Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Chatter / Re: The War on SJWs
« Last post by junebug72 on Today at 07:22:05 AM »
Referring to someone as an 'it' treats them as a non-entity, a non-person.  So yes, I would say it is unjust.  Same thing with epithets, when you get right down to it.  I'm not talking about the occasional tendency people have to do such things, I'm talking about the systematic use of it by some people to treat other people as being fundamentally less human than they are.  That's not something that can be excused with sayings like "haters gotta hate".

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that government should regulate such speech.  That's blocked by the First Amendment, and even if it weren't, attempting to enforce civility through government regulations is a bad idea.  I don't think the PC crowd is aiming for that, but I would oppose it in any case.

But the fact remains that they do have some good points.  Like it or not, things like referring to a transgendered person as 'it' or referring to someone by an ethnic slur can also be forms of defamation, especially if used systematically.  The same goes for bullying and things like it.  If you can see things like libel and slander as being assault rather than free speech, then you should be able to understand that it can apply to other things too, instead of simply assuming that a person just needs thicker skin.

Freedom of speech doesn't give someone license to intentionally hurt others with it.

I know this much in our language if you do not know the sex of a person you call them an it.  New pronouns have been created and that's great but I don't think people should be forced by law to use them.   

I don't agree that is on the same level with slander.  Slander is an assault on a person's lively-hood.  It's an attempt to utterly destroy someone w/o murder.  Hate speech is meant to offend and it does very successfully.   I don't like hate speech.  I wish everybody would just be nice and respectful but that doesn't exist.  It's a cruel world we live in.

At the end of the day all you can do is live your life as you think others should live theirs.  Maybe, just maybe you change a few hateful minds along the way. 

Do you think offending someone should be a misdemeanor?   I want to see crime reduced not increased 10 fold.

I think the penalty for slander is monetary payback. 

https://www.hg.org/defamation.html

It gets ridiculous when an ex reality "white boy" calls that racism and cries over it.  He did get a public apology from the owner of Popeyes. http://www.tmz.com/2017/01/10/popeyes-employee-bo-bice-white-boy-apology/  Cracker Barrel is now a racial epithet. 

Aren't you the one who said; "give them an inch"?  I am seriously tired of being white shamed.  I came from poor white Irish hillbillies.  None of my peeps ever owned a slave but there have been racists in my family.  Not so far as to join the KKK but hateful towards black folk; yes they were and did fight for the South.  Until this sweet little junebug convinced them it was wrong.  My brother was dying from cancer and the best nurse he had was this sweet black lady.  We were having a Sunday dinner and out came the "N" word in 2002.  I had enough of it.  So I told them about that nurse and how one day they might need a black nurse.  That an African American invented air conditioning and soul food.  They never used that word around me again.  Oh yea and yes I used Jesus.  :-[

The point of that story is this.  I'm not the only sweet pea out there and given time this will be the end of racism not more regulations that do have unwanted side effects for the group being protected as I mentioned earlier; making it harder to get hired.

I found out "Q" stands for Queer or Questioning.  I find the word queer offensive.  I really do that's not sarcasm.

Quote
Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that government should regulate such speech.  That's blocked by the First Amendment, and even if it weren't, attempting to enforce civility through government regulations is a bad idea.  I don't think the PC crowd is aiming for that, but I would oppose it in any case.

That's exactly what they're trying to do Jaime.  SJWs are the the ones taking PC to this level and that's why there is a war on them.  I started this thread to discuss and discover why anybody would rage war on social justice warriors.  That struck me as mind boggling.  So I've been paying attention to the other side.   This is why I like The Rubin Report.  From what I've heard it's over free speech and protecting Islam and a biased liberal media and everybody is protecting big pharma.  Do you know Micheal Moore is advocating a Muslim for head of the DNC?  Bernie too.  Not just no for me there but a scream HELL NO!!!  I think Micheal Moore started the 911 conspiracy and he calls Trump the "godfather'' of fake news. &)

Turns out that Rosa Parks was trained and chosen to represent the movement.  Turns out activists are trained.  Notice I said activists not protestor.

This thing with Russia could be more about revenge on George Soros who bankrupted banks in Russia.  George Soros funds BLM and Hillary Clinton.  He funds the "liberal" media.   Democrats just have to stop taking this man's money.

Have you any other idea why there would be a war on SJWs?  I seem to be the only one researching here. 


2
General Religious Discussion / Re: Having it both ways
« Last post by wheels5894 on Today at 06:40:01 AM »
Well, you could be right Skep - god might just decide to save people at a rate which is just what we would expect through probability theory. It is possible..... Yet I don't really think that if things happen in a way that probability theory predicts - unless there is clear evidence that there is divine interaction.

One has to remember that Jesus, in the gospels, promised his believers anything they prayed for and yet this idea to account for the fact that god doesn't grant what people ask very often or even slightly often. An hypothesis was developed to explain why god ignores so many parents who pray for there child to live only to see it die from cancer or some other awful disease. While, if one is gullible enough it seems to explain all the problems away, it really doesn't do anything to convince people with a mind that wants real answers. Yet this sort of teaching leaves everyone in a quandary. We are faced with a choice of either -

1. God does exist and answers prayers (though not very often) but is quite the worse sort of dictator who is content to watch millions of children die young when he could save them.

OR

2. God is a fiction and prayers that seem to be answered are only seen as answered if one ignores all the prayers that get no answer - that is it is like a lottery with very long odds but just occasionally someone will ask for the thing that wins and claim it was god who did it.

One can try this for oneself. Pray for somethings to god and see how many actual happen. Then pray for other things to a jug of milk and see how many happen. My bet would be that the jug of milk will be as effective as god - and we know that jugs of milk only achieve results when drunk and not when spoken to.

Start thinking hard, Skep. This is one topic in which there is a clear choice of thinking and one where one can see the action or lack of action of a proposed god. Are you truly convinced that god ever answers prayers. If so, please tell us what makes you certain because, at the moment, I can't see how this could be shown.
3
General Religious Discussion / Re: Having it both ways
« Last post by eh! on Today at 03:21:42 AM »
If 299 people die in a plane  crash and one survives that's pretty good evidence no miracle has occurred.

Chances of a christian surviving statistically above any other group and you have nothing but random chance.

A miracle would be the plane fails and just before hitting the ground all the believers teleport to their sofa at home.

Why are there no miracles that are different to random chance and zero miracles everyone in the world concedes a supernatural act.

Skep you have held the position in the past god does not suspend the laws of physics as that messes with free will and faith.
4
General Religious Discussion / Re: For The Atheists: If God Told You...
« Last post by Azdgari on Today at 03:17:57 AM »
So in other words, this is accurate?

It does not matter if you view God's actions as just or unjust. It won't save you from Hell. That's a problem with too many atheists. They think that by saying "God would never do that if He exists!" is actually how it would be if God does exist. But no amount of screaming at God will save you.

I wasn't talking about saving people from hell.  I was talking about morality.

Are you conceding that your god, if it exists, has nothing to do with morality?  Because it looks like that's what you're conceding here.
5
General Religious Discussion / Re: Having it both ways
« Last post by Azdgari on Today at 03:16:31 AM »
If God helped us out with everything 100%, and both teams pray to win, what do you suggest God should do?

You seem to take this stuff all as a criticism of your god's actions.  It's not.  It's a criticism of human actions.  In this case, the human action of attributing the win to 'God'.
6
General Religious Discussion / Re: For The Atheists: If God Told You...
« Last post by skeptic54768 on Yesterday at 11:52:19 PM »
It does not matter if you view God's actions as just or unjust. It won't save you from Hell. That's a problem with too many atheists. They think that by saying "God would never do that if He exists!" is actually how it would be if God does exist. But no amount of screaming at God will save you.
and Christians say "God would never do that" when confronted with the viciousness of their god. 



classic might equals right and "I was just following orders".

But can you imagine how scared one of Hitler's Nazi's would be if he truly wanted to shoot Hitler at point blank range?

Yep, and this means what in answer to my question, Skep?    It seems that you are quite content with claiming might equals right and you were just following orders

I am not saying that might is right. What I am saying is that it's a lot more probable for the Nazi soldiers to have actually done something against Hitler than it is for humans to do anything to God. If you disagree with God and hate what He does, then there's nothing yo can do about it. That's a personal decision made by you guys.
7
General Religious Discussion / Re: Having it both ways
« Last post by skeptic54768 on Yesterday at 11:36:23 PM »
If they were to play a sports game (baseball/football/etc) would it only count when the home team scores?

Exactly.

 If God helped us out with everything 100%, and both teams pray to win, what do you suggest God should do?
8
General Religious Discussion / Re: Having it both ways
« Last post by skeptic54768 on Yesterday at 11:27:22 PM »
I can certainly see where the OP is coming from, but I am sorry to inform you guys that you are just plain wrong with your thinking.

Is it true that God does save some and not others? Yes, this is true. I can not deny this. However, there are reasons behind what God does. If 299 people die in a plane crash and 1 person survives, it is a miracle because that other person should logically be dead as well. If a person survives a fall out of airplane from 30,000 feet, how does the laws of physics account for that? Logic says the person should be dead beyond recognition. Yet, they are not. That is a miracle because it could only happen supernaturally.

Do we know why God saves some and not others? No, we do not. But I am confident that there is a Big Plan involved in this and we will learn the reasons when we speak to God in the afterlife. But I do know one thing for sure. If God saved everyone from everything, then this world would be Heaven. But, this is Earth, not Heaven. Atheists never really answer the question, "How much should God help us out with and how much should he leave to ourselves?"
9
General Religious Discussion / Re: Having it both ways
« Last post by YRM_DM on Yesterday at 11:08:02 PM »
If the lady had burned to death in the car, in spite of the guy's prayers, we wouldn't hear about this story at all.

A great explanation to consider is that perhaps her seat belt burned through, or, the pain finally gave the woman enough adrenaline to do what she needed to do.

But when a person needs a real miracle, such as a toddler in a hot van outside a church... Jesus doesn't help them.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-10-04/news/fl-baby-church-van-20101003_1_sweltering-car-parking-lot-church-congregation

An old teacher of mine, who's long since passed...  great teacher... this person was a highly, highly religious believer.  In some ways, that did inspire a lot of admirable traits "golden rule, love for the students, genuine compassion".   This teacher was very overweight.   They had a child that was also very overweight.

The teenage child was a back seat passenger with some friends in a car that rolled over a hill and caught fire.   The three normal sized teens got out, but, my teacher's child was trapped by unfortunate size. (couldn't get out the window)

The three survivors watched their friend, and my teacher's kid, burn alive, screaming.

There was no happy ending here.   And please, no fat jokes, regardless of religion, this was a teacher that I still think of fondly, one of the few that really cared.   I saw this person have a broken heart.

But clearly, here's a family that lives the evangelical, literal believer life... they pray like crazy... but, Jesus doesn't stop the teen from dying screaming in agony, over many minutes, because Jesus only helps those capable of freeing themselves from the burning car without any divine help.

Imagine if, in some prayer testimonial, the guy from the original story brags it on up about how Jesus gave this burning woman superhuman powers to free herself from this car, thanks to his prayers of course.

And imagine he brags his prayer ability up in front of a mother or father whose teen actually DID die in a fire.  Or whose toddler DID die in a sweltering car.  Or whose wife or husband died in the same situation?

Almost all Christian "testimonials" which try to give credit to Jesus, are secretly bragging... "Didja see that?   I must be doing something right, because, I prayed, and, something ordinary happened, but, I give credit to JESUS because he responded to ME!  In other words, I must be 'right with god' or he wouldn't have heard my prayers!"

It's very subtle in the way that this is hurtful and inconsiderate to the pain of others, but, it is.
10
General Religious Discussion / Re: Having it both ways
« Last post by Soda Ant on Yesterday at 09:09:47 PM »
And so far we have crickets on this site from those believers regarding amputees.

I heard a debate recently where the question of why god doesn't heal amputees came up. The theist in the debate responded by saying that amputee's lives aren't in danger so god has no reason to heal them. A complete bullshit answer just as you'd expect from a theist. Man, these guys can rationalize literally anything! It boggles the mind.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10