Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by jaimehlers on Yesterday at 10:41:32 PM »
John, as I told you earlier, the Fukushima contamination is not the same as ISIS attempting to infiltrate Syrian refugees.  The examples are too different from each other and so the comparison is tainted.  As such, I am stating that the Fukushima contamination should not be used as a comparison to the Syrian refugees.  There are other, more germane examples which may be used instead.

Please note that this is not a disciplinary action.  Improperly used analogies can contaminate a discussion, and my intention here is to prevent that by stepping in as needed to nip them in the bud.
2
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by Timo on Yesterday at 10:36:37 PM »
Timo, I am not going to respond every single points you posted above but let me ask you a question....

Stop with the analogies. You're terrible at them.

The Muslim ban isn't comparable to a restriction on certain products from a region in Japan over concerns about nuclear contamination. A Muslim ban is comparable to a restriction on all Asian products, whether they're from Japan, Indonesia, India etc out of fear of nuclear contamination.

A narrower set of restrictions might look like this. If we're talking about ISIS, then it'd make sense to increase scrutiny for anyone that's recently traveled to Turkey and stayed for some specified period of time, since it's used as an access point for foreign fighters entering Syria. Specifying Muslim travelers would also be counter productive given that people attempting to join groups like ISIS are disproportionately converts and most countries don't list religion on their passports. And even there it's basically religion of birth not profession.

No one raised any issues, until Trump suggested his "temporary Muslim ban".

That's because it's poorly considered, bigoted and ultimately counterproductive for a number of reasons that anyone not blinded by animus towards Muslims and a deep and unfounded suspicion of any anti-Trump opinion should find pretty obvious.

There isn't hardly any sovereign nation who doesn't have a physical border.
Border must be secured, there was no question about it, until trump suggested it.
Did you know the Bush administration had a plan to build a actual border and they had enough fund to do it?
All these reasonable policies became racist, and bigot just because Trump said it.

I've always thought walls and fences were stupid. And the fencing that's already up has already produced some absurd results. There's a golf course in Texas, for example, that was put out of business because it was placed on the wrong side of the fence.[1] And I thought it was stupid even back when then Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and touting their support for it in the 2008 primary.

But please tell me when George W Bush went around labeling Mexican immigrants as rapists and murderers? Maybe I missed it. When he was asked to clarify, did he retreat into a conspiracy theory about the government of Mexico intentionally sending rapists and murderers across the border?

Please tell me when George W Bush, offended by a political rival speaking Spanish demanded that only English be spoken because "this is America."

Please tell me when George W Bush asserted that a judge couldn't possibly be expected to do his job because "he's a Mexican."

Come the fuck on.

Timo which broadcast network is on your TV tonight?
There is a reason why people call CNN Clinton News Network.
Main stream media bias is out there and it has been proven to be true.

Evidence, please.

For the record, I don't watch broadcast news generally. And I generally don't watch cable news anymore either. I think it's all pretty terrible. I sometimes watch the Sunday shows because I think deep down I hate myself and feel that I shouldn't experience joy. I mostly just read.
 1. http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/fence-protecting-usmexico-border-puts-golf-course-out-business
3
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by John 3 16 on Yesterday at 09:45:18 PM »
On 2. Not unless you think the shooter's father is a terrorist, as well and that this was a conscious choice by Hillary's advance team. I guess that fits in with Trump's proposal of targeting the families of suspected terrorists. All are guilty.
If the families knowingly kept silence regarding terrorist scheme they are guilty.  Don't you agree?

Timo, I am not going to respond every single points you posted above but let me ask you a question.
Few years ago, Japan had a catastrophic disaster, part of nation was destroyed by tsunami and fukushima nuclear plant was greatly affected by this natural disaster. 
Evidently, there were some signs of contamination found in country's agricultural products, therefore US FDA temporarily banned some food coming from Fukushima Daiichi, and some products are still under strong restriction and inspection as far as coming into our shore.

It is perfectly legit and reasonable for government leaders exercise their power to hold, ban, restrict certain products, people and material coming into our contry whenever the country and its people face possible threat.  It has been done before for the safety and benefit of the people, our citizen.  No one raised any issues, until Trump suggested his "temporary Muslim ban".

There isn't hardly any sovereign nation who doesn't have a physical border.
Border must be secured, there was no question about it, until trump suggested it.
Did you know the Bush administration had a plan to build a actual border and they had enough fund to do it?
Don't you think it's little odd that all of sudden, all these reasonable policies became racist, and bigot when Trump said it.

Timo which broadcast network is on your TV tonight?
There is a reason why people call CNN Clinton News Network.
Main stream media bias is out there and it has been proven to be true.
4
Chatter / Re: "What are you listening to now"... take three...
« Last post by Timo on Yesterday at 09:45:01 PM »
5
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by Add Homonym on Yesterday at 07:43:09 PM »
Your Christian views seem different somehow.

Kind of like a Stepford Wife of Trump.
6
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by shnozzola on Yesterday at 07:17:08 PM »
John,
   I know many Christians who frankly aren't afraid of very much.  They look at their beliefs as grounded on finding people who can't get on the pedestal, and putting them up on it.  They don't care if they're a million Syrian refugees, atheists,  heroin addicts, transvestites, communists, or Trump supporters.

Your Christian views seem different somehow.
7
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by Timo on Yesterday at 06:36:36 PM »
Is it true? or false? will Trump's policy kick legal US Muslim citizens out? There was terrorist's (Orlando shooter) father sitting right behind Hillary.  So does that mean Hillary supports terrorism?

On 1. It depends when you ask him. Right now, no. If they (or anyone else) burn a flag, maybe. He's all over the place on policy. And in any case, the issue as far as what Trump actually said with respect to Muslims was re-entry rather than deportation.

On 2. Not unless you think the shooter's father is a terrorist, as well and that this was a conscious choice by Hillary's advance team. I guess that fits in with Trump's proposal of targeting the families of suspected terrorists. All are guilty.

But that's a war crime. It's illegal. So we'd never need to worry about anyone in government proposing it, right?

Is that Trump's fault? or is it the parents who are so far fetched alt-left that they wouldn't even want to tell the truth, even to their own children.

1. There is no such thing as the alt-left. Just stop.

2. It's Trump's fault. His racist and xenophobic rhetoric is creating this atmosphere. Trump validates white racial hatred in a way that no other mainstream politician does.

Do you think that if John Kasich would have won the presidency there would be young men attending white nationalist lectures in DC seig heiling President Elect Kasich? Somehow, I doubt it. But that's because Kasich probably wouldn't be playing footsie with neo Nazis. I mean in some of those speeches and ads, Trump was cribbing from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If you didn't catch it, I don't blame you. But those young men shouting "heil Trump" sure did.

He had to clarify that because of people like you.  He originally brought up the issue in context of his immigration policy speech.

You are mistaken. He brought it up in the context of the San Bernardino shooting.[1] And no, he had to clarify his statement because it was vaguely worded. I mean yeah, I guess people like me and the alt left journalists at Fox News who asked him about it in the first place can be sticklers for that sort of thing. And I guess people like you are happy to assume the best of intentions in dear leader.
I disagree, because it is unconstitutional.  It was Trump's opinion.  He is not above the law so, if he doesn't like anchor babies, he can try to change the law.  Until then it's his opinion, and opinion only.  I don't think there is anything "racist" about his opinion though.  Did you know US is almost alone who grants birthright citizenship in the world?

It doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional. To begin with, unconstitutional policies have been put into practice throughout our history. And they will be put into place going forward. But more importantly, we're not talking about the feasibility of his policy positions. We're talking about what those positions are (and have been). Why do you keep moving the goal posts?

And nah, birthright citizenship is the norm for the Western hemisphere. And its history here is actually wrapped up in racial issues. But that's neither here nor there. The point is that he wants to rescind citizenship to a group of citizens.

I feel bad for kids who are going through hardship.  But we must acknowledge that we live in a country of law and order, that is what our country is made of.
If you or anyone feel bad for kids who are suffering in 3rd world country, we can either try our best to change the immigration law or go there and help them. (Like I did years ago)

I love this. You asked a question, "What is so bad about going back to where I come from?" I answer it. And this is your response?
 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/?utm_term=.8f62d2dcc038
8
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by John 3 16 on Yesterday at 05:18:49 PM »
Yeah, this clip actually goes towards my point. He says in this clip that he does not talk politics with his children, which makes perfect sense given their ages. In other words, they picked up this notion that Donald Trump wants to throw them out of the country from somewhere else. Moving on to that somewhere
Is it true? or false? will Trump's policy kick legal US Muslim citizens out? There was terrorist's (Orlando shooter) father sitting right behind Hillary.  So does that mean Hillary supports terrorism?
I would like to hear from you.

Quote
The point is that if you're not working backwards from an ignorant and irrational animus towards Muslims then it's pretty easy to see how a Muslim child could come to the conclusion that Trump's election means they will have to leave without some vomit inducing brainwashing from their father. Often times, their classmates, and in a few cases their teachers have told them as much.
Is that Trump's fault? or is it the parents who are so far fetched alt-left that they wouldn't even want to tell the truth, even to their own children.  I am not going to overlook the parents who are so irrational red necks who are not ashamed of chanting "hail Trump" either.  Oh and not to mention liberal media who works day and night twisting and turning Trump's words.  So yeah it's collaboration of irresponsible parenting and untruthful media.

Quote
Please point out where Trump specified in this statement that this policy does not apply to "legal Americans." And again, if you would have cared to read my post before you responded, you would have seen that I already pointed out that "He's since clarified that he would not bar citizens from re-entry and the proposed ban has gone through multiple iterations."
He had to clarify that because of people like you.  He originally brought up the issue in context of his immigration policy speech.

Quote
If you go back to his language going into the Iowa caucuses, he was talking about deportation for those children on the theory that "anchor babies" aren't actual citizens.
I disagree, because it is unconstitutional.  It was Trump's opinion.  He is not above the law so, if he doesn't like anchor babies, he can try to change the law.  Until then it's his opinion, and opinion only.  I don't think there is anything "racist" about his opinion though.  Did you know US is almost alone who grants birthright citizenship in the world?
 
Quote
It's not just Mexico. But I mean shoot, look at what people go through to get to this country and think about whether or not you'd be willing to go through that for some marginally better life. I mean think about all those kids that came up from Central America. They're not just coming all that way for some vague idea of a better life.
I feel bad for kids who are going through hardship.  But we must acknowledge that we live in a country of law and order, that is what our country is made of.
If you or anyone feel bad for kids who are suffering in 3rd world country, we can either try our best to change the immigration law or go there and help them. (Like I did years ago)
9
Religion & Society / Re: Hello, atheists who did you vote for?
« Last post by Timo on Yesterday at 02:54:25 PM »
He said his kids were at the ages of 4, 5, 6.

Yeah, this clip actually goes towards my point. He says in this clip that he does not talk politics with his children, which makes perfect sense given their ages. In other words, they picked up this notion that Donald Trump wants to throw them out of the country from somewhere else. Moving on to that somewhere:

Who is "you" in Trump's speech? legal American Muslims? or illegal immigrants? You are right about "students are being told" part.  They are being brain washed at college campuses by liberals.
What kind of teacher gives extra credit for protesting political candidate?

You need to actually read what people have to say before you respond with some rejoinder. I wrote:

"All over the country, there have been reports of children bullying their classmates with overtly racist rhetoric, citing Trump's win in the election. And one common thread in these reports is that many of the students are being told that now that Donald Trump won, "you're going to have to leave.""

In other words, I'm not talking about the liberal college students conservatives are always whining about. I'm not even talking about anything Trump's said in particular. I'm talking about the kinds of things that children are saying to each other all over the country as a result of Trump's candidacy and in the wake of his victory. The point is that if you're not working backwards from an ignorant and irrational animus towards Muslims then it's pretty easy to see how a Muslim child could come to the conclusion that Trump's election means they will have to leave without some vomit inducing brainwashing from their father. Often times, their classmates, and in a few cases their teachers have told them as much.

Here's a good example:

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2016/11/15/florida-teacher-tells-black-student-that-trump-will-send-her-back-to-africa

Of all the xenophobic, racist and otherwise terrible things Trump's said over the course of this campaign, to the best of my knowledge, he's never said anything like this. And yet, there are black children all over the country that could very easily come away with the idea that they're not welcome in Trump's America.

That was part of his immigration plan, not legal Americans coming back to the US.  Come on man! Are you serious?

Please point out where Trump specified in this statement that this policy does not apply to "legal Americans." And again, if you would have cared to read my post before you responded, you would have seen that I already pointed out that "He's since clarified that he would not bar citizens from re-entry and the proposed ban has gone through multiple iterations."

But there was a reason he had to clarify it in the first place. It's completely unclear. Trump is never precise with his language.

Here's what I wanted to talk about.  Twisting and turning of the actual statement.  No one can deport legal citizen, no one.  Not even president.

It doesn't matter whether or not a president can deport a citizen. You're changing the parameters of this discussion, which is how a child could come to the conclusion that their family will be deported without being brainwashed by their parents. And in any case, it's something he's proposed.

I mean Trump can't strip a US citizen of their citizenship either, but I think we ought to be alarmed that he thinks it's an appropriate punishment for flag burning, which is Constitutionally protected under the first amendment.

Timo, like I mentioned earlier, if I were a illegal immigrant and were facing deportation, and I had little children who need my care, I would take them with me.

That's nice, but who cares? Trump wasn't talking about that choice or whatever.

If you go back to his language going into the Iowa caucuses, he was talking about deportation for those children on the theory that "anchor babies" aren't actual citizens.

What is so bad about going back to where I come from?
Is America heaven and Mexico is hell?

It's not just Mexico. But I mean shoot, look at what people go through to get to this country and think about whether or not you'd be willing to go through that for some marginally better life. I mean think about all those kids that came up from Central America. They're not just coming all that way for some vague idea of a better life.
10
General Religious Discussion / Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Last post by albeto on Yesterday at 12:30:41 PM »

I would ask; what nuance would warrant the use of the qualifier strong in a conversation with a theist where the term anti-theism does not work better? 

I can only assume from your deflection that you recognize that when those nuances occur (whether or not you understand why they occur), the use of the qualifier "strong," is appropriate to use. This is what makes your entire argument moot, and reveals an incomprehension about this whole issue that I suspect you still don't recognize. You came into a conversation where those nuances have already been accepted, and tried to rally atheists to drop qualifiers like strong and weak altogether (except, apparently, when they are warranted like jeton suggests, but not really because you would choose other words - like antitheist - yourself). The purpose of such an approach seems to me to reveal either an unwillingness or inability to functionally comprehend the subtle differences, but rather than pursue this line of thinking, your efforts have continued to encourage people to drop it altogether.

Furthermore, strong atheism and antitheism are not synonymous. While they may be very closely related, they do refer to different things. I think you're simply confused and you assume it's because this is a confusing issue in general, for all or most people. Despite people explaining the subtle and not so subtle differences between these terms, you seem rather focused on persuading others to remove them altogether from conversations in general which is not only illogical, but untenable and unreasonable.

Quote
I'm not trying to rewrite the ten commandments albeto.  I do not dictate conditions.  Who the hell do you think I am?  :laugh: :laugh:

Why you would equate definitions of words and concepts with the ten commandments suggests to me further incomprehension about the differences, not to mention how words are identified, used, and accepted in the modern lexicon. The analogy/joke is completely off the mark. It simply doesn't make sense. I think you might benefit from holding off trying to help people, as you've mentioned is your intent, and wait until you have a better idea about what these terms actually mean.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10