|
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. |
On May 24 2017 21:00 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? Society will suffer when large numbers of people abandon responsible civic behavior. You can't really look at this stuff at the margin to gauge impact. Societal laws and norms aren't created with the margin in mind. They're meant to govern the whole to promote the health of society. You are being vague. Are you saying homsexual sex is irresponsible? I am asking you to confine your argument to a relationship where all things are held constant other than the sexes of the people involved. If dude A decides to put it in a dude, but dude B decides to put it in a woman, are you saying dude A is displaying irresponsible civic behavior? Overall, I think you are posting too vaguely and you aren't expanding on your ideas. You are talking about margin and health of society. Please define that. From where I'm standing, it looks like you are using vague, open-ended ideas to somewhat say homosexual sex is irresponsible, but you are not really *saying* anything. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can. This sounds a lot like you saying sexual preference is a choice. The distinction whether people are "going gay" rather than simply being gay is an important one because it is relevant to your point. I certainly agree that, if given the choice, homosexual practices are always a net loss to modern western societies because these societies are currently struggling with low birth rates. If Japan was in its current situation because of a lot of people deciding to be gay, I would say those people are failing their social obligations to continue the society that was built for them. But I am operating under the assumption that it is just as hard for a gay dude to bang a woman as it is for me to bang a man. Are you saying there is a choice involved? No, sexual preference is not a choice, but that's not the point. The purpose of things like the Bible was to set out clear, bright line rules to guide a mass of idiots towards being a functioning society. Accordingly, the expectation was that the gay man would simply suck it up, marry a woman, and support his family. The Bible is either a collection of good ideas for a working society or the word of god. Christians need to become consistant with what they want it to be.
Christians needn't be any more consistent than anyone else who belongs to a massive, inter-differentiated group. xDaunt has a particular view of biblical exegesis, and while I disagree with it out of hand, it wouldn't make much sense for me to accordingly cast aspersions on the nice, church-going person who acts on their Christianity in only positive ways. That said, I do think that outwardly self-righteous Christians have an affirmative duty to confront fundamentalism/evangelism to the extent that douchebags like Joel Osteen continue to profit off of tacitly supporting race-to-the-bottom politics.
As for your either/or, I think we need some softer categories, though having suffered through what happened to the Ask Stupid Questions thread once this path was tread, I'd say it's probably best to leave such questions for another time 
|
The Bible is whatever agenda its Reader/User has at the very moment he makes his argument. Don't be silly and try to get something coherent out of these arguments.
|
Literally any piece of language-based communication can be coopted in one way or another, so yes, the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain.
Edit: Anyways, in news of the odd meetings...
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis welcomed President Trump to the cradle of Roman Catholicism on Wednesday, delivering a message of peace even as the pontiff emphasized his standing as the world’s moral counterpoint to the president’s nationalist agenda.
The two men met in the pope’s private study for nearly half an hour, joined only by an interpreter. The pontiff, in white papal dress and a pectoral cross on a chain around his neck, sat behind a small desk while Trump, in a dark suit and navy striped tie, took the single chair across from him as if interviewing for a job.
After some initial awkwardness — Trump looked somewhat uneasy as he was kept waiting for a few seconds in the Saint Ambrose room before shaking hands with Francis, who was stone-faced at first — the atmosphere soon warmed.
The pair seemed to set aside their differences from last year’s campaign, with Trump appearing both presidential and deferential, while the pope, smiling slightly, seemed to be visually appraising him.
A brief Vatican communique later called the meeting “cordial,” and expressed hope for collaboration with the administration on “health care, education and assistance to immigrants.”
It said Trump and Francis had exchanged views on “international affairs and the promotion of peace in the world through political negotiation and interreligious dialogue, with particular reference to the situation in the Middle East and the protection of Christian communities.”
Trump later called the meeting “great” and “fantastic.”
“He is something,” Trump said of Francis. “We’re liking Italy very, very much and it was an honor to be with the pope.”
Once Francis rang a bell signaling that the one-on-one discussion had concluded, the pair exchanged official gifts, with the pope presenting Trump a medallion by a Roman artist in the shape of an olive tree, the symbol of peace.
“We can use peace,” Trump said.
Francis also offered copies of his writings on the topics of family, the joy of the gospel and “care of our common home, the environment.”
Pope welcomes Trump at the Vatican despite past disagreements
|
On May 24 2017 21:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 21:00 Broetchenholer wrote:On May 24 2017 07:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place.
What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."
There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? Society will suffer when large numbers of people abandon responsible civic behavior. You can't really look at this stuff at the margin to gauge impact. Societal laws and norms aren't created with the margin in mind. They're meant to govern the whole to promote the health of society. You are being vague. Are you saying homsexual sex is irresponsible? I am asking you to confine your argument to a relationship where all things are held constant other than the sexes of the people involved. If dude A decides to put it in a dude, but dude B decides to put it in a woman, are you saying dude A is displaying irresponsible civic behavior? Overall, I think you are posting too vaguely and you aren't expanding on your ideas. You are talking about margin and health of society. Please define that. From where I'm standing, it looks like you are using vague, open-ended ideas to somewhat say homosexual sex is irresponsible, but you are not really *saying* anything. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can. This sounds a lot like you saying sexual preference is a choice. The distinction whether people are "going gay" rather than simply being gay is an important one because it is relevant to your point. I certainly agree that, if given the choice, homosexual practices are always a net loss to modern western societies because these societies are currently struggling with low birth rates. If Japan was in its current situation because of a lot of people deciding to be gay, I would say those people are failing their social obligations to continue the society that was built for them. But I am operating under the assumption that it is just as hard for a gay dude to bang a woman as it is for me to bang a man. Are you saying there is a choice involved? No, sexual preference is not a choice, but that's not the point. The purpose of things like the Bible was to set out clear, bright line rules to guide a mass of idiots towards being a functioning society. Accordingly, the expectation was that the gay man would simply suck it up, marry a woman, and support his family. The Bible is either a collection of good ideas for a working society or the word of god. Christians need to become consistant with what they want it to be. Christians needn't be any more consistent than anyone else who belongs to a massive, inter-differentiated group. xDaunt has a particular view of biblical exegesis, and while I disagree with it out of hand, it wouldn't make much sense for me to accordingly cast aspersions on the nice, church-going person who acts on their Christianity in only positive ways. That said, I do think that outwardly self-righteous Christians have an affirmative duty to confront fundamentalism/evangelism to the extent that douchebags like Joel Osteen continue to profit off of tacitly supporting race-to-the-bottom politics. As for your either/or, I think we need some softer categories, though having suffered through what happened to the Ask Stupid Questions thread once this path was tread, I'd say it's probably best to leave such questions for another time
No, of course not all of Christianity has to find a consensus on what the Bible is, but the people itself need to understand that when you start reading the Bible as something else but the eternal word of god, you cannont argue anymore that some parts of it are. According to the catholic Church, all content in the Bible was written by humans influenced by God and therefore writing exactly what God wanted them to write. So, everything in there is true 100%. If people nitpick their truths, it means their whole defense of Genesis comes crumbling down. So, when Christians deny homosexuals the right to marry they also have to bring back stoning and all that nice stuff in the old testament
|
Yes well, there's plenty of room to criticize mainstream orthodoxy and the contradiction you've pointed to is a great place to start. The issue with this perspective is that it tends to sound unpersuasive to those who knowingly tolerate contradictory positions relative to their self-conscious image (i.e. knowing that something is not or cannot be, and yet believing it anyway). Nevertheless, given that I'm the sort of lunatic who believes that the absurdity of belief can actually be a reason to believe in the first place, I'm not in a great position to defend establishment theology anyhow :D
|
https://nyti.ms/2rJHrT3
A fantastic commentary on the armchair psychology "analyses" of Trump and a slightly tongue-in-cheek criticism of future AI making policy decisions all rolled into one.
|
|
|
Zero shock here. Tax cuts are never free. Removing regulations is a tradeoff between safety and speed/flexibility, not some dam on jobs just waiting to be released. Closing loopholes do not instantly make more money. Cutting taxes doesn’t put any more money into the economy, we were going to spend it anyways. The long standing talking points of both parties need to be put to bed.
|
On May 24 2017 19:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 12:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 24 2017 11:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On May 24 2017 11:00 LegalLord wrote:
Not sure it's really good news that their "first pickup" comes so late. Or is that just statehouse seats? were there really any other options? plus a bunch of special elections were in places already dem controlled which went even heavier democratic (Ill for example and I want to say Delaware). Other than the Kansas race(which most people think was unwinnable.) not sure what opportunities they had to actually pick anything up (GA 6th is still up for grabs at this point). some context a poll from a couple days ago puts ossoff at 51 and handel at 44, which is tbh pretty surprising. handel is a not great candidate who has embraced trump and ossoff is one of those horrible centrist neoliberals which makes him palatable to the republicans who don't like trump. could shift though, about a month until the election. but still, this is the seat held by price, isakson (current senator) and gingrich. Ossof's not all that horrible in that he hits the social issues well and is in favor of infrastructure, government healthcare, and similar programs. His pants on head stupid attitude towards taxes is disheartening, but should he actually get to wrestle with budgetary issues in action, I expect that this attitude will shift. In any case, I'm way more liberal than Ossof but am still optimistic that folks like him are starting to compete with all these "my only qualification is I supported Trump" garbage people.
oh, im a dirty neoliberal as well. i use the descriptor jokingly.
tbh its hard to tell what his real attitude on tax and spending is. he emphasizes cutting waste more than anything else, though i'm uncertain if it's just to get elected.
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-submarines-idUSKBN18K15Y
U.S. President Donald Trump told his Philippine counterpart that Washington has sent two nuclear submarines to waters off the Korean peninsula, the New York Times said, comments likely to raise questions about his handling of sensitive information.
Trump has said "a major, major conflict" with North Korea is possible because of its nuclear and missile programs and that all options are on the table but that he wants to resolve the crisis diplomatically.
North Korea has vowed to develop a missile mounted with a nuclear warhead that can strike the mainland United States, saying the program is necessary to counter U.S. aggression.
Trump told Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte Washington had "a lot of firepower over there", according to the New York Times, which quoted a transcript of an April 29 call between the two.
"We have two submarines — the best in the world. We have two nuclear submarines, not that we want to use them at all," the newspaper quoted Trump as telling Duterte, based on the transcript.
The report was based on a Philippine transcript of the call that was circulated on Tuesday under a "confidential" cover sheet by the Americas division of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs.
In a show of force, the United States has sent the nuclear-powered USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier to waters off the Korean peninsula, where it joined the USS Michigan, a nuclear submarine that docked in South Korea in late April.
According to the Times, a senior Trump administration official in Washington, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the call and insisted on anonymity, confirmed the transcript was an accurate representation of the call between the two leaders.
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have said Trump discussed intelligence about Islamic State with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak at talks in the Oval Office this month, raising questions about Trump's handling of secrets.
Trump also praised Duterte for doing an "unbelievable job on the drug problem", the New York Times reported, a subject that has drawn much criticism in the West.
Almost 9,000 people, many small-time users and dealers, have been killed in the Philippines since Duterte took office on June 30. Police say about one-third of the victims were shot by officers in self-defense during legitimate operations.
Ok, this is not great if accurate. Telling people were the subs are sort of defeats the purpose of the subs and kinda puts them in danger.
|
if he could keep his mouth shut and his fingers to himself his presidency would be 50-60% less embarrassing.
|
But the subs aren't there any more. Remember when they "lost" track of the fleet? Yeah, same thing. Mind tricks.
|
He called the man up, said he was doing a great job with his mass executions without trial to combat drugs and casually puts two of our subs on blast.
The best part is how much fun these authorities are having printing this stuff, pointing and laughing at congress and the US. Look at this moron you elected and we can play like a fiddle. There is nothing you can do to stop us, because you gave him all this power.
I never want hear anyone who voted for this clown say Obama made us look weak.
|
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway.
|
Above top secret info divulged unnecessarily - NBD.
|
Thousands took to the streets of downtown Chicago on Tuesday night calling McDonald’s the “Donald Trump of corporations” and protesting low wages and sexual harassment at the world’s largest fast food chain a day before the company’s annual shareholder meeting.
The protest, coordinated by pressure groups including Fight for $15, a union-backed lobby group calling for a hike in US minimum wage, plan a second day of protests at McDonald’s annual shareholder meeting in Chicago on Wednesday morning.
The marchers, many of them in red ponchos in the driving rain, marched between Trump Tower and the Rock’n’Roll McDonald’s, the company’s flagship restaurant in its hometown.
“McDonald’s just like Donald Trump steals wages from its workers. McDonald’s just like Donald Trump avoids paying taxes. McDonald’s just like Donald Trump supports low wages. McDonald’s just like Donald Trump harasses women,” Fight For $15 national campaign organizer Kendall Fells said.
McDonald’s did not return calls for comment.
Steve Easterbrook, McDonald’s British-born chief executive, will address shareholders on Wednesday about the company’s turnaround plans. Under Easterbrook the company has bounced back from a years-long slump but faces stiff competition as it attempts to grow its business.
Marchers from Dunkin’ Donuts, Wendy’s and other fast food outlets, along with home healthcare workers and employees of Amazon’s warehouses and other companies, marched on Tuesday and will protest at the fast food giant’s headquarters on Wednesday.
Through a series of strikes and protests the Fight for $15 campaign, which aims to raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15, has been successful in lobbying for states including California and New York to increase wages. But Trump has offered mixed messages about his stance on the minimum wage, saying that the federal minimum wage is too low but also saying there should be no federal minimum wage at all.
Terrence Wise, a McDonald’s worker from Kansas City, Missouri, who came to Chicago for the march, said striking had paid off for him. “Before I started organizing with Fight for $15 it had been two years since I had a raise,” said Wise, who has worked in different fast food and retail stores since age 16. “After the first time I went on strike I got a raise the very next day. Being in the fight and seeing my wage increase slightly has given me hope that we’re doing something right.”
Workers rallied outside the new McDonald’s corporate headquarters being built in Chicago’s trendy West Loop, on the site of Oprah Winfrey’s former studios. There, Chicago alderman Carlos Ramirez Rosa charged that taxpayers subsidize McDonald’s since its workers must rely on food stamps and other public assistance.
“Every time McDonald’s fails to provide health care and child care, who do they turn to?” he asked. “You! McDonald’s, it’s time for you to pay your fair share.”
Wise blamed the corporation for perpetuating “intergenerational poverty”. Growing up in South Carolina, he said his mother worked for Hardee’s restaurants for nearly 30 years.
“Watching her get up faithfully every morning at 5 am, working hard for years and years, and yet we continued to live in poverty in my childhood,” he said. “We’d come home some days and the lights were off, an eviction notice on the door. Now I see a repeat of it with me and my three little girls and my fiance. We’re working hard every day, I’m working for a very profitable company, and I’m still not being able to provide for my family.”
Along with demanding higher wages, the Fight for 15 campaign, supported by the SEIU labor union, is demanding fast food companies recognize workers’ right to organize unions. “We need a union so we’ve got someone backing us up,” said Betty Douglas of St Louis, who has worked for McDonald’s for 10 years and earns $10 an hour, after previously making $7.90.
Organizers said the Chicago march represented the largest yet coming together of groups on different issues relating their struggles to fast food workers’ rights. Women in poverty are more likely to suffer gender-based violence as well as sexual harassment and abuse on the job, advocates noted.
“A McDonald’s that respects women would have equal numbers of women in its boardrooms and its kitchens,” said Sheerine Alemzadeh, co-founder of the group Healing to Action. “And they wouldn’t worry that getting a raise or a promotion would mean complying with a boss’s sexual advances.”
And as the largest global buyer of beef, pork, lettuce and tomatoes, they said, McDonald’s is responsible for farmworkers’ exposure to toxic chemicals and the environmental impacts of mass agriculture.
“With all those people combined together we’re hoping to be heard,” said Ashley Bruce, a 22-year-old McDonald’s worker from Chicago and one of the leaders of the march. “No matter who’s in office, we’re still going to fight for what belongs to us. More and more of us are speaking out and speaking up. We deserve to be respected in the workplace, we deserve $15 an hour and union rights.”
Source
|
|
|
On May 24 2017 23:56 xDaunt wrote:
Another overblown story. We already knew that there was at least one sub in the theater (the USS Michigan). Now we know that there could be a second. And good luck to North Korea or anyone else actually finding those subs when deployed.
EDIT: I bet that the second submarine that Trump is referring to is a boomer sub that likely is always on patrol somewhere in that vicinity anyway.
meanwhile for the past month you've been peddling the subject of the leaks is a non story but that leakers need to be made an example of. except for the last two weeks where the subject is a non story and the leaker is a non story lul
|
I find it interesting that Trump's tour of three religions (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) has been referred to as "the three major religions". As if Judaism isn't like the 12th most practiced religion.
|
United States43605 Posts
Monotheists gonna mono. Ain't nobody got time for Confucius. And nobody even knows the name of those Hindu ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.cdse.edu/images/posters/large/Tweets.jpg)
