EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1282
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Roswell
United States250 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
In the largest expansion of its kind to date, the state of California on Wednesday extended paid sick leave to millions of workers who would otherwise have to choose between a day's pay and working while ill. Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) signed a bill making California the only state other than Connecticut to have a sick-leave mandate on its books. Under the law, employers will have to let workers accrue one hour of sick time for every 30 hours they work, to be capped at three days per year at employers' discretion. "Whether you're a dishwasher in San Diego or a store clerk in Oakland, this bill frees you of having to choose between your family's health and your job," Brown said in a statement. Brown's office estimates that the mandate will bring paid sick leave to 6.5 million Californians who currently don't have it. The bill passed both chambers of the statehouse by wide margins late last month, sending the legislation to Brown's desk. The law goes into effect next July. Unlike many other countries in the developed world, the United States has no federal law guaranteeing paid sick leave for workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that about four out of 10 workers in the U.S. are not covered by a sick leave plan. Source | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On September 11 2014 13:37 Roswell wrote: Yea, that is true, I was just referring to the fact that Gospel rules > Old T, in general for Christians. Ofc the OT is still considered direct inspiration from God, but I was just pointing out the Quran doesnt have a second prophet who tones down the harsh rules set by muhammad/allah. Ive noticed this thread got out of control with atheism/agnostic talk, but imo, christians in no way are told to hate gays, (NT etc.) There is no greater then. By the standards of the Christian faith both are considered equally divine and both just as holy as the other. From a practical standpoint yes most denominations focus more on the New but that's there own faith considers both as equals. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 11 2014 13:36 Yoav wrote: Except that the actual Caliphates were perfectly happy to let Christians do their thing rather than crucifying them for giggles. That's gilding the lily a bit. There was nothing peaceful about the initial spread of Islam, which is comparable to what ISIS is doing now. | ||
|
Roswell
United States250 Posts
@Adreme, I dont think you have read both books, almost all of the Old Testament traditions and rules are obsolete when Jesus arrives in the New Testament. Both religions are trying to he more PC as of late though. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
Now I am well aware that they often can spread before the first symptom is visible but even the first reason is a good enough reason to keep them away and for the 2nd even lowering the chance of infection for the rest of the staff (or customers if its a consumer industry) is in the best interest of everyone. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23982 Posts
On September 11 2014 14:02 Adreme wrote: Not having sick days is a stupid business decision for virtually any business. He is coming in sick and underperforming (whether he wants to or not) and of course because he is coming in sick shockingly a few days later when he is well everyone else is sick and you now have a bunch of useless workers. Now I am well aware that they often can spread before the first symptom is visible but even the first reason is a good enough reason to keep them away and for the 2nd even lowering the chance of infection for the rest of the staff (or customers if its a consumer industry) is in the best interest of everyone. Yeah no kidding. Especially considering how different peoples immune systems are. Something you can come to work with, may put a whole section of the business on their ass for 48 hours. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4955 Posts
It's easiest just to say that there are many reasons that they don't go around stoning people and don't observe many of the old traditions and rituals (while taking new ones, like Communion). There is a reason the Westboro Baptist Church is so universally denounced by even the most "fundamentalist" groups. I do agree, however, that Obama shouldn't really talk about it at all in a speech like that. What's the point? Edit: Post 1000! lol. That darn Dragoon is finally gone. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On September 11 2014 13:55 xDaunt wrote: That's gilding the lily a bit. There was nothing peaceful about the initial spread of Islam, which is comparable to what ISIS is doing now. You know that the Caliphates came after the initial spread by Mohammed right? It's literally defined as the succession movement, making the actual Caliphates come after the initial spread of Islam: "A caliphate (in Arabic: خلافة khilāfa, meaning "succession") is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". " (wiki) - unless initial means the thousand years or so up until 1924 when the Ottoman one ended. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 11 2014 14:15 Roe wrote: You know that the Caliphates came after the initial spread by Mohammed right? It's literally defined as the succession movement, making the actual Caliphates come after the initial spread of Islam: "A caliphate (in Arabic: خلافة khilāfa, meaning "succession") is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". " (wiki) - unless initial means the thousand years or so up until 1924 when the Ottoman one ended. Doesn't matter. Even if you want to look post-conquest, non-Muslims were always second class citizens during the best of times, and were victimized during the worst of times. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On September 11 2014 14:09 Introvert wrote: There's a lot of discussion and doctrine surrounding the OT after Jesus to Christians, as early as (and earlier than) the Epistles. It's easiest just to say that there are many reasons that they don't go around stoning people and don't observe many of the old traditions and rituals (while taking new ones, like Communion). There is a reason the Westboro Baptist Church is so universally denounced by even the most "fundamentalist" groups. I do agree, however, that Obama shouldn't really talk about it at all in a speech like that. What's the point? Edit: Post 1000! lol. That darn Dragoon is finally gone. When the president speaks his words are not merely heard by citizens of the US but by the entire world. The US is building a coalition and having the rest of the region on the side of the US is very important so I suspect that's who that language was aimed at. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On September 11 2014 13:55 xDaunt wrote: That's gilding the lily a bit. There was nothing peaceful about the initial spread of Islam, which is comparable to what ISIS is doing now. Actually, the Caliphs loved having minorities because their sweet sweet taxes. | ||
KwarK
United States44012 Posts
On September 11 2014 14:47 Sub40APM wrote: Actually, the Caliphs loved having minorities because their sweet sweet taxes. That and the Ottoman slave soldiers, generally not of Turkish background (minority is a misnomer because Turks were the minority in most of their empire), ended up running the place. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
But let's be honest, coming from someone who spends his time criticizing Obama's lack of strategic thought, I can't believe he doesn't realize Obama's point about islam was not aimed mainly at the greatest people on earth, but at his unsure and very much needed allies in the middle east. Thank god he said that... | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On September 11 2014 16:07 corumjhaelen wrote: I could argue with everyone else against xDaunt on Islam, history, and point out how Isis rhetoric is centered around the Crusades and times of decadence of the islamic civilisation. But let's be honest, coming from someone who spends his time criticizing Obama's lack of strategic thought, I can't believe he doesn't realize Obama's point about islam was not aimed mainly at the greatest people on earth, but at his unsure and very much needed allies in the middle east. Thank god he said that... Yeah, Obama making that point was pretty critical IMO. I think he and his planners deliberately threw it in the speech to appeal to Muslim nations and to demonstrate the US knows there's a difference between IS and well, everyone else. While xDaunt is admittedly quite out-of-the-know on many historical and religious subjects, he is right in saying that early Islam was spread by the aggressive Arabians from the peninsula. However, it was not this spread of Islam by conquest that made regions such as Mesopotamia and Persia and Egypt great as many Islamic apologists like to claim, because the people bringing it were the least civilized and least advanced in the Mideast. Rather, these regions had always been great for many, many centuries and would be so up until the Mongol conquests. Meanwhile, the Arabian peninsula was still a shithole of Bedouin tribes and barely civilized townspeople. But yeah, if the Greek and Persian Empires had any of their shit together, Islam would not have spread by conquest and force, and probably wouldn't have spread much otherwise. No one would want to voluntarily follow the religion of the Visigoths of the Middle East, especially in an era where Christianity was flourishing into areas well outside the early Christian nations like the Byzantine Empire and even long before the fall of Rome, such as the Persian empire to the east. For example, Christianity has existed in Mesopotamia since the 1st century AD, when Christians were persecuted everywhere. Anyhow, Obama is a politician. As a politician, it's important to have other people, especially other nations, understand what your view is. Obama was making it very clear, without a doubt, that his fight against the Islamic State is by no means a fight against Islam. This is why he goes out of his way to state that the Islamic State does not represent Islam or Muslims. On September 11 2014 13:36 Yoav wrote: I'm with you on the characterization of Christianity, and I agree that Islam has quite a few crazy-as-fuck rules. But ISIS is not actually very good at following the rules. Killing non-combatants is a violation of sharia (even al-qaeda had to deal with this, but declaring all Americans combatants by virtue of our democracy). Expulsion of people of the book is against sharia. Gang rape is VERY against sharia. Suicide is against sharia. Say what you will about Islam; it has a fairly developed Just War theory that disallows half of what Isis does. Except that the actual Caliphates were perfectly happy to let Christians do their thing rather than crucifying them for giggles. You forget that by the time that the Caliphates became 'tolerant', the Muslim hordes had already forced almost everyone to become Muslim. They were barbarians and insanely radical jihadists. It wasn't until the "rulership" of Islam shifted from the wild Arabians to the more civilized societies native to Mesopotamia, Persia, and the Levant that Islam became tamed. | ||
|
LingBlingBling
United States353 Posts
On September 11 2014 13:57 Roswell wrote: I'd be against a law like that, in my field and most of my friends, there are no sick days. California could desperately use those 3 days of work. If you are THAT sick, go to a hospital. @Adreme, I dont think you have read both books, almost all of the Old Testament traditions and rules are obsolete when Jesus arrives in the New Testament. Both religions are trying to he more PC as of late though. That is silly, with the wide spread of virus and infections these days, health risk is a big thing. The only people lobbying against this, are the wealthy CEO's of major companies with no soul or heart. Not everyone can afford to go to a hospital, human well being is more important, this is one of the better mandates passed in a very long time, something that is really good for the people for once. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 11 2014 13:37 Roswell wrote: Yea, that is true, I was just referring to the fact that Gospel rules > Old T, in general for Christians. Ofc the OT is still considered direct inspiration from God, but I was just pointing out the Quran doesnt have a second prophet who tones down the harsh rules set by muhammad/allah. Ive noticed this thread got out of control with atheism/agnostic talk, but imo, christians in no way are told to hate gays, (NT etc.) I do not like the "New Testament," that should be plain; I find it almost disturbing that my taste in regard to this most highly esteemed and overestimated work should be so singular (I have the taste of two millennia against me): but there it is! "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise" — I have the courage of my bad taste. The Old Testament — that is something else again: all honor to the Old Testament! I find in it great human beings, a heroic landscape, and something of the very rarest quality in the world, the incomparable naïveté of the strong heart; what is more, I find a people. In the New one, on the other hand, I find nothing but petty sectarianism, mere rococo of the soul, mere involutions, nooks, queer things, the air of the conventicle, not to forget an occasional whiff of bucolic mawkishness that belongs to the epoch (and to the Roman province) and is not so much Jewish as Hellenistic. Humility and self-importance cheek-by-jowl; a garrulousness of feeling that almost stupefies; impassioned vehemence, not passion; embarrassing gesticulation; it is plain that there is no trace of good breeding. How can one make such a fuss about one's little lapses as these pious little men do! Who gives a damn? Certainly not God. Finally, they even want "the crown of eternal life," these little provincial people; but for what? to what purpose? Presumption can go no further. An "immortal" Peter: who could stand him? Their ambition is laughable: people of that sort regurgitating their most private affairs, their stupidities, sorrows, and petty worries, as if the Heart of Being were obliged to concern itself with them; they never grow tired of involving God himself in even the pettiest troubles they have got themselves into. And the appalling taste of this perpetual familiarity with God!. This Jewish and not merely Jewish obtrusiveness of pawing and nuzzling God! | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23982 Posts
On September 11 2014 19:45 IgnE wrote: I do not like the "New Testament," that should be plain; I find it almost disturbing that my taste in regard to this most highly esteemed and overestimated work should be so singular (I have the taste of two millennia against me): but there it is! "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise" — I have the courage of my bad taste. The Old Testament — that is something else again: all honor to the Old Testament! I find in it great human beings, a heroic landscape, and something of the very rarest quality in the world, the incomparable naïveté of the strong heart; what is more, I find a people. In the New one, on the other hand, I find nothing but petty sectarianism, mere rococo of the soul, mere involutions, nooks, queer things, the air of the conventicle, not to forget an occasional whiff of bucolic mawkishness that belongs to the epoch (and to the Roman province) and is not so much Jewish as Hellenistic. Humility and self-importance cheek-by-jowl; a garrulousness of feeling that almost stupefies; impassioned vehemence, not passion; embarrassing gesticulation; it is plain that there is no trace of good breeding. How can one make such a fuss about one's little lapses as these pious little men do! Who gives a damn? Certainly not God. Finally, they even want "the crown of eternal life," these little provincial people; but for what? to what purpose? Presumption can go no further. An "immortal" Peter: who could stand him? Their ambition is laughable: people of that sort regurgitating their most private affairs, their stupidities, sorrows, and petty worries, as if the Heart of Being were obliged to concern itself with them; they never grow tired of involving God himself in even the pettiest troubles they have got themselves into. And the appalling taste of this perpetual familiarity with God!. This Jewish and not merely Jewish obtrusiveness of pawing and nuzzling God! Well it was helping them win the 'War for Souls' in Africa. An evangelical Christian God, you can pester with your most petty desires is a whole hell of a lot more appealing to people starving and desperate for water than a God who is simply willing your misery and has no interest in changing his plans to accommodate mere mortals. I also appreciate how effortlessly Dante's Inferno has been woven into Christian mythology to give 'Hell' such a visceral presence. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On September 11 2014 19:45 IgnE wrote: I do not like the "New Testament," that should be plain; I find it almost disturbing that my taste in regard to this most highly esteemed and overestimated work should be so singular (I have the taste of two millennia against me): but there it is! "Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise" — I have the courage of my bad taste. The Old Testament — that is something else again: all honor to the Old Testament! I find in it great human beings, a heroic landscape, and something of the very rarest quality in the world, the incomparable naïveté of the strong heart; what is more, I find a people. In the New one, on the other hand, I find nothing but petty sectarianism, mere rococo of the soul, mere involutions, nooks, queer things, the air of the conventicle, not to forget an occasional whiff of bucolic mawkishness that belongs to the epoch (and to the Roman province) and is not so much Jewish as Hellenistic. Humility and self-importance cheek-by-jowl; a garrulousness of feeling that almost stupefies; impassioned vehemence, not passion; embarrassing gesticulation; it is plain that there is no trace of good breeding. How can one make such a fuss about one's little lapses as these pious little men do! Who gives a damn? Certainly not God. Finally, they even want "the crown of eternal life," these little provincial people; but for what? to what purpose? Presumption can go no further. An "immortal" Peter: who could stand him? Their ambition is laughable: people of that sort regurgitating their most private affairs, their stupidities, sorrows, and petty worries, as if the Heart of Being were obliged to concern itself with them; they never grow tired of involving God himself in even the pettiest troubles they have got themselves into. And the appalling taste of this perpetual familiarity with God!. This Jewish and not merely Jewish obtrusiveness of pawing and nuzzling God! Okay, well, I have no idea what you are actually saying with half of this paragraph. However, the conclusion that the old testament in the "greater book" full of "great human beings" and a "heroic landscape" is.....dubious. As a past-time, I'm currently working my way through it piece by piece, and what I have read so far is fucking horrifying. We're talking about the theft of land and genocide against the Canaanites, the wanton abduction, enslavement, dehumanization and rape of women and children against tribes deemed inferior to the Israelites (and even some Israeli women), the brutalization of anyone not of that religion/people, and the horrible persecution of anyone deemed to be homosexual. Christ, what's the first thing the Israelites do when they escape slavery by the Egyptians? They turn around and kill the men and boys of a bunch of villages on their way to Canaan and enslave/rape all the remaining women. Presumably some of the "great characters" you refer to are individuals like Moses, Saul, David, and Solomon? Well, they are all basically guilty of these crimes, the story itself actually celebrates their actions as the fulfillment of god's will. It's funny, because when you read between the lines about what the story itself is actually saying and celebrating as god's will, you actually see things like Stalinesque purges of ruling class elites by individuals like Solomon upon taking reign. The stories themselves don't characterize heroic deeds, they are just embellished oral histories that describe the actions of tyrants and rulers of states/proto-states through a religious lense. There's nothing to celebrate or glorify in the early parts of the old testament, anyways (I'm less than half-way through, so maybe it gets better, iunno). I know you need some cultural relativism when reading these stories, and understand that the characters are a product of their times/cultures, but god damn it, their actions are not worthy of descriptions and adjectives such as "heroic". Understand it as an oral history of what actually happened, but the actions of the individuals in those stories are NOT worth putting on some kind of moral pedestal. I also don't even understand how you can think that the old testament is less sectarian than the new testament (at least the four gospels, anyways). Maybe I'm missing your point, I'm not sure. If you're trying to evaluate them as literary works, well.... I don't know. But I am hesitant to really celebrate the characters and stories told in the old testament in any way, shape, or form other than as a preserved oral history of a primitive tribe. As far as the literary value or the moral value of the book....well, it's bad. Like, actually pretty damn evil by today's moral standards. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
| ||
