Total posts: 278
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
One can both justify something that you consider unnecessary, and consider something necessary which you cannot justify.Then I'm not sure we are using the words in the same way. For me something necessary is defacto justified by virtue of its necessity.
For elaboration on substantial difference between the terms, you could see the top of post #81. Definitions are provided.
#81In the course of a robbery a guard pulls his flashlight and starts beating the hell out of an armed robber before they can hurt a bystander. In order to avoid severe bodily injury, they protect themselves out of necessity and severely injure the guard in return until the threat has ceased. Is this behavior just? Some people may very well say, "no". Morally, no matter how realistic and dire the need there was no point where the robber would be in the right to be wielding a weapon throughout the course of this event, let alone using it with such force.
Then the dispute wouldn't be settled by either party.So who gets to settle on the land then?
Whoever uses the land and doesn't leave is settled on it. It may happen that one or none or all relevant parties use the land and continue to dispute the claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If employment cannot even be justified you can hardly claim that it is necessary.I had kind of a difficult time relating to this statement.That something were necessary would be a justification. Something you cannot even justify having happen is defacto unnecessary.
One can both justify something that you consider unnecessary, and consider something necessary which you cannot justify.
A dispute could be settled through concession or if the relevant parties decide to compromise, coming to an agreement. It might be nullified if the claimant just up and left.And what if neither party is willing to concede or compromise?
Then the dispute wouldn't be settled by either party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That's probably because I was answering a question as to why people need to be employed, not trying to justify employment.What's the difference? If employment cannot even be justified you can hardly claim that it is necessary. On what grounds do you engage in this hair splitting.
You asked why people need to be employed, and I felt like answering the question. That's just the way it is.
In the course of a robbery a guard pulls his flashlight and starts beating the hell out of an armed robber before they can hurt a bystander. In order to avoid severe bodily injury, they protect themselves out of necessity and severely injure the guard in return until the threat has ceased. Is this behavior just? Some people may very well say, "no". Morally, no matter how realistic and dire the need there was no point where the robber would be in the right to be wielding a weapon throughout the course of this event, let alone using it with such force.
If employment cannot even be justified you can hardly claim that it is necessary.
I had kind of had a difficult time relating to this statement. Taken at face value that seemed a surprisingly faithful remark for someone who claims not to believe in the basis of reality. Upon further consideration I think that employment is more of a political thing to you than it is to me. To me it's just considering a business arrangement, but to a Marxist it's almost as though employment is an extension of feudal Germany.
I am unaware of any other way to become truly wealthy.Lay a claim to land, work it, and build a cabin.Produce something valuable and exchange it for something else that retains value.Lay claim how exactly? Sorry it seems like you are oversimplifying here.You just claim that you are in the right to work the land. It's really that simple, but it would make sense to keep some proof in case anyone were to dispute you.Sorry but I don't understand what is to keep your claim from being challenged.Well a claim might be challenged by another claim or it might not. It seems obvious that challenging a claim is a matter of discretion.How is the dispute settled then? Might makes right?
A dispute could be settled through concession or if the relevant parties decide to compromise, coming to an agreement. It might be nullified if the claimant just up and left.
Righteousness means to be in accordance with the higher truth.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
As far as I can tell nobody with any information about the event blames Baldwin in the least. I guess I still wonder if Baldwin was pointing and shooting or did the gun misfire as it had earlier in the day? Either way, responsibility seems to be falling on the armorer and props master.
Even after a store clerk opens the action to check for themselves for the 10th time and hands a firearm to you, regardless of what is going on, it is your responsibility to verify whether or not it is unloaded by opening the action and looking into the chamber and magazine. You're always going to live with that no matter what anyone says, so best to acknowledge it and get right with yourself beforehand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You asked why people need to be employed and I explained why so I don't understand how that's a non-sequitur.Yes but you did not justify employment only mediums of exchange. One does not necessitate the other.
That's probably because I was answering a question as to why people need to be employed, not trying to justify employment.
You just claim that you are in the right to work the land. It's really that simple, but it would make sense to keep some proof in case anyone were to dispute you.Sorry but I don't understand what is to keep your claim from being challenged.
Well a claim might be challenged by another claim or it might not. It seems obvious that challenging a claim is a matter of discretion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
People need to be employed because they don't have land, or because they've only developed a specialized skillset for which they cannot survive of their own accord and nobody claims them as a dependent.This seem like a non sequitur. All this means is that humans must cooperate in order to survive. That alone doesn't necessitate employment.
You asked why people need to be employed and I explained why so I don't understand how that's a non-sequitur.
I haven't really claimed that humans must cooperate in order to survive. Seeing that you're interested enough to bring it up anyway, I do believe this to be the case in terms of raising a family.
Lay a claim to land, work it, and build a cabin.Produce something valuable and exchange it for something else that retains value.Lay claim how exactly? Sorry it seems like you are oversimplifying here.
You just claim that you are in the right to work the land. It's really that simple, but it would make sense to keep some proof in case anyone were to dispute you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is meant to lower unemployment rates. Roosevelt built dams because the country needs something to do and the people need jobs.The idea of employment is what creates unemployment. Work needs to be done but I'm not sure why that means anyone needs to be employed. Do you honestly think if we don't pay one another we will stop doing what we must for the survival of the species?
People need to be employed because they don't have land, or because they've only developed a specialized skillset for which they cannot survive of their own accord, given that nobody claims them as a dependent.
I am unaware of any other way to become truly wealthy.
Lay a claim to land, work it, and build a cabin.
Produce something valuable and exchange it for something else that retains value.
Do you honestly think if we don't pay one another we will stop doing what we must for the survival of the species?
If we stop accounting for more valuable resources then is necessary for survival then we've forfeited responsibility for our own well being.
Taking on that responsibility is part of "growing up", at least among free individuals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I have some experience in looking into this matter. I actually have evidence in my possession of real voter fraud. It's not from an internet article or based on statistics. I know which political organizers it is traces to, how it connects to Joe Biden and at least one prominent figure who you might expect to be a bit corrupt and no longer holds office.
I'm very confident that:
1. Voter fraud is not exceedingly rare. It is underreported to some unknown extent.
2. Voter fraud skewed the percentage minutely in 2020 for at least one state
3. Joe Biden was elected President, and did not need the ballots to be miscounted.
If the information I have went public I'm quite confident it would be employed for evil purposes. Suffice to say, my perspective is as one of the few people here that has solid evidence of voter fraud, not some conspiracy theory or vague analysis.
To be honest I haven't really done my due diligence in studying what emergency powers were exercised due to the pandemic without going through the traditional checks and balances we had come to expect from our state governments. That is probably where I would look first if I were more vested in how the results are certified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I have some experience in looking into this matter. I actually have evidence in my possession of real voter fraud. It's not from an internet article or based on statistics. I know which political organizers it is traces to, how it connects to Joe Biden and at least one prominent figure who you might expect to be a bit corrupt and no longer holds office.
I'm very confident that:
1. Voter fraud is not exceedingly rare. It is underreported to some unknown extent.
2. Voter fraud skewed the percentage minutely in 2020 for at least one state
3. Joe Biden was elected President, and did not need the ballots to be miscounted.
If the information I have went public I'm quite confident it would be employed for evil purposes. Suffice to say, I'm one of the few people here that has solid evidence of voter fraud.
To be honest I haven't really done my due diligence in studying what emergency powers were exercised due to the pandemic without going through the traditional checks and balances we had come to expect from our state governments. That is probably where I would look first if I were more vested in how the results are certified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
They fought to destroy the union of the United States.
I'm pretty sure you're not going to change the mind of a Texan this way lol
Created:
Please don't conflate "liberal" with "left" with "Democrat".
Created:
-->
@thett3
I’m trying to understand the leftist position as much as I can. Identity politics/racial justice/ whatever you want to call it is a very hot subject for the left in America right now but on both sides I mostly see partisan saber rattling instead of discussions on policy. So I am asking in good faith: what do you actually want to do? Reparations? Economic redistribution? Hate speech laws? Etc. And at what point would you consider the issue to be resolved?
I've affiliated with the democratic party since I could vote. Within several years, I may have to reevaluate my affiliation and might not be a democrat but I haven't given up quite yet. This is mainly because the party has changed significantly in my lifetime, to the point where I'm basically just watching the circus as an informed citizen and no longer have any viable options to vote for in the primary elections. The concept of race is of no concern to me for this matter. Aside from that, I'm aware that the party does not have an exceptional track record in this context. People within living memory have been deeply neglected by Democrats on account of race, and if you can relate to that then you can more easily see how it's tolerable in certain settings for representatives to take that memory into consideration. Since I haven't been kowtowing any political obscurity it is evident that I'm not a leftist, whatever that means.
I would not vote for a candidate that tailors economic redistribution according to anyone's sentiment regarding a racial construct.
- I don't know what you mean by reparations. Reparations for what? I'd entertain reparations between nations and maybe communities, not on the basis of race.
- I don't know what you mean by economic redistribution. State or federal? Subsidies, defense spending, infrastructure? At the federal level I'm primarily interested in national security.
- I'm highly skeptical of so-called "hate speech" in the realm of politics. It's something that could very easily disqualify a candidate.
The issue as it pertains to politics will naturally be resolved when race is not considered for electoral strategy, not counted on any census, and unlawful discrimination is not excused in the courts. I aspire for justice to be brought about within a lifetime of redress. Such approaches have been considered with increasing weight over the years.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
At the end of the day, this is a decision that you should make for yourself in consultation with your preferred doctors.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Why argue when there's Wikipedia?The symbol # is known variously in English-speaking regions as the number sign, hash, or pound sign. The symbol has historically been used for a wide range of purposes including the designation of an ordinal number and as a ligatured abbreviation for pounds avoirdupois – having been derived from the now-rare ℔.
Since 2007, widespread usage of the symbol to introduce metadata tags on social media platforms has led to such tags being known as "hashtags", and from that, the symbol itself is sometimes called a hashtag.
The symbol is distinguished from similar symbols by its combination of level horizontal strokes and right-tilting vertical strokes.So, most of the difference depends on whether you got your education before or after 2007.
I pity the fool that got their higher education from twitter.
OH MY FUCKING GOD, GET THE FUCKING VACCINE ALREADY, YOU FUCKING FUCKSHi, if you are reading this essay then congratulations, you are still alive. And if you are alive, then you have either gotten the COVID-19 vaccine, or you still have the opportunity to get the vaccine against COVID-19. And holy fuck, if you aren’t fucking vaccinated against COVID-19, then you need to get fucking vaccinated right now. I mean, what the fuck? Fuck you. Get vaccinated. Fuck.The fucking vaccine will not make you magnetic. Are you fucking kidding me? It just fucking won’t. That’s not even a fucking thing, and that lady who tried to pretend the vaccine made her fucking magnetic looked like a real fucking fuckwad and a fucking idiot, so get fucking vaccinated. Jesus. Fuck.The vaccine also doesn’t have a fucking 5G chip in it. What the fuck do you think a fucking 5G chip is, fucknuts? You think it’s like some invisible nanotechnology they can suspend in a liquid and then just put in your fucking blood and then it what, exactly? Fucking floats around in your body going on Instagram and telling the government you went to the grocery store? No one fucking cares where you go, you absolute fucking fuck-barf. Fuck off with that. Fuck.Oh, you’re afraid of fucking side effects? Fuck you. You know what has fucking side effects? Fucking aspirin, fucking Tylenol. You could be fucking allergic to pineapple, you fucking fuckwit. Everything has side effects. You’re being a big fucking baby with a huge diaper full of fucking diarrhea, complaining about maybe feeling slightly tired for a day or two while your asymptomatic COVID case you get and pass to some innocent fucking kid could wind up killing them or someone else. Fuck you, you fucking selfish fucking shit-banana, you unredeemable ass-caterpillar, you fucking fuck-knob with two fucks for eyes and a literal poop where your heart should be. You want a two-month-old to wind up on a fucking ventilator instead of you, a fucking adult, getting a fucking sore arm for a day? What are you, a pitcher for the Yankees? A fucking concert pianist? An arm model? Get the fuck out of here! Fuck you. Get vaccinated. Fuck. Fuck you!You think vaccines don’t fucking work? Oh, fuck off into the trash, you attention-seeking fuckworm-faced shitbutt. This isn’t even a point worth discussing, you fuck-o-rama fuck-stival of ignorance. Vaccines got rid of smallpox and polio and all the other disgusting diseases that used to kill off little fucks like you en masse. Your relatives got fucking vaccinated and let you live, and now here you are signing up to be killed by a fucking disease against which there is a ninety-nine-percent effective vaccine. You fucking moron. Go in the fucking ocean and fuck a piranha. Fuck. Fuck that. Fuck you. Get vaccinated.Oh, you say you have a genuine allergy or medical condition that prevents you from receiving a fucking vaccine? That’s fine. I’m clearly not talking to you. I fucking love you. Fuck.Look, if you have been forwarded this essay from a friend or loved one, then there are two possibilities. Either you are a normal, regular, sensible fucking person like me who got fucking vaccinated at the first possible moment, and this essay channels all your fucking rage and sadness and is therefore cathartic OR, and I really hope this isn’t the fucking case, you AREN’T fucking vaccinated, and someone sent it to you because you fucking fucking fuck, you need to get fucking vaccinated. And rather than being fucking offended that someone is trying yet again to get you to take the fucking vaccine, you should understand that someone fucking loves you enough to try one last motherfucking time to get you to take the fucking vaccine before you fuck off to heaven, or hell, or some in-between place that’s just like a fucking mall or something where everything is free, including and especially the soft pretzels. So, congratulations! There is ONE person remaining in your life who wants to fucking save you from drowning in your own fucking lungs, you fucking fuckshit fuckdick, so for god’s sake, get your fucking ass out of your chair, go to the fucking pharmacy, and get a fucking vaccine, you absolute conscienceless fucking fuck fuck fuck. Get it. Get the fucking vaccine. Fuck you. Fuck fuck fuck. Fuck. Fuck you. Fuck!
Bear in mind, this guy is allowed to edit Wikipedia.
Created:
Posted in:
It was a glorious victory for the US and we should celebrate it
From my perspective here is some of what has changed. Our police departments have been adopting different equipment, some of which is supplied directly from the military surplus. Our federal government is not trusted by it's people. It also has less capacity to react then it once did due to large amounts of debt. Some people feel that the public has lost ground on it's right to privacy. During the Bush and Obama administrations industry giants replaced some of our oil supply with corn based ethanol, and the North American continent gained much assurance following the advent of fracking. There has been a massive migration as a result of these conflicts, which will have lasting impacts on a number of nations. Due to successful manhunting operations, the organization of Al Qaeda changed and the structure became decentralized and more secretive. All this time, China has been increasingly prominent on the global stage. By the end of the Trump administration the calculus changed for whatever reason, to the extent that the puppet state of Afghanistan was no longer worth the cost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
On aggregate, which coalition(s) of voters do you see as more strict about "rule of law" and which do you see as being more tolerant of a "living constitution" (court packing)?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
which should come first?
For your country there's almost no chance of appealing through the courts. If a minority could ever band together well enough for a movement toward further independence to be sustainable, there's a (strong) chance the government will overreact, potentially garnering sympathy for your cause. Eventually you're going to need weapons to have any hope of gaining international backing, so try to delay any attack on your citizenry's armament infrastructure until you've ascertained that it's protected legally. It doesn't need to be in your home, but it needs to be secure, efficiently accessible. Assuming you have the moral fortitude at some point you're going to have to draw a hard line and watch as your adversaries show their true colors. You can never trust someone who doesn't expect people to be both decent and empowered. What ensues next will probably be awful. Once the members of high government are satisfied with the amount of pain and suffering they've inflicted upon your people, and assuming you've won a settlement, then there's a chance we can talk about getting a hold on "offensive/assault weapons".
As to which weapons should come first, I can't contend to have the answers for every social situation throughout the world. The police are armed in anticipation of the situations faced by the most vulnerable minorities within their jurisdiction. They are common civilians, and their job is not to carry a gun. It is to bring people to justice. What is considered reasonable by them to utilize is one of the most profound endorsements observed in society, in my opinion.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Alright, so will you work with me to take guns away from people?
If you want to disarm the police to whatever degree, it's fine by me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think Black Lives Matter is a slogan expressly made for anyone who perceives injustice, believing another person's life matters because THEY are black.
In my experience, just about anyone would be allowed to join in the mob of peaceful protesters, sometimes even more-so because of their different skin color.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
"because the delta varient which happened because no one got vaccinated i also doubt you ever wear a mask" Please do tell how me not wearing a mask causes a virus to mutate or how not being vaccinated causes a virus to mutate. I'll wait. Cant wait to hear this science.
A variant did not happen "because no one got vaccinated". The very first case to be transferred between humans did not happen "because no one got vaccinated". It just happened. It's thought by some that the more a virus replicates, the more random mutations which occur, and the more chances that a mutation which doesn't negatively effect propagation will come into play.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And the only reason that the majority of the population can expect to exceed 40 years of age, is thanks to clever people (scientists) and their inventions.
A lot of the great inventors aren't professional scientists. They're engineers, designers, and other businessmen and women who've positioned themselves on the cutting edge. The creative application of ideas in the "real world" isn't necessarily equitable to a series of controlled experiments.
I doubt that many people would be hesitant about ingesting an antibiotic for example.
I am hesitant about taking any sort of medication. I'd have to be pretty desperate to put something besides food and water into my body without further consideration.
Or do the anti-vax, conspiracy theorists still consider Alexander Fleming to be one of the shadowy untrustworthy elite?
I doubt it.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hesitancy is uncertainty.And anti-vax , is no more than one would expect of certain people.And let's be honest, anti-vax in the U.S is largely a left and right issue.....A gullible public inspired by the charismatic's desire for wealth and power.Trumpism and Trumpeteers as you might refer to it Mr Ebuc.
People who have some level of fear about the vaccines are often more concerned with the people who are associated with vaccine production, and distribution. They have their own reasons, and reference other noteworthy figures, generally not elected representatives in my experience. I don't really understand it to be honest.
Donald Trump took steps in order to expedite the production of vaccines, and the United States is fortunately one of the leading producers in the world. We are one of the nations that could rely upon our own assets if necessary. He decided to take the vaccine, in addition to the immune response his body had already developed from previously contracting the virus.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Averages are not a reliable indicator for the majority outcome within a population. I'll demonstrate with a set of five numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 90. Taking the average, we add 1+2+3+4+90 and then divide by the number of samples, 5. The average turns out to be 100/5 which is 20. Now if you examine the samples, it turns out that 20 is not close enough to be particularly representative of anything found in 1, 2, 3, 4, or 90. For this set of numbers, the vast majority are significantly less than average.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If the bar for personhood is low enough to allow zygotes, for instance, then many other things - like cancer, gametes, or animals- will qualify for personhood as well.Well stated.
Without a connection drawn on how we jump from recognizing a person, principally as soon as we know of their existence, and similarly respecting human rights for cancer, gametes, or animals, the statement is unintelligible. A gamete will never develop as a person. Cancer will never develop as a person. Humans are animals, but not all animals are human.
Actually, I was thinking of pro-lifers so often being for capital punishment and against social programs for those in need (such as pregnant women or young mothers). This is very much anti-life positions, imo.Well stated
Prison is antithetical to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nonetheless, once you are in custody of the state, we don't place a burden of proof upon the prisoner to demonstrate why they should not be killed. It's customary that we give them food, water, shelter, and only isolate them from community to the extent necessary, free of charge. To deprive them of human rights is supposed to require "due process".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is all accepting the axiom that your church has the claim on marriage, it doesn't, and it never has had it.
The church is older than the English language, and I highly doubt that the word marriage was not coined by Christians.
Created:
An all powerful being not being able to create something contradicts being all powerful.
If you had all the power in the world, and with that present power you could not move something that you made not to be moved, would you have all of the power in the world?
The reason the thing doesn't move isn't because a being is not all powerful. It's just that all of the power of the world is not enough to move that thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If your a gay person and you want to spend the rest of your life with another gay person, why can't you just get a civil union instead of a marriage? Marriage is a religious institution.
Marriage being a "religious" institution, the government should recognize marriages for it's purposes as civil unions. Then, validation would not be in the jurisdiction of the state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Generally abortion is not a significant factor on who I vote for, and I don't have a highly developed view on it in terms of contemporary politics. If had to hazard a guess, there's probably a different reaction because they haven't heard of any doctors injecting covid into patients with the intent to end a human life. Some people literally kill for a living, explicitly marketing themselves to the interest of erasing a human being from one's family. That is, disgraceful. It's perhaps the most glaring testament that savagery is tolerated in your society.
Even if you didn't know the depth of evil that is around you, it's one of those things that lends to a basic understanding that we are not a people above sin.
It's obvious that being pro-life isn't analogous to a mask mandate, which should go without saying. Like, when is the last time you heard someone seriously advocate for people to employ contraceptives according to a mandate, never?? Think... Even if you were extremely ignorant and just banking off random experience from adult conversations, I'm baffled at how you could possibly have deduced THAT is what "pro-life" means for ethical consideration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Place your cigarettes in an appropriately situated ash tray, or switch to something else. I've already responded to multiple fires just happening to be around me, due to irresponsibly smoking. The fire department was eventually mobilized for the majority of those occasions. Statistically speaking, smoking related fires may not be shown to be a particularly common sort of accident, but there's a significant chance that they fester or light up on something that is highly flammable and pose a greater threat.
Wait until you're ready to support a family before you have children with someone, and raise them.
Don't get old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Which one of these top 59 ways to die in America concerns you the most and what restrictions and mandates should be imposed on the people of America to lower the numbers?
Car accidents concern me the most from day to day. Next, is probably smoking and alcoholics.
I think you should be able to pass an exam to drive on public roads. Age requirements should be consistent with hiring standards. I don't have much opinion beyond that as to which ordinances ought to be passed, except obeying signs designed for safe travel and that it should be illegal to distract yourself from the road, such as using a cellphone to read something. The issue with regard to drinking and driving is only of excess. I don't take particular issue with people drinking and driving as long as they're not at risk of hurting anything, nor if they are not wearing seatbelts. Although, I think minors should be required to wear them. I take no issue with racing outside of city limits on an empty stretch, within reason.
If I'd interfere with any commercial smoking enterprise it would be cigarettes designed to deliver nicotine. Less addictive tobacco products or other substances such as cannabis and whatever is being vaporized should generally be free from incursion. Anything that you grow and produce for your own consumption should be explicitly shielded from government overreach. Any land used to this end should not be subject to consideration of value for taxation. Voting and purchase of drugs are based on whether someone marries, or otherwise lives independently of welfare, or the age consistent with expectations of holding office.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
As long as he didn’t own slaves.
In 1950, the youngest people to be born into slavery and performing some sort of labor around the time of emancipation would have been in their 90's. Martin Luther King Jr. was only 21, and he did not graduate from Boston University until around 1955.
What do you consider noteworthy about him not 'owning' slaves?
Created:
Posted in:
I'd have a preference to be where people drive safely because they value other members of their community. I suppose the metric this would translate to is having less traffic accidents, but accidents are also associated with the infrastructure and type of vehicle people are using, so maybe it's more practical to just base it off perception.
Created:
Posted in:
So which of the following two scenarios would you prefer:A) No government action, 3,000 automobile accident deathsB) Law mandating seatbelts, 2,000 automobile accident deaths
Honestly, I'm not going to move to a different state over this.
Wearing a seatbelt is a matter of personal responsibility. I don't believe in trying to quantify human life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
One of the earliest ones I remember being obvious was man wearing a hoodie in nice neighbor hood in Altanta gettting shot dead. I think his name was Jamal.
How long ago would you say that was?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you asked any 2 random American citizens what it means to be American, you will never get identical answer.
America is the antithesis of an ethno-state. There are aspects of some cultures which may happen to reside uniquely in America, but there is no such thing as American culture. One thing that Americans can agree on is that it's supposed to be a free country. Taking that to it's logical conclusion, there would be minimal impression of one culture being enforced at the national level onto another assuming the checks and balances of government are working correctly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Is this why people on NPR and the internet have been talking about "systemic racism" over the last year or two?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You seem to miss the concept of being part of a society. Like it or not, all of our fortunes are intertwined with each other, so when someone else donates to the poor you are indirectly benefiting from that transaction. And if we agree that there should be some kind of help for people in need then every selfish asshole effectively has an advantage for being a selfish asshole since only the kind and generous people would pay into it. Not exactly what I would call an optimal system.
I disagree with the notion that all of our fortunes are intertwined with one another. My fortune has been made with relation to a specific subset of society, comprised of individuals. I don't disagree that there should be some sort of help for people in need, and yet, I don't really agree either. I feel absolutely no sense of entitlement to anyone's help. Instead, I tend to feel gratitude. I acknowledge that at times I may not receive any help for what I aim, whether I need it or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Are you referring to a national flag of the Confederate States of America, or the general image that's patterned off the battle flag for the Army of Northern Virginia?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Americans call it "pound" or the pound sign/symbol. It's also used to signify "number".
Hashtag isn't a default reference where I live. People only say it sarcastically in person.
Most young people probably don't know what a symbol for British currency means just by looking at it yet. They're obviously used to trading in dollars. Canadian coins are similar enough that it's interchanged with American currency. Just by chance, they might occasionally encounter something from Latin America as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What is the actual reason you want the Star Spangled Banner to be retired?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I think it would seem to be some sort of reference to the Qur'an, which is properly rendered in Arabic.You mean like the Holy Bible should only be properly rendered in Hebrew and Greek?
I'd be reluctant to say that Muslims perceive validity of the Qur'an as Christians to the books of the Old and New Testament. For example, many Christians express that works within their church were inspired by God, and I've talked to Muslims who believe the Qur'an to have been recited directly from a messenger of God. A multitude of Muslims alive today have literally committed the Qur'an to memory.
This statement has little to do with the Holy Bible or what I think should be. It pertains to Islamic practices of recitation.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I don't understand the point of saying "Allah", assuming someone is already speaking in English. Do you?
I think it would seem to be some sort of reference to the Qur'an, which is properly rendered in Arabic.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Better idea, completely remove religious language from the pledge and you fix it.
The phrase "under God" is certainly reverent, but not connotating any religion.
Throughout the Pledge of Allegiance there doesn't appear to be any language which could be removed for such purposes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I didn't know at the time that this controversy came to be discussed that Hunter Biden was involved in a criminal investigation by the FBI, which later became more common knowledge to the public. I'm not sure I would have even knew his name had it not been for the person who leaked intel pertaining to a phone call by the president who was apparently interested in facilitating a similar investigation in Ukraine. Now I suspect not just Hillary Clinton but also the Biden family at least at one time had some sort of relationship to corruption surrounding Ukrainian officials. The ongoing nature is significant to me as the channels of influence do not appear from my perspective to be isolated as an individual matter, so naturally I'm open to the idea of Donald Trump being exposed through similar outreach.
I don't presently understand how you might construe the situation pertaining to then-president Trump as an "abuse of power".
Created:
Posted in:
That they will be taken into the presence of God and they will be judged for the deeds they have done or failed to do during their lifetime?This does seem to be the prevailing view.Christians believe it to be fact.
I don't seek any reward and don't expect much in particular aside from eternal existence. Whatever means by which we may receive blessings, I would expect of someone who teaches about the resurrection of Jesus to stress that we are saved by grace through faith, rather then a rational decision to curry favor through good works. Your time here as we know it is short. We have not been expected to endure something you cannot handle and you are free to reject a relationship with God regardless of what you deserve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Nope, just not a mainstream Christian. Too many people in that lane, but it does not limit the smile of Jesus on my face. Not to mention in my .44.
Why shouldn't Christianity be mainstream? What lane are people in?
Are you referring to a revolver? Where does that smile come from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I distinguish between "good and evil" and righteousness. As a humble person would be concerned good and evil are subjective, so naturally the answer is...yes.
Some people may see whatever you consider significant about their ways as good enough.
Created: