Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 05, 2016, 05:14:14 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 849
1  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Irish general election on: Today at 04:48:19 am
I have family in (and my family is from) Cavan-Monaghan so;

Fine Gael 21
Green 19
Sinn Fein 17
Fianna Fail 16

Candidate average. I hate independents running in elections so I ignored them.
2  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Scottish Parliament election - 2016 on: Today at 01:51:06 am
TNS poll for completeness

Constituency ballot :


SNP 57% (-2)
Labour 21% (+1)
Conservatives 17% (+5)
Liberal Democrats 3% (-1)


Regional list ballot :


SNP 52% (-1)
Labour 19% (-2)
Conservatives 17% (+6)
Greens 6% (-3)
Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)

3  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Christian extremist confessed to murder Dutch minister who legalized euthanasia on: February 04, 2016, 02:58:44 pm
Today, he stated that "divine inspiration" told him to kill Borst because she had been responsbile for legalizing euthanasia. Last year, Van U. had already confessed to having killed his own sister..

I wonder why god wanted him to bump off his sister?

What an awful excuse for a human being.
4  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Jesus on: February 03, 2016, 11:59:20 am
It is worth stressing that there is no evidence outside the New Testament that a man called Jesus existed.

I am not suggesting of course because there is no evidence outside the NT that Jesus existed that he did not therefore in fact exist, however his existence is certainly not settled.

What’s all the more curious is that he should be mentioned. For all Jesus’ bombastic preaching and all the events associated with him were somehow not important enough or disruptive enough to prick the ears of anyone who cared to write about him. Yet we know of other’s messianic claimants. Simon of Peraea, a former slave of Herod the Great and rebel leader killed by the Romans in 4BC is mentioned by Flavius Josephus. He died some 41 years before Josephus was even born, yet had such a legacy to be mentioned by Josephus. We know lots about Simon; Josephus even writes that he was a ‘comely person, of a tall and robust body’. We know of his campaign. We know the manner of his death; the commander of the Roman army, Gratus cut off his head. We know of Athronges, a shepherd rebel leader and contemporary of Jesus. Josephus describes the rebellion in detail and the defeat of Athronges’ four brothers, but is curiously silent on Athronges’ own demise.

Jesus is mentioned in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews written around 93-94AD but is merely inferred; his life story, his physical attributes, his campaign which grace the descriptions of Simon and Athronges are not there. It is worth noting at this point, that the works of Josephus mentions at least twenty different people with the name Jesus (including Jesus son of Damneus for example) The Jesus people are interested in, is mentioned as (the) ‘Jesus who is called Christ’, which is undoubtedly helpful in distinguishing from the different Jesus’. The deaths of James and John the Baptist are mentioned and differ from the New Testament versions of the same which while giving historical credence to these figures existing, goes against the NT narrative. 

(You cannot have it both ways if you seek historical evidence of Jesus yet dismiss the inevitability that this might not dovetail with what the NT tells you.)

Jesus as being ‘Christ’ is inferred through Josephus’ description of the death of James who is called the ‘brother of Jesus who is called Christ’. There is some speculation, that ‘Christ’ may also be a redaction given the fact that Jesus of Damneus who is mentioned in the text also has a brother named James.

The reference to Jesus’ execution by Pilate, the Testimonium Flavium. is generally accepted as not authentic in its entirety with a strong element of later Christian redaction within the text. It was first recorded by the fourth century Christian, Eusebius. In it, Josephus calls Jesus ‘the Messiah’, yet the Christian writer Origen specifically states that Josephus did not consider Jesus to be the Messiah. Furthermore, Jerome’s Latin version does not have ‘the Messiah’ but  ‘He was believed to be the Christ’ which is a far more neutral stance for the Pharisaic Jew to take.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is President Obama an atheist? on: February 03, 2016, 06:02:15 am
He's probably nominally Christian in a European sense (in that 'meh') An increasing number of American's are but have to act up as Joe puts it for  the sake of politics.
6  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Say something nice about the preceding poster. on: February 03, 2016, 04:27:32 am
I genuinely can't. And that's sad.
7  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Jesus on: February 01, 2016, 06:10:21 pm
He's not here to defend himself against what his supporters say about him so I won't comment.
8  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of RFayette's signatures? on: February 01, 2016, 05:19:19 pm
The point is that the Bible is not to be questioned.  God gave us his word, and we need to take it at face value.  I remember, as my pastor put it, "You can't just keep questioning and questioning God.  You need to just accept the truth of God's word for what it is."  Questioning can be the work of the devil - it can make people fall astray from the faith and the sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture. 

Why did it take several hundred years to collate? It took seven ecumenical councils from the 300's to 800's under patronage of the Roman State to determine what Christianity actually was. Do you accept that State influence was divine? Do you believe that the oppression/killing of 'heretics' and the willful destruction of texts was forged through the spirit?

If questioning is the work of the devil, then why are you a Protestant, which the the end result of a prolonged period of theological questioning? (which really is true for all Christian sects but that's another matter) The devil would want you to be so abrasive to people as you have been these past few months.

9  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Gallup: secular trend in U.S. religious affiliation is slowly continuing on: February 01, 2016, 09:03:57 am
This is likely statistical noise, but the fact that there is no difference between the 18-24 and 25-29 cohorts in "None" is slightly hopeful.

Conversely, it may be that some of the youngest cohort haven't yet made the transition from religious to non-religious in their own lives but will.

Particularly as they may still be reliant on family for accommodation and financial support. The figures for youngest cohorts are moving more in line with European figures. Probably still a decade behind though.
10  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What religion were you RAISED with? on: February 01, 2016, 05:23:40 am
Roman Catholic (technically Jesuit)
11  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of RFayette's signatures? on: January 31, 2016, 06:09:01 pm
I don't think the issue is with his beliefs. It's that he's basically throwing a whole list of people under a bus by trashing them. Gays became homosexuals then sodomites. He doesn't like trans people. Women too are refashioned as 'wanting too much', He idolises a weird 50's that didn't exist, piles in against atheists, liberals, 'intellectuals' and wants a theocratic government. And he's just mean spirited about the whole lot (hence Alcon's intervention)

I'm hard pressed to think of anyone he actually likes. And if that's your takeaway from finding religious faith then you've allowed yourself to become hollowed out as a human being.
12  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of RFayette's signatures? on: January 31, 2016, 05:56:18 pm
Man remember when afleitch and others said I was going to turn into some sort of crazy fundamentalist? LOL.

I know you get really hard when you do your 'remember when' stuff about me (mostly on AAD). You may actually have saved yourself because you are the effectively the liberal Mike Naso; you've basically been in stasis for the past decade Cheesy
13  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of RFayette's signatures? on: January 31, 2016, 05:49:18 pm
It's curious how much more stupid he has become. Not in his beliefs, but in how he argues for them. He leaves ADD because Al challenged him, Alcon embarrasses him on here by taking apart most of his public bravado and he rarely answers questions put directly to him on matters that relate to real people in real situations (he's yet to answer from me what gay people have done to make him view them differently, what advice he would give to people in a gay marriage and most recently, how submissive a woman should be to her husband)

He just regurgitates other people, sh-tty Christian memes and generic turns of phrase. He's dumbed himself down to the level no doubt, of the online people with which he corresponds and his self aggrandizing pastor.

Or he's trolling.

If it's legit though, it's a perfectly good example of why and how otherwise nice kids end up getting caught up in empty rhetoric and end up running off to Syria.
14  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of RFayette's signatures? on: January 31, 2016, 02:52:49 pm
He seems to have rage quit from AAD. Based solely on Al's reasonable prodding on the fact he really knows jack sh-t about much of what he talks about.
15  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of RFayette's signatures? on: January 31, 2016, 12:30:09 pm
16  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of ironic TRUMP supporters? on: January 31, 2016, 12:23:11 pm
The Presidential race has had f-ck all to do with politics for the past 100 years. This shouldn't be news to anyone.
17  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Leaving for a while on: January 31, 2016, 09:37:08 am
It can be very refreshing to leave a hot box like this (particularly at it's crazy pre-election peak) I wish you well and I'm always here if you need to butt heads Smiley
18  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Pro-Life People Only: How Should Abortion be Punished? on: January 30, 2016, 07:09:40 pm
I'm generally of the position that we need to change the culture around this first and foremost (why are there children who are constructed/positioned as being 'unwanted' (in this sense)? Surely someone wants them; surely someone wants any child!) rather than focusing on criminal law.

You have to be more deconstructive here. You are assuming that because you view these as unwanted 'children' that that is a view held by women who choose to have an abortion; they do not 'want the child'. But you must understand that for many women in the early stages of pregnancy, that pregnancy is a state in which they do not wish to be in. There is no 'child'; it is a state of a physical and psychological nature. They do not wish to be pregnant. It is not about a 'child.' There are a variety of reasons behind that, many of which are valid psychological reasons which if dismissed steps on that domain.

Quote
In general my main interest in this is a 'pure' philosophy-of-language interest in pushing back against the idea that 'rights' language is an appropriate way to discuss a woman's stake in abortion. The question then becomes: How to put the 'pure' philosophy into political practice? I do think there's a compelling state interest in keeping abortion rates low and indicating the moral unacceptability of the practice; I'm deeply concerned about the message that putting my own preferred policies into effect would send to women in impossible or even simply undesired situations; I have no idea yet how to resolve this but I'm working on it.

You can't put pure philosophy into practice. That's the point. Philosophy is not a 'truism'. To pursue it like that, to absorb other people's thinking and try to position yourself accordingly so that you can act upon it divorces you from life. And separates you from other people's life experiences. It reinforces the self. Nothing more.

To give you an example from the other topic I mentioned this (which I've condensed);


The definition of impingement rests solely on the person experiencing that (the mother). The zygote/embryo cannot reciprocate. In effect the zygote/embryo isn’t ‘doing’ anything, but the mother is ‘feeling’ it (impinged)...

The only way to avoid the harm of pregnancy is to either use contraception in the first instance...to abort or to induce labour whether viable or unviable. That’s it. If it’s viable, it’s ‘born’; the state of pregnancy has ended. It is no longer an ethical battleground. Otherwise you accept that morally, you prohibit a woman from taking any action against any physical or psychological harm caused as a result of her pregnancy...

Your definition hasn't removed 'harm'; both physical and psychological as experienced by the woman as an issue. It is still there. It is still elicit. What is your response? What do you do about it? Or do you not consider it to be 'real'? Or do you take a utilitarian approach to that?

And again on the matter of reproductive coercion, you have accepted that forcing a woman to carry a child is abuse but by default holding the position woman she cannot abort (or even use contraception) to not carry a child, that she cannot do anything to ease the harm that she is experiencing. You're then offering no response to that. In both examples, because you have placed your opposition to abortion as primary then despite rallying against and taking a somewhat scathing view of utilitarianism that's exactly the principle you are applying here. You have not addressed the harm that a woman is facing. This is real. As much as an experience can be real, this is an real experience happening now to a woman. Philosophical opposition is moot because it pays absolutely no concern for this. Philosophy might trip someone up. It pays no concern to the fact they have fallen.

Quote
Going into my degree program I was instructed to remain open to possible changes in my beliefs, so I've gotten vastly more erratic lately.

You have to be very careful because you're changing more than beliefs, particularly when it comes to ethics because you're also changing your validation of other people and their experiences based on your application of ethics. Your perception of people on an ethical basis should never be erratic and most importantly should only ever change based on your interaction with people, not based on textual analysis. That's horribly scientific Smiley
19  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Moderator Job Approval Ratings: Jan 2016 on: January 30, 2016, 05:40:19 pm
My approval seems to have fallen even though I hardly moderate anything Cheesy
20  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Pro-Life People Only: How Should Abortion be Punished? on: January 30, 2016, 05:30:46 pm

For all that 'choice' gets talked about positively in the context of abortion, it's really not perceived/interpreted as a free act for a lot of women (some obscene percentage of abortions in America are flat-out coerced, and that's without even considering real or perceived socioeconomic impossibilities), having an abortion is often a canary in the coal mine for other problems for which the woman really can't in any sense be blamed, and even though there are also plenty of times in which that isn't the case it doesn't strike me as at all a good idea to attempt to use penal law to determine what a post-abortive woman's motivations are.

These are actually relatively good reasons for abortion to be legal despite being morally wrong, so if I'm going to bite the bullet and insist that those reasons don't outweigh the state interest in preventing the killing of the very young (which is a difficult moral conclusion to come to and really not the no-brainer I falsely made it out to be in the recent thread in US General) then I owe it to women in these kinds of situations to at least not advocate punishing them. (I also owe it to them to advocate a safe and equitable economic system and legally ensured social protections, so as to not turn being 'pro-life' into some sort of sick combination of pregnancy fetishism and the mere addition paradox. Which is what I think a lot of the 'pro-life' movement does, and which is why I'm still very uncomfortable sharing my basic position on abortion with a lot of the people with whom I share it.)

Reproductive coercion is domestic abuse. On that basis it is only fair to note that this also includes women being pressured into keeping unwanted children (and yes for communal religious reasons and promises of financial assistance etc) The ratio of this is statistically balanced so I think it is unfair to base your reasoning on just one face of this exploitation. The effect of your position is to perhaps unintentionally tacitly endorse the other side of this exploitation which I think you ought to consider.
21  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should non-traditional forms of intercourse be prohibited? on: January 30, 2016, 01:11:55 pm
If sex is to be purely 'procreative' then yes you should appose all non-traditional forms. You also just passed 'Making Babies: Step 1'

So congratulations; have a cookie




However it also means you know nothing or care nothing about actual human sexual relationships, sexuality, arousal, bonding and love. And most importantly, empathy. So you've flunked life.
22  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Pro-Life People Only: How Should Abortion be Punished? on: January 30, 2016, 01:04:40 pm
I do wonder why there is so much 'bloodlust' expressed in this topic. Do people generally go around thinking of imaginative and punitive ways to punish people on any matter that they happen to dislike? If that's the sort of person you are then I would be deeply worried.

Of course should this come to pass we would end up in the grotesque chaos of women who miscarry being hauled before the courts to make sure they didn't give themselves a 'little help'. And that would have to happen because people are already suspect of miscarriages and the circumstances around them as it is. The fetishisation of the unborn (thanks Marianism) by many pro-lifers get's close to a perversion.
23  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Was Adi Sankara crypto-Buddhist? on: January 30, 2016, 10:19:56 am
Most people don't at hand know who who Adi Shankara is. Nor are they familiar with the arguments in favour of considering someone who is perhaps over revered as influential in Hindu philosophy as crypto Buddhist. That would require familiarity with both Hinduism, Buddhism and any overlap between them with respect to their development. You might not get much response on that basis without leaving anything to chew on.
24  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Pro-Life People Only: How Should Abortion be Punished? on: January 30, 2016, 09:38:03 am
Jesus F-cking Christ people.
25  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Christianity and Homosexuality on: January 29, 2016, 05:30:36 pm
So your God wants people to be unhappy for the duration of their stay on earth and wants them to inflict unhappiness on others by deceiving them. Gotcha.

Do you believe what the apostle Paul wrote that is canonized in the Bible?  I do, hence my position.  Deceiving them?  What are you saying?  I'm being perfectly clear.

You want gays to deceive straight women into marrying them.

If the gay person loves the straight woman, then it's not deception.  The false assumption is that "gays" (or people who identify as such in the 21st century) are unable to be in a straight relationship.

If a gay person loves (with ALL that entails) the straight woman he is not gay. Should I stop loving my husband?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 849


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines