Total posts: 968
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Well the server is pretty dead so if you can breathe some life into it...
Created:
Posted in:
Would be cool for verbal open floor conversation and general chatting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Exactly. And the common excuse of "well what about free will" doesn't work because even if we are generous and assume that free will is real, "perfect" being's wouldn't choose to sin.
For example, if God created the first perfect beings (in his image after all) them the perfect beings would perfectly educated their children, creating more perfect beings. The off-spring, being taught by the perfect parents would also be perfect and also teach their children to be perfect. The fact that evil exists means that either God didn't do a good job in creating the first "perfect" being, or he just doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Premise 1 Every human choice or action is driven by past events.
- Name an action which isn't driven by something which happened in the past.
- ie. You eat because you're hungry, you drive because you want to get somewhere
Premise 2 We do not control past events.
- Truism
Conclusion 1 Human free will does not exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Saying self caused is literally the text book example of circular reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Fallacy of presumption. By saying God's thought you are assuming God exists.
Special Pleading fallacy. Assuming that God has special characteristic, namely, avoids the argument 3RU7AL proposes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
"Driven by" does not necessarily equal perfect predetermination. Even with my available set of choices being driven by past choices (usually a complex series made by others), I still choose from what options occur to me.
Interesting. However you do concede that actions can only be acted upon after they occur to you. By virtue of it's definition, something which "occurs to you" is outside of your control, you do not choose to suddenly remember where you left your keys. Moreover, there is the paradox of choice which still needs to be addressed. You state that though I do not control the options of actions which I can initiate, I can choose from the ones which do occur to me. Though admittedly this cuts out a huge amount of what free will is, I still have problems with it. How can you make a choice, if your will to make a choice is driven by unconscious states of the mind? How can you decide between sushi or a burger when you are at a food court? The so called decision is driven by factors which you are neither aware of or control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
At 71, I have the heart, lungs, liver and kidneys of a 20 year-old, at least one who has also abstained. And you claim free agency is a myth. Living proof, here, bud. Living proof.
Again, you encounter the same issue. Why did you, at ten, decide never to drink or smoke? I recommend you read Sam Harris's book on free will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thanks for the compliment.
Well using your example, I would ask why did you smoke? Why didn't you go and vape, do weed or use a bong? Why did you "choose" to smoke? Obviously you don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because what your willing to choose and your reason as to why you chose it are two separate narratives regardless of your eagerness to conflate the two.
Nope. If can't even tell me why you chose to do what you did, then how can you say that you "commanded" it. That's like me saying that I commanded an earthquake to happen on Mars without knowing why I did it or how I did it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
well then could you tell me why it doesn't change a thing, or are you just desperately clinging onto a comforting idea?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
human action can ONLY BE either "caused" or "uncaused".(IFF) your action is "caused" (THEN) your action is not "free"(IFF) your action is "uncaused" (THEN) it is not an act of your "will"
That's a pretty good way of putting it. I like the following syllogism that Sam Harris uses.
Pick a random country. Any country. Notice this processes which you are going through. Notice the selecting and the choosing, and the "freeness"which you are going through. What if I were to say that this very processes proves that free will does not exist?
In order to unpack this, we must first establish the options that one has to pick.
1)A person is not free to choose a country which they do not know exists.
2)A person cannot choose a country which didn't occur to them
3)You can only choose what occurs to you
The first option is obvious. If you don't know it, then you cannot choose it. You are not free to choose it, so to speak.
The second option however, is a little more confronting. Perhaps all readers know about Argentina but for some reason, your Argentina neurons were not functioning and you did you think it it. This then begs the question, what can you think about?
The third option is to unpack what you can choose. Say you chose America. The first thing to note is that you only "chose" it because it occurred to you.But how do you choose what occurs to you? The process of something occurring to you is unsolicited, it is impossible to choose what occurs to you.
Secondly, say the countries America and China occurred to you (you did not choose for these two countries to occur to you, they simply did). Ask yourself, why did you choose America? When subjects in a lab are asked to justify their actions(whilst under the influence of some independent variable) the test subject usually does not know the real reason why their actions occurred the way that they did (assuming an experienced experimenter was involved). However, this isn't to say they don't have a tale to tell. If you asked a person who has been hypnotised why they did certain things, they usually have bizarre reasons for why the did what they did (though unconvincing to us, the subject remains convinced of their tale). Returning to the case of free will, why does one choose Americas opposed to China. Well, one may say that "they just had an American hotdog last night and so America appealed to them". However, this is no justification, it is merely stating a fact. It's like if you asked a murderer why they murdered and they said "I killed him". So why choose America instead of China because you ate a hotdog? Why couldn't you think "well I've just had a hotdog, let's switch things up, I'll choose China".This process of "choosing" because of your apparent"justification" is no more than your neurons making a decision for you and you being aware of this decision.
You cannot know how things occur to you and neither can you know why you"chose" the option of which you did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Believe what you want, but I know I trust scientific evidence over desperate woes of hope everyday of the week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I also assume that everyone has been bugging you to create the feature where the voting period can be overridden by mods, in the situation where a debater has forfeited the debate and no one can be bothered waiting 100 days for the "voting" to end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
“Every child is born into something. If they are not born into a religious family it will be a non-religious one. And that non-religious family will assume that the child is non-religious”
The difference between being born into an theistic family and an atheist family is that one teaches a belief, and the other does not teach a belief. The definition of atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a supernatural God. Atheism is not a belief system, it does not indoctrinate children into thinking a certain way.
“Why should it be ok to call that child non-religious anymore than it would be to call it religious or Marxist to use your comparison?”
Again, you conflate a belief and a lack of belief. Atheists simply assert their lack of belief in a God. Take for instance, witchcraft, or any other pseudoscientific magic. Would it be more sensible to teach the child that a) mixing a fog leg with soap in a ceramic mug will conjure up the body of Michael Jackson, or b) refrain from teaching anything and allow them to make a decision when they are natural enough to do so. The difference is that in situation a), the child will be, if indoctrinated enough, eventually believe in witchcraft, while in b, they are able to come to a sensible decision.
“In any event, what is it that determines someone's religion or politics for that matter?”
Free thinking, and certainly not indoctrination.
“Many religious people love all other religions without fail. Many atheists consider themselves spiritual”
Religion is more than just spirituality, it is a belief system which is so powerful that it can make fully grown human beings believe that there’s an all powerful sky man who contradicts quite literally every major branch of science and thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
faith is for those who do not understand science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
No problem take your time. I have a lot to say regarding these topics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
@Fruit_Inspector
Perhaps the two of you would like to, when complete, vote on me and fauxlaw's debate, THBT: The God of the Christian bible likely does not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
When I was a male
Friendly note, your bio says you're a man so you're gonna want to change that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I am saying that the chances for a toddler being indoctrinated into a faith is much higher than them actually picking up their text, analysing it, comparing it to science and coming to an informed conclusion. Like how you should flinch at the term “Hitler youth”, you should flinch when you here “Christian child”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Clearly you do not get the memo. Of course “religious children” exist, but the term should make you flinch as much as the term “Marxist children” does. The term “religious children” is about as accurate as “Nazi child” in that both are indoctrinated to believe incorrect principles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Have you ever heard or read anything by Rosaria butterfield?
No I haven't, but I may consider doing so in the future. In the mean time, do you have any personal comment regarding my post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
“Everyday people want things and are told to stop following those feelings. For example in court a man loves his wife so much he can’t stop following her around or texting her. The court says do it again and you will breach a restraining order. The man keeps doing this until he gets out into prison several times. Or he sees her with someone else. I am not saying it is easy to stop being attracted to someone but the fact is people do stop loving others for all sorts of reasons”
I assume that in this example depicts the homosexual as the criminal facing charges, and the “wife” as the other individual. The only difference with this and homosexuality is that, unlike how in this situation the wife is escaping the husband, both parties want to be together, with the only thing keeping them apart being the court. In a loving homosexual relationship, both parties are satisfied, it isn’t as if one of them is the “wife” attempting to escape. To alter your example slightly, how would you consider a situation in which a man and his wife were desperate to be together, but as the court rules their relationship as “unnatural” they are forced apart. And not only this, unlike any ordinary law, if they break this one, they spend eternity burning in flames with satan.
“Why would I want to stop loving my parents?”
Exactly, asking you to stop loving your parents would be absurd. Just like how asking a homosexual to stop loving their own sex is absurd. To them, it would be like me telling you to stop loving your parents. Their relationship, at least to them, feels as natural as your love for your parents. It isn’t as if they are feeling some sort of artificial love, or else why would they go to such an extent to protest for their rights? If homosexuals really could “change their minds”, do you not think they would? Gays get bashed up for their sexuality, any rational person who could change their mind would do so immediately. Clearly this is something coded into their brain. As such, why would God want to punish something which people cannot change, even if they so desire?
“Yet just because they don’t want to think they are abnormal does not mean they are normal. They might be but thinking it does not make it so”
We share common ground here. You’ll be surprised to find that I actually lean conservative. Though we have disagreements with the issue of homosexuailty, I can see where you are coming from, as your views are somewhat similar to my views on transgendered people. I believe that trans people should not be referred to as their chosen gender, as this violates my right to freedom of speech and jeopardizes common biology. Even though something is programmed into your brain, it should not be normalised, as you rightfully state. After all, encoded in the gene’s of men is violence which, even though “normal” should not be encouraged. However, this issue does not extend to homosexuality. Unlike the violent male who, through their “normal” behaviour will physically assault people, or the transgender person who through their “normal” behaviour force me to through out my year 2 biology text book, I can see nothing that the homosexual is doing to me which causes harm. They do not force me to change my language and they do not abuse people. They are just two loving people who, to put frankly, don’t need me busy bodying into what they are doing.
“I might find myself attracted to Mariah Carey. You might say ok you can’t help it. So does that mean I should accept that unless I can make her like me then my life is empty and meaningless? Or do I have a choice? Does the other person have to like me back? The fact is we choose who we are attracted to and we choose how we are going to deal with that attraction”
The reason your attraction to Maraih should be contained is because she doesn't like you back. Though you may be open to a relationship, she is not. Therefore, in order to prevent violating her rights, you should maintain distance. However, this is not the case with homosexuals. Both parties in a homosexual relationhip are consenting and want to be together. Using your example, imagine if you and Mariah were deeply in love, when some third party of whom you have never met asserts that you need to be separated. This would be deeply troubling.
“God’s love is reflected in his utmost value of marriage and family. You have not commented on that. Because god values this so highly - it is why the sanction for breaching it is so heavy”
But surely God can see that these people are desperately in love and that despite their best efforts, they cannot change who they are. Surely if God is omnipotent, he can put some sort of awakening sign in the paths of the homosexuals which will make them realise that they are “sinning”. Surely God could teach them why they are “wrong”, instead of forcing them into a pit of fire.
“Or other offences that might cause a breach in that covenant such as murder or assault or the death of a baby”
He also states “do not keep back training from the child: for even if you give him blows with the rod, it will not be death to him” (Proverbs 23:13) despite the fact that scientists have found that beating your children doesn't work in the long term and can make children more aggressive.
I assume that in this example depicts the homosexual as the criminal facing charges, and the “wife” as the other individual. The only difference with this and homosexuality is that, unlike how in this situation the wife is escaping the husband, both parties want to be together, with the only thing keeping them apart being the court. In a loving homosexual relationship, both parties are satisfied, it isn’t as if one of them is the “wife” attempting to escape. To alter your example slightly, how would you consider a situation in which a man and his wife were desperate to be together, but as the court rules their relationship as “unnatural” they are forced apart. And not only this, unlike any ordinary law, if they break this one, they spend eternity burning in flames with satan.
“Why would I want to stop loving my parents?”
Exactly, asking you to stop loving your parents would be absurd. Just like how asking a homosexual to stop loving their own sex is absurd. To them, it would be like me telling you to stop loving your parents. Their relationship, at least to them, feels as natural as your love for your parents. It isn’t as if they are feeling some sort of artificial love, or else why would they go to such an extent to protest for their rights? If homosexuals really could “change their minds”, do you not think they would? Gays get bashed up for their sexuality, any rational person who could change their mind would do so immediately. Clearly this is something coded into their brain. As such, why would God want to punish something which people cannot change, even if they so desire?
“Yet just because they don’t want to think they are abnormal does not mean they are normal. They might be but thinking it does not make it so”
We share common ground here. You’ll be surprised to find that I actually lean conservative. Though we have disagreements with the issue of homosexuailty, I can see where you are coming from, as your views are somewhat similar to my views on transgendered people. I believe that trans people should not be referred to as their chosen gender, as this violates my right to freedom of speech and jeopardizes common biology. Even though something is programmed into your brain, it should not be normalised, as you rightfully state. After all, encoded in the gene’s of men is violence which, even though “normal” should not be encouraged. However, this issue does not extend to homosexuality. Unlike the violent male who, through their “normal” behaviour will physically assault people, or the transgender person who through their “normal” behaviour force me to through out my year 2 biology text book, I can see nothing that the homosexual is doing to me which causes harm. They do not force me to change my language and they do not abuse people. They are just two loving people who, to put frankly, don’t need me busy bodying into what they are doing.
“I might find myself attracted to Mariah Carey. You might say ok you can’t help it. So does that mean I should accept that unless I can make her like me then my life is empty and meaningless? Or do I have a choice? Does the other person have to like me back? The fact is we choose who we are attracted to and we choose how we are going to deal with that attraction”
The reason your attraction to Maraih should be contained is because she doesn't like you back. Though you may be open to a relationship, she is not. Therefore, in order to prevent violating her rights, you should maintain distance. However, this is not the case with homosexuals. Both parties in a homosexual relationhip are consenting and want to be together. Using your example, imagine if you and Mariah were deeply in love, when some third party of whom you have never met asserts that you need to be separated. This would be deeply troubling.
“God’s love is reflected in his utmost value of marriage and family. You have not commented on that. Because god values this so highly - it is why the sanction for breaching it is so heavy”
But surely God can see that these people are desperately in love and that despite their best efforts, they cannot change who they are. Surely if God is omnipotent, he can put some sort of awakening sign in the paths of the homosexuals which will make them realise that they are “sinning”. Surely God could teach them why they are “wrong”, instead of forcing them into a pit of fire.
“Or other offences that might cause a breach in that covenant such as murder or assault or the death of a baby”
He also states “do not keep back training from the child: for even if you give him blows with the rod, it will not be death to him” (Proverbs 23:13) despite the fact that scientists have found that beating your children doesn't work in the long term and can make children more aggressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
If anyone knew that such was a likely outcome then they would stop doing it.
If I told you to stop loving your parents (assuming you love them), would that be possible? You cannot change what you want, this is an impossible feat.
I choose whom I am attracted to and to whom I am not attracted to.
Imagine for example that you were the one who was the minority and that the social norm was to love your own gender. Would you be able to do this? Would you be able to, as a result of sheer will, make yourself like your own sex right now? This is likely what homosexual people feel. To them, being gay is normal, just like how you feel you are "normally" attracted to the opposite sex. Telling them to change their minds is as absurd as me telling you to like men.
And with regard to Gods love - absolutely. God loves the family and marriage so much that any distortion of it, and move to change it, any manner to diminish it will bring about the most severest punishments.
Sending someone into Hell i.e making them burn eternally in fire because of a desire which they cannot control is… Gods love?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
As I've said, I cannot demonstrate it for you.
That's all I need to hear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you check the credentials of the engineers before boarding a plane, that is after you personally observe all of the safety checks and inspections done before the flight? Or do you just board the plane, trusting that you will arrive safely at your destination?
No because I know that my airline is responsible enough not to let some dude who's only qualification is "faith" build my plane.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The death penalty does not demonstrate hate towards homosexuals- it demonstrates the sanctity and the high value God has on family and marriage.
Sending someone into Hell i.e making them burn eternally in fire because of a desire which they cannot control is… Gods love?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Evidence is only evidence when everyone can see it, otherwise it's called a hallucination
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
without evidence to support your opinion.
Also you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Congrats! I'm excited to possibly have a debate with you in the future.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true.
But how do you know they are true!!
It, therefore, comprises a six sense.
Come on, please don't tell me your going to use this "faith" stuff as a serious argument for God in our up coming debate. You do realise that "faith" can be used to "prove" the exitance of every single God there is.
Do you deny the ability of some animals to echolocate, and others to sense the Earth's magnetic field?
Echolocation is not magic. It is a testable survival technique which some animals have.
To sense where blood vessels are in other animals with precision, though they are not seen?
Then, why not faith for man?
Notice how you compare testable abilities to supposed "faith". For example, echolocation can gauge a testable result, being the location of beings. The bats ability to hone in on blood vessels can gauge a testable result, being that they actually hit the blood vessel. Both these include a seemingly incredible result, paired with an explanation. However, I see no result in your faith. Sure, like the bat, you can propose that you have this "sixth" sense, but unlike bats who actually prove that they can hit the vein, you cannot prove any such thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
In a one line no BS sentence, define faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If kids can call themselves transgender at 4 I don't see why they can't call themselves Christian or Muslim or democrat or libertarian. After talking to the child for a few minutes I'm sure you could establish whether he has his own views or his parents.Well then that should be true for anything of 4-year-old thinks.Then we should avoid teaching everything to children actually let's take kids and put them in a facility and let the state raise them completely neutral with no personality.One has nothing to do with the other. No one is asking dying kids to do math either. Kids get math and science at school. If you don't want parents influencing kids put them in homes and let the state raise them.Already answered.
Here's everything you've said. Tell me where the word Marxist comes up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for"
There is not doubt that all would hope for an all loving being who cares about them. However, conviction does not equate to reality. Just because one really really hopes that there is a God, this in no way effects the reality of whether God exits.
There is a far greater power involved here than mere belief, but I don'r expect a secularist to understand a thing about that.
Belief, I believe, is the effect of being convinced. Whether that be through observable metrics, personal experience or "faith", belief is the result of being convinced. Regardless of whether the evidence is sound, if one buys it, it believe it, hence belief.
By the work performed to realize the hope, realize the evidence, that is, to present "unseen," as something achieved in seeing.
Again, my "hoping" that there is a God does not change the fact that there is/isn't one. Moreover, with this logic, I could justify any religion of which operates on faith. What you have said can be used as support for Christianity, Islam and every single other religion that requires faith.
You could, too, but doubt can have no purchase on your effort. And you will never know until you try it, with real intent.
If you were to convert someone to Christianity, what would you say to them. I am open minded to change, but from my perspective, there seems to be a cumbersome amount of evidence suggesting no God. Really try and consider this from my point of view. I am a same human being who is capable of ordinary emotions. Why would I not want an all loving God? Why would I not want to know that all my good deeds are seen be someone and contribute to me being in the afterlife? Do you think that the idea of eternal bliss does not intrigue me? There has to be serious evidence to persuade anyone to believe that this happiness is impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
A persons religion might have many contributing factors.
Do you find it interesting countries almost always have a dominating religion? 65 percent of people in America are Christians, while countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria are made up of more 81%-100% of Islam's? Does this not show that the country you are born in has a significant influence on the religion you will become? If Christianity was really true, why is it that there are so many Islams, who just so happen to be far away enough so that they are not endocrined at birth?
Yet at the end of a day what determines whether someone is religious or not?
I argue that it is what is taught to a young child. If you repeat over and over that the Christian God is real to a little child, you can be sure that they will believe you without question. Like wise, if you whisper into a child's ear that Allah will spare them in the afterlife, an identical effect will be gauged, just with a different God.
All in all, what is your view on Marxist children?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you ignore, then, the prudence of teaching a child what faith is, and how it works? Faith is not synonymous with belief, nor religion.
Faith is defined as "a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof". As such, we should teach faith as what it is, that is, to believe in something regardless of and irrespective of evidence.
Faith is a concept of how to determine what ideas are true and that which is not true.
No, that is called evidence.
A child can learn and apply that much. In fact, they can do it more easily than can adults.
I highly doubt that. Do you really think that a little child is better equipped to face difficult question like the legitimacy of religion better than mature minded adults? A child's brain is malleable and can be made to believe anything that is fed into it. If you told a child that there was a tea pot revolving the earth, they would believe it. However, if you told an adult the same thing, they would ask for evidence. Reliance of faith at a young age removes this critical reasoning skill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Then we should avoid teaching everything to children actually let's take kids and put them in a facility and let the state raise them completely neutral with no personality.
A straw man if there ever once was. Therefore, I must respond with my initial statement
It would be more effective to teach children maths and language, or other uncontroversial objectively true facts. Even the most hard core priest would have to concede that faith plays a major role in belief in religion.
What is your personal opinion on labelling four year olds as Marxists or republicans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Exactly, that's why we should avoid teaching faith based things to children. It would be more effective to teach children maths and language, or other uncontroversial objectively true facts. Even the most hard core priest would have to concede that faith plays a major role in belief in religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@Timid8967
Saying homosexuality is an abomination and deserves the death penalty is not the same as saying you hate gays. When my son looks at porn it is a grievous thing to me and deserves punishment. Yet it does mean I hate him. To let him continue without telling him it is wrong would suggest I don’t care for him. By informing him I actually reveal my care and concern and I fact that I do love him. I love him enough to tell him.
Timid makes a good point. To declare homosexuality as a sin is already an issue and to say that the death penalty is a justified response is outrageous. (trade, would you like to debate this topic? THBT: Homosexuality should be punishable by death).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I did not ignore your post at all. You are making claims about children without the benefit of personal experience, or you would have replied with that experience.
You did. I am making claims about children which should seem very obvious. Tell me, what would your reaction be if the caption read Shadbreet (Democrat), Musharraf (Republican) and Adele (Communist) aged 4.
Are you not finished growing up, yourself [your profile is categorically unknown on the subject, which speaks for itself].
Well the state of me being alive and able to respond clearly means that I have not finished growing up.
Created:
Posted in:
idk, I've never met Jesus, but I do know that his dad hates gays.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Are you even around small children enough to know what thoughts they have, on their own? Apparently not. Prepare to be shocked.
Thanks for ignoring my post. Tell me, how can a little child know that they are a Christian, any more than they could possibly know that they are a Marxist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
After talking to the child for a few minutes I'm sure you could establish whether he has his own views or his parents.
I highly doubt this. What I do know is that kids are very impressionable and that they would believe anything you tell them. So even if you ask a 4 year old about their religion and they seem convicted of their religion, the question then becomes, how much of this has been conditioned by their parents?
Created:
Posted in:
During Christmas time, the Independent was looking for a seasonal image and found a heart-warmingly ecumenical one at a school nativity play. The Three Wise Men were played by, as the caption glowingly stated, Shadbreet (a Sikh), Musharraf (a Muslim) and Adele (a Christian), all aged four. Perhaps one could call this a "charming" image, demonstrating "diversity at it's peak". I beg to differ. In what world does labelling four-year-old children's with the cosmic and theological opinions of which they had no choosing? To demonstrate the issue, imagine the same photograph, but with the caption as follows: Shadbreet (Democrat), Musharraf (Republican) and Adele (Communist) aged 4.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Seeing as you have the fancy border and also a couple coins, I assume that you also at some point (or currently) were a patron.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
How does thett3 have 500 coins and he doesn't even know how he got them. What are they for and how are they earned?
Created: