traumatized by my 98 and 1 record. I am proud of the work that number represents but an undefeated record for a guy with no debating experience or training was never going to be sustainable.
Last summer and autumn, I fielded a lot of requests to slow down and give others a chance to challenge which I offered to do once I lost or got to one hundred. I fell one short of that hundred goal but I've promised my hundredth debate to whiteflame so that was always going to be a loss anyway. This present pause is me honoring that offer.
What did wreck my mood and outlook about this site in early November was Greyparrot reporting me to moderation as a bully and moderation requesting that I make no defense against Greyparrot's snipes, even while he enjoys the freedom to target and mock me. Its like being told that the stand your ground law applies in all cases except when the home invasion is done by men wearing swastikas, in which case you must allow them to rape your wife.
Created:
Posted in:
Barring you quoting: "they understood that spherical shadow engulfing the moon was the Earth ...." does not show the earth spherical as a globe, but can only show it as a flat shadowed circle surface
I agree that the Earth's shadow on the moon is 2d and so better described as circular.
like Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures stated herewith: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22).
The Book of Isaiah predates Alexander- Greek astronomers would not have had much influence on that book but by Jesus' time, the scientific city of Alexandra hosted the largest Jewish population in the world and educated people were taught and understood the proofs that Earth was a ball about 25000 mile in diameter. They understood why the constellations change from latitude to latitude. No, we don't discredit earlier scientists just because they don't have the whole picture. If we did that no scientist would maintain much credit for long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Same to you as above, #25. You think you know me, but get sucked into a narrative.
but you didn't submit a narrative, you submitted an argument in the POLITICS forum.
- a couple of years ago, your hat was summarily removed by some indignant woman
- tonight, You asked a different, unrelated woman if you could "knock her hat off her face" and that woman was offended.
- Therefore, Democrats can dish it out but they can't take it
When people began to question the morality of threatening revenge for minor offenses long past on victims with no connection to the original offense, you admitted for the second time in two days that your central premise was an unwarranted fabrication and now deny threatening random women at the grocery store for no good reason (although, of course, we are all now rather compelled to some degree of speculation on that count).
We should also note that since the only source we have supporting the first bit of evidence was the same unreliable source as the now disproven second bit of evidence we really have some good reason to mistrust the whole of your set up, leaving your thesis [Democrats can dish it out but they can't take it] stripped of any supporting evidence at all. Like the last forum, you seem to have nullified your own argument pretty effectively here by relying on fabricated evidence from which readers will infer that if honest evidence might have supported the argument, then honest evidence would probably have been presented and so the conclusion is generally discredited.
Seems like that's pretty much end of discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I've read Terms of Endearment and Last Picture Show by McMurtry and his Custer biography but not Lonesome Dove. I did see the mini-series and I agree that's excellent. I still have never seen Hud in spite of many recommendations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Topic: This forum thread is immoral like-farming
- topics can be on any subject except that this our DART website, its content and membership are entirely off the table
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
When I think of all that yap you made three weeks ago about the Sermon on the Mount....
Let the record show that when your test came, you chose to be just another thug for Trump and not a disciple of that Sermon as you pretend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Does the Bible teach a flat Earth?
The fact that the Earth is spherical was proven by Pythagoras around 570BC and an undisputed geographical fact taught to Greek schoolchildren even 300 years before Christ was born. Romans in the time of Augustus were able to accurately predict eclipses of the Sun and Moon- they understood that that spherical shadow engulfing the moon was the Earth occluding the Sun.
Jesus would have never doubted that the Earth is round.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagiSpeculation is encouraged with some rational support.Biden hoped to move foreign policy emphasis away from the Arab-Israeli conflict to China and Russia....
100% non-sequitur.
Let's recall your OP claim: "within days, Biden will decide to move the US Embassy out of Jerusalem"which you then you used as example of a poor foreign policy decision by Biden. When I pressed for evidence, you quickly confessed that you made it all up.....I can't think why that wouldn't be the end of the discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kadin
Well, I don't make much religious distinction between Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. Since most of the original methods and motivations of founders like Muhammad or Siddhartha are lost to us, I think that it is at least possible that they are all of a certain type- Jesus and David Koresh, Muhammad and Jim Jones, etc and the elements that make for a long lasting religion come later. I note that many enduring religious traditions have a pragmatic, dynamic, far-sighted secondary working in the wake of the charismatic founder to lay the foundations and spread the word- Socrates had Plato, Jesus had Paul, Muhammad had Abu Bakr Siddiq, Joseph Smith had Brigham Young, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
--> @oromagiEh - yeah - at least two of those things are constitutional rights: Life and Liberty - also yes- I do think we should get rid of the second amendment, its stupid - through and through.
Now if you'd just kindly identify as a prominent progressive, fauxlaw can employ you as example number one.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I'd rather religion just be stated for what it is understood to be, rather than making garish imagery in comic books, to appeal to children by 'show, rather than truth.And if the 'truth isn't enough, ah well.My view is, that comic books trivialize religion, I don't much care for religious artwork either, statues of Jesus on the Cross, Crosses themselves, stained glass images of Saints, murals on ceilings.
I think about the fact that for the majority of the Christian Era, the majority of Christians were not literate. All those images, all that artwork was true illustration- illumination and exaltation of the subject in a voice no sermon might match. I think that if a religion can't keep up with trends in art, it tends to become less relevant.
Q: How do comic books mock one's religion?Perhaps it's the same vein as depictions of Muhammad, though that's a 'guess on my part.I don't actually recall 'why they object to that.But comics for instance, are stepping stones to 'other media, such as The Exorcist (1973).Artistic depictions of religion start to seep into the public mindset, corrupt the source material, so to speak.
Would you call yourself an Iconoclast?
Even bad from an atheist perspective, 'I think, a drop of ink isn't so bad as a bucket of ink mixed into water.In this metaphor, what do the ink and the water represent?
I suppose the ink is religion, and the water media.
I see, thx.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
--> @oromagi @RagnarInvolving religion in popular media, appears to dilute religion. Seems to me.
I was under the impression that the Bible was the most popular media of all time.
dilute=less strong
Q: How do comic books make religion less strong?
Which seems 'bad from a theist perspective, I'd say. Since it makes a mockery of one's religion, confuses it's meaning.
Q: How do comic books mock one's religion?
Even bad from an atheist perspective, 'I think, a drop of ink isn't so bad as a bucket of ink mixed into water.
In this metaphor, what do the ink and the water represent?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagi"Evidence" from the left:"Trump will have us in a war!"What war, my friend? Yes, my comment is speculation. Is that suddenly disallowed?
Speculation is encouraged with some rational support. I don't even see rumors that the Biden Administration or any other political entity is considering your far-flung prognostication so I'll assume you're working by zodiac and magic 8 ball.
Created:
-->
@Barney
--> @oromagiLoki and Thor are not brothers in the Marvel Universe either although they once believed they were brothers.Brotherhood goes deeper than blood. They were raised for thousands of years as brothers, with the time knowing Loki was adopted as a very very very recent development in the scale of their lives. While there is certainly strife from the revelation, it doesn't change anything about who they are as people.If blood was everything to Thor, he would have relinquished the throne to any older sibling that showed up.
I've only seen the movies so I'm likely out of my depth- I expect you've read the canon.
Fine. Let's strike the definitive,
DELETE: Loki and Thor are not brothers in the Marvel Universe either although they once believed they were brothers.
and fall back on vague innuendo
INSERT: And even in the Marvel Universe, Loki's parentage is supposititious.
I'll make no characterizations regarding Thor's outlook on Asgardian sucession beyond sic semper tyrannis
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Disclaimer: DO NOT LOOK UP THE ENDING TO WHIPLASH IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ITTopic: The film "Whiplash" had a happy endingRule for topic: No using the testimony of the creators of the film as evidenceOnce again, DO NOT LOOK UP THE ENDING TO WHIPLASH IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. Just see the movie if you're interested. It is one of the greatest works of art I have seen in my life
love it
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
-> @Polytheist-WitchThor and Loki are not bothers. Please refer to actual Norse myth not Marvel for discussion in a religion forum.That is probably a fair rebuke. I did get it from the Marvel - but I seem to recall it in other discussions. But thanks for that.
Also, Loki and Thor are not brothers in the Marvel Universe either although they once believed they were brothers. Thor is Asgardian and Loki is a Frost Giant.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Yes, a couple of morphs, both during eras of enslavement. Thunder God of Israelite Pantheon => Supreme Thunder/Creation God of Hebrew Henotheocracy => Creation God of the Jews (and only God in that creation)
Created:
-->
@Jasmine
They're pretty similar.
We are much better looking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagiThat's a dodge, so that's a no. You have zero examples of Progressives calling "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a constitutional right, in spite of making that claim.No, that is not a no, that's no dodge; that was a red herring.
"red herring" is concession. fauxlaw does not now believe that Progressives mistake "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" for constitutional guarantees, contradicting his own OP claim.
Another dodge, I didn't ask you if you think the Consitution is amendable by evolution of society.No, I did not dodge. That was an accusation: Progs do believe the Constitution is amendable simply by evolution of society.
gobbledygook. what does this mean?
Example, the 2nd Amendment was once tried to be amended 700 separate times by Congress, when Democrats were Democrats.
What Congress? What year? What bill?
Since they are not, anymore, but by wearing the name, amendment has been put on the shelf. No one trues, anymore, but by evolution. Is that a dodge?
unparseable gobbledygook.
Show me the last effort to change any constitutional mandate by amendment by a Democrat.
There's one in the pipeline right now, limiting to power of presidential pardon:
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:The President shall not have the power to grant pardons and reprieves to—“(1) himself or herself;“(2) any family member, up to a third degree relation, of the President, or a spouse thereof;“(3) any current or former member of the President’s administration;“(4) any person who worked on the President’s presidential campaign as a paid employee;“(5) any person or entity for an offense that was motivated by a direct and significant personal or pecuniary interest of any of the foregoing persons; or“(6) any person or entity for an offense that was at the direction of, or in coordination with, the President.Any pardon issued for a corrupt purpose shall be invalid.”.
Republicans should favor the amendment since realistic appraisal of popular vote trending indicates that the Republican Party won't likely ever again achieve the White House
AOC is no more upholding the 2A than she can uphold jobs in her own district.
another red herring. I have given you two examples of AOC upholding 2A to which you refuse reply. Since that's what AOC said and you are not contradicting her, your claim that AOC is not upholding the 2A is proved false.
In other fake news, fauxlaw is French for "fox is always right"
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
you misspelled fiance
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Is Allah the same as Jehovah? Or are they two different gods?Some suggest that even in the OT - there are two gods - jehovah and lucifer. Thor and Loki. Two brothers forever in competition.Can this be extended to allah and jehovah?
Not brothers so much as two incarnations of the same God of Thunder.
WIKI: YHWH was the national god of Ancient Israel. His origins reach at least to the early Iron Age and likely to the Late Bronze Age. In the oldest biblical literature he is a storm-and-warrior deity who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies; at that time the Israelites worshipped him alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal, but in later centuries El and Yahweh became conflated and El-linked epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone, and other gods and goddesses such as Baal and Asherah were absorbed into the Yahwistic religion.Towards the end of the Babylonian captivity (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the one true God of all the world.
When Greek culture spread across the Mediterranean, Romans found that their God of Thunder, Jupiter was a reasonable facsimile for the Greek Zeus and Etruscan Tinia (and later even Ba'al and YHWH) and so sought to synthesize beliefs and practices and consolidate various religions into a single harmonious tradition. Similarly, YHWH was first an Israelite thunder god in a Pantheon of other Israelite gods who synthesized with the creation god El and other Canaanite traditions in Egypt to emerge as a henotheistic Hebrew god (That is, NOT "there are no other gods" but rather "thou shalt have no other gods before me." After Babylonian captivity, the Jews emerged as a monotheistic tradition that suppressed other traditions by disallowing the mere mention of the many names of God.
Allah is the Arabic word for El, the Canaanite creation god, and the Kaaba at the heart of Mecca was dedicated to that old Hebrew tradition (before other gods but not because there are no other gods) for a long time before synthesizing with the local Meccan pantheon around 600 CE, then turning to monotheistic reaction after Muhammad. When speaking Arabic or Aramaic, Christians, Jews, and Muslims all use the name Allah to invoke God. In Arabic, Muslims call the god of their prophets Moses and Jesus Allah and recognize a new synthesis between those traditions and the El of Meccan monotheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
-> @oromagithree examples of prominent Progressives calling life, liberty and pursuit of happiness constitutional rights?You don't need three examples. You entirely miss the point of the next two sentences.
That's a dodge, so that's a no. You have zero examples of Progressives calling "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" a constitutional right, in spite of making that claim.
Are you saying you don't believe that the Constitution is amendable,No. The Constitution is not amendable by evolution of society; exactly what I said. It takes more than just evolution, doesn't it?
Another dodge, I didn't ask you if you think the Consitution is amendable by evolution of society. Nobody thinks that because nobody knows what that means. I asked you if believe that the constitution is amendable, as everybody believes and the constitution guarantees?
Is it? or is just another one of those panicky fears that Fox New viewers frighten each other with nightly without ever checking in on the real world?Too bad I don't watch Fox News. Sorry to spoil your paradigm.
Fox News is a bit of catch-all but it doesn't matter because all thought on the Right is essentially monolithic.
cities and states with strong gun laws have managed to cut gun violence significantly
Total dodge, now you are pretending to be arguing against AOC and not me.
I asked:
Do you deny that AOC is upholding 2A as the applicable standard.
You say it is evident so what is your evidence that Progressives as a party or movement seek to truncate the 2nd Amendment? If you can't produce, your entire OP is straw.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
it seems within days, Biden will decide to move the US Embassy out of Jerusalem.
Is there any evidence to support this claim or are you just making shit up?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @ILikePie5The World doesn't give a shit about the sentient organic scum that infects it.The world is doomed, as might be the Universe.And Israeli and Palestinian will decay together, as they were created together.And morality is the bullshit of philosophers and hypocrites.
and here I was just calling you too cynical in another forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I think that Ray Stevens was even more succinct in his expression of that sentiment:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
However, the deeper issue is the confusion by which Progressives jerk “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” from the Declaration to also call them “constitutional” rights. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, declared these rights to be “self-evident,” “endowed by [the] Creator,” and “unalienable.” And if, as Progressives believe, the Constitution is malleable, a “living document,” as the progressive left is fond of saying, then “unalienable” is subject to revision merely by evolution of society.
- Can you provide three examples of prominent Progressives calling life, liberty and pursuit of happiness constitutional rights?
- Are you saying you don't believe that the Constitution is amendable, (which is to what malleable and "living document" refer?
That Progressives wants to truncate the second amendment is evident
Is it? or is just another one of those panicky fears that Fox New viewers frighten each other with nightly without ever checking in on the real world? I don't know how you are defining Progressive or who you are thinking of when you generalize about them but let's take AOC. Most Democrats agree that AOC is non-representatively extreme in her beliefs but Fox News certainly makes her out to be the heart and soul of Progressivism so if what you are saying is true, then AOC's desire to change 2A should be discoverable.
A couple of recent quotes suggest the opposite:
in the United States, cities and states with strong gun laws have managed to cut gun violence significantly without running afoul of the Second Amendment
Here is AOC stating that NOT changing (or even running afoul) of 2A is a positive benefit
I believe the second amendment does not give one the right to bear weapons of war. I support an assault weapons ban, a ban on bump stocks, and other common sense gun reform. I also believe taking money from any corporations or lobbyists including gun lobbyists or private equity firms that have gun industry ownership stakes shoulddisqualify someone from running for public office. I am the only candidate in this race that has sworn to take no corporate PAC or lobbyist money so you can rely on me to fight for the people of my district instead of corporate interests. The gun lobby has twisted our policies and led to the deaths of millions.
an extreme position to be sure but you can't deny AOC is upholding 2A as the applicable standard.
Gallup posits that 74% of Americans believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to personal gun ownership and that number necessarily includes a lot of liberals and progressives. Almost all of the argument lies in defining well-regulated which, yes, does change of necessity to technological change. Nuclear weapons are "arms" but few would uphold the private right to bear one.
You say it is evident so what is your evidence?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
but nobody would call drug abusers insincere regarding their appreciation for drugs, now would they?
Created:
Posted in:
I'll pop this up for a few more days but it looks like I'll be picking from Username's suggestions, the way things currently stand.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @oromagi @Timid8967Chinese atheism goes a long way to proving that religions are taught contrivances.And American theism does the same.
Contrivance seems too cynical. I don't believe that 84% of humanity is just faking it.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
-> @oromagi
Sorry, my mistake. I now realize you are distinguishing between American Atheists and ALL Atheists. If we to narrow the question to American Atheists, would that make a difference in your opinion?
that was my mistake. The context was clearly US in my first post. I would agree that the First Amendment is very important to the history and civil rights of American Athiests.
Is First Amendment part and parcel of Modern American Athiesm? I don't know. There's a lot of academic and philosophical atheism that values the First but there's also a lot of anti-religious reaction that does not seem to respect the American Right to Worship.
Which religions think they have figured out the secret to eternal happiness?
All big modern religions offer eternal happiness as the reward for faithfulness, call it heaven or nirvana. You might not consider nothingness an eternal and happy state but that is bringing your judgement to the faith, which certainly calls the shedding of sorrows and the absence of care the happiest of states.
what do you think of the current "cancel culture"
I think CANCEL CULTURE is used by FOX News to consolidate the easily frightened Right- the same way ANTIFA or CRITICAL RACE THEORY is used. There's not much interest in a specific definition or an objective examination of evidence, the words are just meant to continual convince the stupid that they are under attack by vague but powerful forces.
- and the popular view of banning "hate speech"?I am opposed to banning any hate speech. Hate is a feeling and feelings ought not to be regulated by the state. I am opposed to adding additional penalties to criminal punishments for hate or any other thoughts or feelings experienced while committing crimes. We should punish the act and not the motivation.So you are a libertarian as well.
Nope. I consider myself a Liberal in the tradition of Locke and Voltaire, Jefferson and Madison. Libertarians agree with Liberals regarding the priority of humans rights but fail to recognize that only good government of, by, and for the people provides for the protection of those rights. Libertarians are skeptical of government but fail to offer a worthy replacement for government.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
-> @oromagi
Would you agree that the majority of atheists would consider freedom of speech as part and parcel of what they believe as atheists or as humans?
No. The majority of atheists are Chinese where freedom of speech is considered a privilege granted by the state and not a human right.
I tend to think that religious folk as a rule consider freedom of speech as a bad thing.
I doubt that.
I suspect this is why they agree with censorship and laws to do with defamation.
Keep in mind that from the perspective of the religious they have figured out the secret to eternal happiness and they are just trying to make sure we get a chance to enjoy it.
what do you think of the current "cancel culture"
- and the popular view of banning "hate speech"?
I am opposed to banning any hate speech. Hate is a feeling and feelings ought not to be regulated by the state. I am opposed to adding additional penalties to criminal punishments for hate or any other thoughts or feelings experienced while committing crimes. We should punish the act and not the motivation.
Created: