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.
Bill Nye spent the 1990s providing science lessons to America's youth. Now he's pushing back against the country's know-nothing adults.
Nye will continue his crusade against misinformation this Sunday on "Meet the Press" with a debate against proud climate change denier Marsha Blackburn, the Republican congresswoman who serves as the vice chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.
Bill Nye spent the 1990s providing science lessons to America's youth. Now he's pushing back against the country's know-nothing adults.
Nye will continue his crusade against misinformation this Sunday on "Meet the Press" with a debate against proud climate change denier Marsha Blackburn, the Republican congresswoman who serves as the vice chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.
On February 15 2014 05:46 Nyxisto wrote: As a non American, how prevalent is all the science denial in the US? And is it more like a rural thing?
Its more prevalent now than it was 10 years ago as the Republicans double down on their core support of religious, backwards people. No, it is not more of a rural thing. Believing in certain scientific 'facts' is now viewed as a measure of your ideological position. Just like a couple posts earlier Intravert trying to defend discrimination against homosexuals and blame the Democrats for 'exploiting a minority for political benefit' it has become a score measuring system. If you believe in it, you are against us. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/
You all apparently are really bad at reading, or you simply don't want to believe me when I tell you it's NOT the person, it's the activity. Being gay isn't a sin the Christians, partaking in gay sex IS. They don't hate any group, they just don't like the sin. If a gay person married a straight one, guess what? The church would do it, so long as they were opposite sexes. Your ability to talk down about your opposition while knowing ~0% of their actual reasoning is impressive.
That's even if it's done by two straight people. A church doesn't want to have a gay wedding, and if a cakemaker doesn't want to make a cake for them, then he shouldn't have to. I'll bet that same cakemaker would make him a birthday cake, because it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
That's so different than racism or the interracial marriage ban that the comparison is useless. Using segregation as a comparable set of events is absurd. One set was based on the inferiority of people from other places or with different skin tones, the other is based on the sinfulness of an activity, regardless of the physical characteristics or predispositions of those who practice it.
I'm not trying to convince you they are right- I'm trying to point out that your analysis is, at its very core, wrong. All your criticisms are wastes of energy because you are attacking a thought in a religion (or religions) that doesn't even exist. (that gays are inferior human beings).
Having gay sex is a pretty large part of being gay.
But straight people could do it, and THAT is what the problem for Christians is. It's like sex outside of marriage- this activity is wrong, so we do not want to "sanctify" it, if you will. Has precisely ZERO to do with the person. Of course the difference between those two is that for the first, once you are married, it's no longer a sin, while gay sex is a sin no matter when it is done or who does it. That's all really, NOTHING to do with actual gay people.
Sexuality is a core part of almost every human being. Acting like "hey I really don't have anything against you, but if you start living your sexuality freely I'd really hate that" is ridiculous.
Not expressing core needs everyone has freely and treating other people as sinful with no rational basis what so ever is utterly stupid and at it's core not really different from every other form of bigotry.
I didn't say it was or wasn't stupid, what I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with the person. At least in educated Christian thought, you always get other people who say stupid things.
funny, cause educated christians dont actually spread this homophobic "gay sex is a sin" bullshit
Depends on where you are, I think. Europe is obviously much more secular than America is, even with respect to religion. I've seen both sides of it...there are those who think it's ok (I don't see how that caan be given what's in the Bible) but many here in America hold it to be wrong the reasons I mentioned.
IN SUMMARY: One should know what the opposition thinks before criticizing it. That's been the entire reason I'm still talking about it. They can be wrong, but the criticisms levied here (like "fear" and thinking gays are "inferior") ARE NOT the rationale. If you were to ever meet someone who thought homosexual activity is wrong, you would find that your criticisms would fly right past said person, because they don't apply to a view they hold.
Sexuality is a core part of almost every human being. Acting like "hey I really don't have anything against you, but if you start living your sexuality freely I'd really hate that" is ridiculous.
Not expressing core needs everyone has freely and treating other people as sinful with no rational basis what so ever is utterly stupid and at it's core not really different from every other form of bigotry.
The federal government on Friday issued guidelines for banks seeking to do business with the legal marijuana industry, stopping short of a blanket immunity for them, but strongly indicating that prosecutions for such crimes as money laundering would be unlikely.
NPR's Yuki Noguchi reports that the Department of Justice and Treasury Department on Friday sought to "clarify rules for banks trying to navigate the murky legal waters of the marijuana business. Murky, because pot is legal in a growing number of states, but remains illegal under federal law."
"In the absence of specific federal guidance, most banks had kept marijuana businesses at arms' length, denying them loans, checking or savings accounts. [That] meant, like the street-drug trade, many state-sanctioned pot-sellers were doing cash-only trade," Yuki says.
The banks have feared that federal regulators and law enforcement authorities would punish them for doing business even with state-licensed operations.
they wouldn't need guidelines for banks re marijuana if they'd just stop being incompetent and follow the darn federal statutes as clearly written. Why is that so hard to do?
IMO if a church doesn't want to marry gay people they should stop officially marrying people all together. Have a church ceremony and then go to your local town hall and have the official ceremony there.
If a church believes that gay marriage is wrong, and the state sanctions gay marriage, why continue to support that institution?
Even he claimed that he doesn't hate them, just the sin. While his rhetoric proves otherwise, he KNOWS what the argument is, he KNOWS it's not supposed to be about the person. That actually supports what I said.
I also said there are crazies everywhere. A random southern pastor who advocates concentration camps isn't exactly the mainline of Christian thought. You have seen my qualifiers, yes? Find one or more persons with some credentials and some influence who sounds like him.
ok, I'm done. My purpose was not to defend one view or the other, but to point out that people like those in the video (hell, just the pastor, even the church-goer tried to get out of it) are not the majority. Now granted, I live in CA, so there could be more of this in the South, but those at respected schools or with respected publishing don't say things like he does.
On February 15 2014 06:17 Introvert wrote: You all apparently are really bad at reading, or you simply don't want to believe me when I tell you it's NOT the person, it's the activity. Being gay isn't a sin the Christians, partaking in gay sex IS. They don't hate any group, they just don't like the sin. If a gay person married a straight one, guess what? The church would do it, so long as they were opposite sexes. Your ability to talk down about your opposition while knowing ~0% of their actual reasoning is impressive.
That's even if it's done by two straight people. A church doesn't want to have a gay wedding, and if a cakemaker doesn't want to make a cake for them, then he shouldn't have to. I'll bet that same cakemaker would make him a birthday cake, because it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
That's so different than racism or the interracial marriage ban that the comparison is useless. Using segregation as a comparable set of events is absurd. One set was based on the inferiority of people from other places or with different skin tones, the other is based on the sinfulness of an activity, regardless of the physical characteristics or predispositions of those who practice it.
I'm not trying to convince you they are right- I'm trying to point out that your analysis is, at its very core, wrong. All your criticisms are wastes of energy because you are attacking a thought in a religion (or religions) that doesn't even exist. (that gays are inferior human beings).
Having gay sex is a pretty large part of being gay.
But straight people could do it, and THAT is what the problem for Christians is. It's like sex outside of marriage- this activity is wrong, so we do not want to "sanctify" it, if you will. Has precisely ZERO to do with the person. Of course the difference between those two is that for the first, once you are married, it's no longer a sin, while gay sex is a sin no matter when it is done or who does it. That's all really, NOTHING to do with actual gay people.
Sexuality is a core part of almost every human being. Acting like "hey I really don't have anything against you, but if you start living your sexuality freely I'd really hate that" is ridiculous.
Not expressing core needs everyone has freely and treating other people as sinful with no rational basis what so ever is utterly stupid and at it's core not really different from every other form of bigotry.
I didn't say it was or wasn't stupid, what I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with the person. At least in educated Christian thought, you always get other people who say stupid things.
funny, cause educated christians dont actually spread this homophobic "gay sex is a sin" bullshit
Depends on where you are, I think. Europe is obviously much more secular than America is, even with respect to religion. I've seen both sides of it...there are those who think it's ok (I don't see how that caan be given what's in the Bible) but many here in America hold it to be wrong the reasons I mentioned.
IN SUMMARY: One should know what the opposition thinks before criticizing it. That's been the entire reason I'm still talking about it. They can be wrong, but the criticisms levied here (like "fear" and thinking gays are "inferior") ARE NOT the rationale. If you were to ever meet someone who thought homosexual activity is wrong, you would find that your criticisms would fly right past said person, because they don't apply to a view they hold.
Hope that's been cleared up.
And again you're bullshitting. Gay sex is sinful. Ok. Nobody is (I hope) being forced to watch and condone two gay people fucking. So that's out.
We're one tier removed from the sin now. In this tier we have the possibility of churches being forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay people against their will (the church, not the gay people). As soon as this becomes a problem you can let us know, because it's not right now. So that's out.
We're two tiers removed from the sin of gay sex now. Now we have the fear of gay people renting out church property that is available to the public for the purpose of gay weddings. The important part here is 'available to the public' because that includes gays. So, interested churches are including language saying that they rent out these spaces for everything BUT gay marriages. Most of these do not fall under public accommodation, except for the few churches in small towns which also happen to have a monopoly on all the publicly rentable buildings in town. So that is for the most part out.
Even he claimed that he doesn't hate them, just the sin. While his rhetoric proves otherwise, he KNOWS what the argument is, he KNOWS it's not supposed to be about the person. That actually supports what I said.
I also said there are crazies everywhere. A random southern pastor who advocates concentration camps isn't exactly the mainline of Christian thought. You have seen my qualifiers, yes? Find one or more persons with some credentials and some influence who sounds like him.
ok, I'm done. My purpose was not to defend one view or the other, but to point out that people like those in the video (hell, just the pastor, even the church-goer tried to get out of it) are not the majority. Now granted, I live in CA, so there could be more of this in the South, but those at respected schools or with respected publishing don't say things like he does.
You find crazy people everywhere.
No, a random southern pastor isn't the average face of the anti-gay christian movement. Neither is the well-recited politically correct anti-gay rhetoric which you have picked up from prominent media figures and rebroadcast here.
if the dude actually went on tv and said she hated gays, as opposed to rationalizing this sentiment of disgust, wanting them to go away etc, then that's just dumbness. you can't seriously be taking "oh they are not actually literally saying they hate gays" at face value.
Even he claimed that he doesn't hate them, just the sin. While his rhetoric proves otherwise, he KNOWS what the argument is, he KNOWS it's not supposed to be about the person. That actually supports what I said.
I also said there are crazies everywhere. A random southern pastor who advocates concentration camps isn't exactly the mainline of Christian thought. You have seen my qualifiers, yes? Find one or more persons with some credentials and some influence who sounds like him.
ok, I'm done. My purpose was not to defend one view or the other, but to point out that people like those in the video (hell, just the pastor, even the church-goer tried to get out of it) are not the majority. Now granted, I live in CA, so there could be more of this in the South, but those at respected schools or with respected publishing don't say things like he does.
You find crazy people everywhere.
No, a random southern pastor isn't the average face of the anti-gay christian movement.
It is the average face because it brings in viewers, that much should be obvious. We all agree that the media sucks, yes? All they want to do is hype and exaggerate? That's exactly what's going on here. But since, in this case, it aligns perfectly with what you want to believe or already did, you take their presentation at face value.
When you go underneath it, you find a much more moderate and prolonged discussion that doesn't involve any hatred. Just because you've never LOOKED for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
According to this, US military spending is as much as the next eleven countries. I'm not sure how to translate these numbers into actual military strength, so perhaps someone who is a bit more well versed in modern warfare could chime in.
What I'm interested in:
In a World War III type scenario, would the United States (plus Canada, I presume) be able to take on the rest of the world?
According to this, US military spending is as much as the next eleven countries. I'm not sure how to translate these numbers into actual military strength, so perhaps someone who is a bit more well versed in modern warfare could chime in.
What I'm interested in:
In a World War III type scenario, would the United States (plus Canada, I presume) be able to take on the rest of the world?
Huge parts of that budget are wasted so its hardly an indication of strenght but they would go a long way towards it yes. Not counting nukes ofc because well... then no one wins.
The question is if a military that big has any real point since open warfare between major powers, esp nuclear onces is unlikely in the extreme.
According to this, US military spending is as much as the next eleven countries. I'm not sure how to translate these numbers into actual military strength, so perhaps someone who is a bit more well versed in modern warfare could chime in.
What I'm interested in:
In a World War III type scenario, would the United States (plus Canada, I presume) be able to take on the rest of the world?
that war would last about 22 minutes, which is about as long as it would take for each side's ICBMs to reach each other.
EPT
