Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"Homosexual" was translated into the Bible for the first time in 1946 in the RSV translation. OP has it backwards: biblical demonization of homosexuality is a new phenomena rather than a tradition thousands of years old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
There must be a separation of religion and state in all aspects of governance. (20 points. Max Time - 2 weeks.)
Pro
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
school-mandated prayers
Which isn't the same thing as prayer in schools. Prayer in school is fine.
Evolutionary theory is a lie
You're welcome to your opinion, but the evidence supports evolution better than any alternative. That's why it is taught in schools.
Human sexuality is wrong outside a marriage
Just FYI, sexuality is the capacity for sexual feelings, not necessarily sex itself. It's necessary for relationships (like marriage), core part of being human, and why it should be taught in schools.
"Accurate" history is whatever the makers want it to say (racist).
Accurate history is motivations, intentions, and what actually happened as best we can tell. Inaccurate history is teaching things known to be incorrect according to evidence and expertise. The latter is happening and conservatives have played an outsized role: Texas.
If we are idiots, do we not have the right to be fools? Why demand it on us?
Actually, I'm not worried about you. If you want to be an idiot that's your prerogative, but I am concerned about the next generation. Knowledge is power and restricting it is like restricting food and water: it limits a child's potential.
And from seeing your posts assaulting the conservative way of life, yeah, civil war will come when you guys push too far.
Right, because I'm completely out of line and not that you are overly sensitive to anything resembling criticism.
Be careful what you wish for. You're writing checks your children or grandchildren will have to pay.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You don't mind civil war as long as your side wins. Admit it.
I do mind a civil war. I don't care about being wrong. But, I also I can't help if someone's sacred beliefs run aground on reality. That's not a problem I have a lot of control over.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
You removed prayer and the bible from public schools
No such thing has occurred. Holy books and prayer are not prohibited from schools. You've never actually thought about this narrative you've been fed, huh? I can't say much I guess...I did the same for a long time.
demanding religious separation since it would demand one's morality to be swayed, but now our children are being feed a bunch of moral junk under the guise of "inclusion".
Religious freedom is hindered by a government advocating religious views. Religious freedom and religious privilege are not the same thing, friend.
live and let live
Live and let live so long as you don't have to hear about it, eh?
The truth hurts.and then treat us as if we are children, needing the left's ideas to help nanny us "deplorables".
Listen, I'm just saying that someone rejecting evolutionary theory, a more complete understanding of human sexuality, or accurate history is going to inevitably qualify for one or more of the categories your complained about: uneducated, bigot, or racist.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So civil war.
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm optimistic though.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
The fact that the left pushed issues such as abortion, gay marriage, trans-gender rights, evolution in schools, etc etc, makes the left the instigator. We never wanted any of these things and yet the left shoved it down our throats through legislation and if we spoke up about it, we were bigots or racist or uneducated or didn't believe in some sort of made up science.
The truth hurts.
We always said "to each his own" on all these issues but now my children will be taught that it's okay to be gay in a pubic school. Tell me how this is not instigating your views to my children?
Its not "my views". It is a better and more complete understanding of human nature. Isn't it the right that like to say 'facts don't care about feelings'?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What would be "appropriately antagonizing?"Accountability and equality are met with hostility by abusers and oppressors. Do you believe calling out abuse and pushing for inclusivity is 'throwing gas on the fire'?
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
You're making excuses for extremists. It wasn't the left that allowed abuses of power to sidestep accountability. It wasn't the left that instigated an attack on the Capitol building in an effort to overturn election. It isn't the left pushing legislation at national and state level seeking to limit religious liberty, voting rights, reproductive freedom, Etc. Etc. Etc.
If the choice is tolerate the intolerable or fight, then yah, there's going to be a fight. I still see reason for optimism though. Culture wars can only distract from so much. Cooler heads will prevail methinks. The last few elections have not gone according to historical trends, and I think this hints people are waking up to what's going on around them.
If the choice is tolerate the intolerable or fight, then yah, there's going to be a fight. I still see reason for optimism though. Culture wars can only distract from so much. Cooler heads will prevail methinks. The last few elections have not gone according to historical trends, and I think this hints people are waking up to what's going on around them.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Civil war.
That doesn't answer the question. How has the left been inappropriately antagonizing the right?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It always takes 2 to tango. They are kinda adding gas to the fire sometimes.
I'm curious what you deem 'gas to the fire'?
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
America is becoming very extreme on both sides.
Meh. One side has definitely crossed the line. The 'other side' shouldn't be part of this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Oh really! Then why are there over 80M unwanted and orphaned children the world over?Killing Roe V Wade will only add to that number.
You're a very angry pedant, aren't you?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Civil war? No - not yet anyway. This highlights Republican (extremists) disconnect from reality. The next election will (hopefully) reveal this as a campaign against thenselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Why do "we all pay"? If there is a child, then there is a mother and a father. The father needs to pay. If not, there needs be legal remedies. "You do the deed, you fill the need
Like it or not, the child is one of us regardless of what issues mom and dad are afflicted by. We take care of our own.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
There are many things that help create uniformity and stability within a society, including happiness, wellbeing, justice/fairness, and human rights. I believe that one of these sticks out from the rest and that would be happiness
Agree.
It seems correct to assume that when people promote human rights and wellbeing for others that they are not directly trying to promote human rights and wellbeing but rather what those cultivate and that being happiness seems that the ultimate goal to achieve is happiness for all individuals.
I would agree, but I would point out well-being and human rights are recognized as necessary for happiness and not just tools to achieve happiness. Without well-being and basic rights happiness is limited and humanity is diminished.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
i know a lot of liberals on here support twitter banning conservatives. do you also support those who ban books? if you oppose them banning books, why do you not also oppose twitter banning conservatives?
When someone starts banning conservatives from a place they have a right to be (and not just a privilege) I'll be on their side. Until then, I'll laugh at the ignorant complaints.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I believe you're confused, I never once claimed to hold a belief of which you are speaking.
It certainly seemed you were advocating killing one person to save 99 with explicit words to that effect. My mistake.
I'm asking a question, not giving an answer. Would you walk me down your train of thought? What are Morals intended purpose, and why do they not correlate with The Greater Good?
I've answered these questions.
I was telling you what The Greater Good is relative to Morality by explaining their differences. I'm asking why they don't match and why do we have them.
The 'greater good' is a phrase associated with a particular moral theory: utilitarianism. Within that moral theory, the greater good and morality are the same. If you have a different moral perspective, then the greater good might have no relevance. The answer to your question depends on your moral viewpoint.
Created:
Posted in:
Not exceptions. Killing that prevents killing upholds the "thou shall not kill", it is not an exception to it.
Uh huh. Sure. 😂
I think we gotten far enough into the weeds that we've circled back to where we started - this is where we part ways. Thanks for the discussion!
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
We are far apart on this. You are essentially arguing against consent and self ownership. I just can't follow you down that path.
Self-ownership cannot be undermined without calling into question every human right. The short term and local benefit does not, and cannot, outweigh the damage this would cause to the societal infrastructure.
Self-ownership cannot be undermined without calling into question every human right. The short term and local benefit does not, and cannot, outweigh the damage this would cause to the societal infrastructure.
Created:
Posted in:
A world with consistent laws does not necessarily require a creator - reasonable or otherwise.The argument was about reasonable vs. unreasonable creator, not about creator vs. no creator.
"A world with consistent laws does not require a creator" undermines you're explanation for why a creator must be reasonable.
Sure there is. The absence of expected evidence for X is good reason not to accept the existence of X.If there is a good reason to accept the existence of God, then God should be accepted.
Thats not what I said. I do not have good reason to accept the existence of a creator.
Not to run down a rabbit hole, but I was simply trying to correct your misapprehension of atheism - it's not a competing claim to theism, but a null position.
Atheism is not about belief on little or no evidence - it's about not believing because thats what the evidence supports.As explained, there is no evidence that supports the lack of belief in God.
And there doesn't have to be - that's the point. There needs to be evidence for belief. There does not need to be evidence for non belief. Atheism is the latter.
Your position implied that there is immoral God who prefers atheists who mock him. God who has no human preferences is possible, but God who has some human preferences is also possible.
Possible is not a stable foundation. It's speculation, and I see no reason to entertain it. There is no legitimate "therefore" when youre multiple layers into imagination.
You are dodging the question, but I will assume that you would prefer to obey God who is moral, given that there is 50/50 chance of God being moral or immoral.
What was the question? I choose to do the right thing. That does not mean do what someone else tells me. It does not mean follow a bad example of morality either.
My point was simply that the deity you're holding up as the standard of morality is not moral. That throws the whole thought experiment askew.
Christian God is obviously moral. It is moral to ban killing. Christian God banned killing.
...and then proceeded to condone and participate in exceptions. I question the moral label you're trying to attach to this deity. I don't believe you have fully integrated the Bible into your god-concept.
Killing is good if it results in saving lives. Killing done by God of the Bible resulted in saving lives. Killing done by God of the Bible is good.
If God is moral because he banned killing, then violating that rule makes him immoral. You can't have it both ways.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Not all people agree that it is justifiable to sacrifice one person to save 99 if they are innocent.
And neither would I. I don't think killing an unwilling participant (guilty or innocent) to help any number of people is actually for the greater good. Granted, you may directly help 99 people, but you will terrify many many more which stands to cause a destabilization of society.
An excellent example was given by Best.Korea in my previous response. It would be beneficial more beneficial to the world to take criminals who deserve to be punished or executed and harvest their organs for innocent lives that could be saved, but this is considered immoral in our current society.
I don't think that act would be more beneficial to society for the same reason I listed above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Can we say that unreasonable God is as likely as reasonable God? Because our world has consistent laws which imply that if it is created by God, it is created by reasonable God.
A world with consistent laws does not necessarily require a creator - reasonable or otherwise.
There is no logical reason to think atheism is a correct path.
Sure there is. The absence of expected evidence for X is good reason not to accept the existence of X.
There is no logical reason for reasonable God to reward those who thought something for no logical reason.
Atheism is not about belief on little or no evidence - it's about not believing because thats what the evidence supports. Believers is what you're describing.
Can we say that immoral God is as likely to exist as moral God?
Sure. I would prefer "unlikely", but I won't quibble.
Even immoral God would like to be praised,
I don't know what you're basing this claim on. I think you're dubiously assuming an unnatural being would have human preferences and desires.
Which would you choose: immorality or morality?If your answer is morality, then you cannot please an immoral God, but only a moral God.
Just to be clear, you're holding up as an example of a 'moral god' a being that is thought to require human sacrifice (of his son) and cannibalism as a pathway to heaven for humans? ...the same one that prescribes infinite torture for finite wrongdoing?
If that is "moral", there's a fair chance different moral standards result in something more sensical and less cruel.
Christian morality is the morality which would be supported by moral God. Moral God would be against killing. Christian morality is against killing. The rest of morality relates to that.
The Bible shows plenty of example of the Christian deity condoning or participating in killing (murder). Again, if that is your standard of morality, falling short of it is not all bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
First, if there was a God who rewarded atheists and punished Christians, such God would have to be immoral since most of Christians have similar or better morality than what atheists have.
This doesn't make such a god more or less likely than the Christian deity. Assuming the existence of gods for the sake of argument, how does OP know gods are moral?
Second, the greatest religions on Earth are against atheism.
Again, this doesn't make the atheist loving God less likely. popularity=/=true
Option 3) is more likely than option 2), since moral and reasonable God is more likely than immoral and unreasonable God who prefers atheism.
We've seen nothing substantive to show a god must be moral or reasonable. Plus, theres a huge elephant in the room being ignored here: the Christian deity doesn't meet this standard either.
However, if a person is an atheist, it does increase his chances of being immoral.
Not being a Christian increases the odds of not following Christian morality, which isn't the same thing as being immoral.
The conclusion is a non-sequitor.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
What is the intended purpose of morality?
To allow groups of people to co-exist.
We acknowledge that morality is beneficial to society, but are there advantages to a lack of morality?
I tend to think morality provides a net-benefit to society. An absence of it would be the opposite - it would be harmful.
How does The Greater Good align with morality?
I'd say they go hand in hand.
Why is The Greater Good not always considered moral if it is the greater good?
Maybe because we can't actually know what is best for the greater good in given situations. I don't know.
Why are some things considered immoral, but as a whole more beneficial to the world?
What things are those?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Rieka once said that the original taxis were all yellow so now all cars that are yellow are taxis.
😆
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Rieka
To be clear, I'm not denying conservative democrats were responsible for the KKK. I'm not denying conservative Democrats were responsible for segregation. What I'm pointing out is that if those democrats were transported to today - they would be Republicans. 😄
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Don't be so sure there are no people in the Democrat party more competent than old Joe.
I doubt Biden is the most competent Democrat for president. However, you know as well as I that the 'most competent' and 'nominee for president' rarely go together in either party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Rieka
I don't see how it's gaslighting or any form of manipulation if it's the truth. It's history, not things I'm making up.
Blaming modern liberals for the actions of old school conservatives is textbook gaslighting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, they're will be no sacrifices here. I'm sure Biden will weather this drizzle of a storm just fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Rieka
While I understand since then both parties are not/not as associated with their former politics, I was debating with IWantRooseveltAgain about how the Democrats are the most racist political party due to their history, not what their politics and morals are now.
Party labels don't tell the true story. This notion that "Democrats are the most racist" is a superb bit of gaslighting. That being said, if youre goal is winning at the expense of truth, carry on. I'll leave you to it. 🫤
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not running down the rabbit hole on this one. It's all predictable. Someone pulls a stunt at the WH. The president scolds. Debate ensues on who was in the wrong. Long story short: transwoman was in the wrong, but won't be seriously punished (as is correct) and will gain popularity. We may look back on this day and realize this was the catalyst for transfolks being fully accepted into all parts of society since they, like everyone else, can do stupid shit. 😄
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Rieka
You need to pay a little closer attention to your history. The party labels and political ideologies don't go together like they used to. 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The point is the snake eating its tail as Biden cites "rules of decorum"
That's what I would expect any president to say if someone starts getting naked in WH public areas. You're welcome to believe it's some sort of partisan breakdown if you like, but I just don't see it. 🤷♂️
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Rieka
I understand this, but in terms of racism, the Democratic party has been far more racist than the Republican party ever has been. I do recognize both parties have changed ideals in terms of opinion on political matters, but the Democrats have had a far more vicious past regarding racism.
You're focusing on the shifting sands rather than the bedrock truth: conservatives are responsible for the KKK and Segregation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I find this fascinating. I mean, conservatives tend to poopoo the distinction between transwoman and man yet we have multiple people here offended because a "NOT A WOMAN!" took off her shirt. Lol!
I would guess that was the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I'm saying that these opinions are relevant because the owner tends to care about what the userbase wants.
I'm part of that user base too, and I'm making my preferences known. 😏
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"I cant be on this site because Best.Korea said the bad word to me 🥺😭"
I don't really know who you are, but it is cute how you're craving my attention.
*Musses Best.Korea's hair*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I would agree with limiting the number of topics a person could create in a given time span.'Or moderation communicating with individuals who post spam topics of the same nature repeatedly.
Agree.
But I'm not partial to removing users whose opinions I disagree with.
If there is good reason for removing someone, they should be removed. Agreement/disagreement with their views is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Nothing prevents you from having an honest conversation with other honest people.
All of the tactics I described have the tendency of thinning the population of good-faith interlocutors on a site. Less honest people does, in fact, prevent the opportunity for honest exchanges.
Let us be reminded that users you want to ban make up most of this site's forum activity.
Not all activity is worth perpetuating. Moderate views will not find a comfortable home in a land of extremists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
@Savant
Still, Free Speech is important to some of us, You don't have my vote.
Free speech is important to me as well. That doesn't change the fact that speech here on this private platform is under the purview of the owner. If the owner were to take action - No one is being denied anything owed to them. We do not have a right to speech here without the owners approval. Valuing free speech means, at a minimum, understanding what it is. So, let's not get bogged down in bogus discussions about how rights (that don't exist) are being potentially denied.
Consistent and extreme voices can cause harm to a site. Is that happening here? Well, I agree with OP, DART compares negatively to the site it emulates. I think there is an argument to be made that some users intentionally rely on heavy rhetoric, propaganda, lies, dishonest tactics, etc. all having the effect of killing an honest exchange and comparison of ideas and ideologies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Fair, it's your living room, But then, I might not want to hang out in your living room.
You have an absolute right to NOT be in my living room. 😏
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
What about freedom of speech?
Doesn't apply...just like in my living room. There is no reasonable expectation to be able to say absolutely anything from someone else's property.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is directed at the wrong person, my friend.So
Youve made little effort to address the previous points I've raised. If I were to engage this new point you've raised, will you ignore counter arguments again? I'm inclined to think "yes".
I have no interest in bad faith discussions.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Why would I do that? Plenty of sources count it.Are you aware the black unemployment rate is always higher than the non-black?
This is directed at the wrong person, my friend.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
First, black families in Texas are just like everyone else: capable of getting a gun if they so desireDo you know how much an AR-15 costs?
I wasn't aware crimes in California were committed exclusively with AR-15s. Besides that, I wasn't aware "black" was synonymous with poor.
Suffice to say, if OP meant "AR-15s" and *poor* black families, he should have made that clear. Regardless, my other points stand.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I tend to appreciate and agree with your views, but not this one...
First, black families in Texas are just like everyone else: capable of getting a gun if they so desire. Guns are readily available in guns stores, sporting goods stores, pawn shops, neighbors, friends, and family. ...and they are not that expensive. Surely you don't think rich folks make up the majority of suspects in crimes committed with a firearm...
Secondly, if Texas is the 'enemy' why would you send them firearms? Youre assuming, the guns will go to the right place and people. How does that happen? Presumably, those in power would be involved in this exchange against their power. I'm sure they'll be making sure non-supporters get the weapons. 🙄
Finally, political stunts like these are nothing more than 'preaching to the choir'. They don't persuade those with opposing views. If anything, they reinforce the us v them thinking that prevents the two sides finding a solution to their disagreements.
Boo. Booooo, I tell ya.
First, black families in Texas are just like everyone else: capable of getting a gun if they so desire. Guns are readily available in guns stores, sporting goods stores, pawn shops, neighbors, friends, and family. ...and they are not that expensive. Surely you don't think rich folks make up the majority of suspects in crimes committed with a firearm...
Secondly, if Texas is the 'enemy' why would you send them firearms? Youre assuming, the guns will go to the right place and people. How does that happen? Presumably, those in power would be involved in this exchange against their power. I'm sure they'll be making sure non-supporters get the weapons. 🙄
Finally, political stunts like these are nothing more than 'preaching to the choir'. They don't persuade those with opposing views. If anything, they reinforce the us v them thinking that prevents the two sides finding a solution to their disagreements.
Boo. Booooo, I tell ya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
SkepticalOne- If you have favorite categories/topics, feel free to list them.
- Religious views - agnostic atheist
- Political views - left/progressive leaning
- morality- subjective, non-absolute, non universal, secular
- Abortion - pro-choice,
- Wall of separation - for, anti-religious nationalism, anti-religious privilege, anti religious founding of America
- misc views - Old round-ish earth, yes - evolution, yes - big bang, yes, death penalty, no, vaccinations, yes....
I don't mind doing some research to debate also...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
With 2 weeks debate time, I can debate. I'm not opposed to judging if there is a need also. Let me know what you need/want there, bossman.
Created: