Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1088709 Posts in 71954 Topics- by 19317 Members - Latest Member: Whitewolf07
Jump to:  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 284
1  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Roy Moore is a m-o-r-o-n on: Dec 11, 2017, 03:57PM
My predictions:
• Moore will be elected to the Senate by the Alabamians that show up to vote tomorrow. 
...
• Sooner or later, enough convincing evidence about Moore's behavior will finally persuade the Senate to unseat Moore.
If moore is elected, the the GOP fully loses all credbility and concern of little things like morals and ethics. nothing to unseat him for.
2  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Nothing burger becomes a something burger on: Dec 08, 2017, 06:43PM
This new found morality by the liberals is so funny.
I'm still waiting for the GOP to show some of the morality it claims to represent.

Supporting a sex offender isn't exactly morals in action...
3  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Dec 08, 2017, 06:40PM
Put that ridiculous ruler away already!
You are intensely sensitive to the idea of being measured against your own stated standards...

The short and simple solution to that: hold up to your own standards OR don't expect others to do so in your stead.

Problem solved.  Clever
4  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Dec 08, 2017, 06:36PM
Well, where they are making their mistake is the Earth has also been observed as being round too.  They just turn a blind eye to the facts.  Self imposed ignorance is in no shortage.


As your posts aptly demonstrate, yes.

Why again is a discussion of “god” looking into what seems like literary contradictions? Because the discussion was never about some god but an attempt to discredit such an idea, from the original attempt to create a strawman to the continuing episode of literary "contradictions".
5  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Dec 08, 2017, 10:24AM
In a similar vein,

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/935572279693516800

Elon Musk: Why is there no flat mars society?
Flat Earth Society: Unlike earth, mars has been observed to be round.

6  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Dec 08, 2017, 10:21AM
I, too, find it interesting how many unbelievers seem driven to debunk the Bible.  I believe it will stand the final test and what has been demonstrated of its reliability gives me the basis to trust in the final solutions to the answers I don't yet have.  You can call that a "check is in the mail" approach if  you wish, but it's a foundation that I believe is much firmer than that proposed by the skepticism that is the only real option if one doesn't trust in the living God who has revealed himself in scripture.

In all fairness, words are some of the weakest aspects of human communication. In one sense, they can stand the test of time. At the same point, they are one of the least effective modes of communication.

Hence part of why "people of the book" may use it for reference, but more as directions rather than the destination.

That also makes them one of the easiest things to attack.

I just find the statement about only finding religious scholars on a religious topic, be very few secular scholars to be particularly blind and telling at the same time. The reverse would basically be:

I can find information about the age of the universe from astronomists, but very little from astologists. hmmmm... seems suspicious....


And to wit: really? wow.
7  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Dec 08, 2017, 05:24AM
Bob, this a language issue.  If the only place the word for hate was used to mean 'love slightly less' was in a handful of passages in the bible, then we have an issue and it's certainly not with me.  However Bob, if it will do your Christian soul good to hurl thinly veiled insult's at me, then by all means - have at it.

So I take that as a no, it does not jump out to you as one might think.

You say it is a language issue, though that's a bit vague. It deals with translation and common usage from an old text to modern understanding. The text is religious.

Those religious folks who have a vested interest in the religion, have reason to look and hunt, and try to reconcile different pieces to see if they can indeed work together.

Were it not religious, and were it not for these religious folk caring, would you?

Likely not. What reason would you have? Idle curiosity, is about it.

The common reason today that secular folks have any care in something religious? They object to the people or the way it is practiced. Like being an atheist in a small baptist town... being an illtolerated minority. They don't like it, and fight back. Your text contradicts itself! Jesus is a lie!


So the interest are well off. A religious person may be deeply vested in understanding, a secular person probably isn't... or is lightly vested in looking for something that seems off to be irritating. Might as well ask a flat earther about their opinion of higher physics, and then use their disagreement to try to undermine the credibility of physics. I can only find other physicists that support the physics theory... Does that make it somehow less?



Recognizing that isn't an insult, and if you take it as one... it's because you really do KNOW better. So how about DO better?
8  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Dec 07, 2017, 02:51PM
Sorry guys, but again you are using the bible to prove the bible is right.  Both Radar's and John's sources are religious groups that have a vested interest in interpreting the word that means 'hate' as meaning 'love less' and are just quoting the passages in the bible where such interpretations give the meaning they want, or prefer if you will, from the text.

I tried (must admit not too hard) to find a secular source and secular examples but could not.

BTW, that group, Jews for Jesus - they seem to be closer to Christians than do the Mormons or the JW.  What prevents them frrm just being Christians?

Your criticism is that the only real sources you can find that dive into  the nuances of a religious text are from that very religion? And to really be credible in your eyes, you need to find a non-religious deep dive of a religious subject that supports the religious view?


Does the problem with that standard really need to be stated, or is obvious when you see it coming from outside yourself?
9  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Jerusalem on: Dec 06, 2017, 02:30PM
Aside from the UN, the EU, the pope, even China, and basically everyone else saying it was a stupid and counterproductive move...


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/us/politics/tillerson-trump-jerusalem-peace.html
Quote
But in his own comments Wednesday after meeting Mr. Cavusoglu, Mr. Tillerson said diplomats had barely brought up the subject with him.

“We haven’t had a lot of talks about that,” Mr. Tillerson said.

Because... why talk with your diplomats when making major foreign policy changes?
10  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Jerusalem on: Dec 06, 2017, 10:38AM
So much for the US playing any meaningful role in attempted peace negotiations.
11  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: What Trump's election means for the rest of the world on: Dec 06, 2017, 10:36AM
So, sexual interference with a child 40 years ago was okay and not considered molestation?

No, typically some of the things he is accused of doing are considered statutory rape (sex with a minor). A bit higher of a charge, I believe.
12  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Nothing burger becomes a something burger on: Dec 06, 2017, 10:18AM
As an aside from someone who has lived in swamp country, a healthy swamp is actually a wonderful thing and quite beautiful. Draining a swamp is often a very bad move for the local environment, and is typically done by builders as a grab for money. Cheap land, soft soil, easy build. They don't live there, however, and areas where this has been done often suffer bad flooding and natural disasters as a direct result of that draining/building.

ie, a swamp is often a healthy and very beneficial ecosystem, while draining it is a reckless and short term money grab by the few with long term consequences for the many.

Maybe he really is practicing the drain the swamp mentality.   Don't know Amazed
13  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Nothing burger becomes a something burger on: Dec 05, 2017, 10:23AM
It's clear that Mueller is going after any illegal activities.  That's how they got Al Capone, after all.

It may be impossible to prove collusion without Putin testifying, but this can be a more serious problem for Trump -- this can be the jail cell waiting after he leaves office.  I just hope the country recognizes what he is doing.  Lining his pockets with campaign contributions is really slimy.

I do have to wonder what happens when the ball drops. Trump's base is already galvanized and has little care of things they don't want to hear. The republicans in Congress are currently pushing forward on the premise that they can do whatever is unpopular and maintain control because their base will refuse to vote for the other party... and as far as Moore goes, they may be right.

So even if something is unpopular and bad, what is often viewed as worse is going against the party. Holding trump accountable would be just that.

Shoot, heard anything more of the congressional investigations into him? They went through the process for appearances, but certainly have refused to really criticize as part of it. Even Sessions can get away with flatly lying to them, because holding him accountable would look bad. 
14  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Nothing burger becomes a something burger on: Dec 05, 2017, 10:18AM
All of which leads to an endless papering over of one set of laws with another in a futile attempt to cancel out the problems caused by earlier legislation, ad infinitum.

The reasons for disparities in pay between genders are legion, as borne out in many studies, some of them legal, others extra-legal.  As you've pointed out, it's complex, and it always "depends" on myriad and evolving facts that cannot be known to legislators or anyone else.

That's not to say that pay (or other) disparities are good, just that perpetual dog-wagging by the legislative tail cannot possibly be the means to change them.  All such attempts will, by definition, introduce new inequalities *before* the law, however noble the intent to repair those that arise *after* the (previous) law.
Well, no. That sounds like a cop-out because the factors being addressed are "complex".

Is it possible to get 100%? Probably not. But we can certainly get closer.

The key is to stop legislating in ignorance or based on political principals, but on actual information and data.

Situations evolve, so too can laws. Situations are complex, so too for laws.

And we have repeatedly prove that effective laws can indeed change situations towards what has been intended, if not 100%.


Too much is often a problem, but so is too little just as much a problem. And yes, they can be too simplistic or ill fitting, but they can also be appropriate. In practice, a good policy or law is a goldilocks scenario. You are just as bad to swing too far one direction as the other, and the importance is hunting for that "just right". At the same time, you aren't going to know what is right until you get involved and start trying and adjusting as you learn.
15  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Get this Done or........ on: Dec 04, 2017, 08:18AM
And yet y'all rant against the one president who was elected without lobbyist donors.  Don't know

Are you referring to Trump?

 Don't know

If so, he had quite a bit of funding per lobbyists and connected groups. The whole self-funding thing was a lie. He even charged his campaign for using space in trump tower, and then paid for that out of campaign donations... ie, he personally and directly made money off of running for president.
16  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Nothing burger becomes a something burger on: Dec 04, 2017, 06:13AM
This is doubtless true.  However, anti-discrimination laws don't actually reduce discrimination, they just change how it manifests itself.  You know, in reality  :D

Depends. Is the law simply saying something is bad or addressing the systematic reason for that bad thing being allowed to continue?

It's easy to write a law saying that it is illegal to discriminate based on gender.

But... in the US, women typically make 78 cents to a man's dollar. That happens under the first law.

What is interesting is that when looking at scenarios who pay is open, and people know what others make (common in governmental positions) that discrepancy drops to an 11 cents difference. Everything else the same, pay scales and transparency cut the difference in half.

It is easy to tell if there is a problem and correct it.


So on one hand, a law saying that you can't discriminate in pay is a statement of morals. Not easy to effect by itself, but can be and has been used in egregious examples.

On the other, to really remove barriers requires transparency to see what they are. And that's something that can be difficult or impossible for the private industry to do WITHOUT government intervention.
17  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Nothing burger becomes a something burger on: Dec 02, 2017, 03:11PM
That said, a government that proceeds always with an eye towards the principle of equality before the law in the service of individual freedom, is likely to do less rather than more. 
Well, no.

Having been managed and been the manager, less is often little better than more. There is an ideal amount to a given situation. We currently live in a complex society... that requires more than many GOP folks (who often than not live in simple, yet impoverished societies - hence then less) want. But then those some GOP folks often want more than they have. The wonderful catch 22. Like the coal miner who voted republican because Obama wasn't about to get his retraining initiatives through - as they were blocked by the republicans. It is often also less than government prone folks want, as there is no sense in a regulation that cannot be enforced.

Also the inverse, a firm boundary is often more freeing than a loose or vague one. The simple reason being... a firm boundary, you know when you cross it. But a vague one, there is a gray zone of generalized risk, where even if you didn't cross the line you may have gotten too close. Or you could step well over and not have an issue. Either way, it's a gamble.

In short, a government that tends toward efficiency and effectiveness gives clear and direct guidance that is appropriate to the complexity of the situation at hand. And if the situation gets too complex, may take additional measures to simplify it. The ends may be individual freedom or they may be market practices. Either way, the fuzz and haze is often a result of special cases per lobbying/bribes rather than governmental decisions. If we want to clean that up, we need to get the lobbying/bribes out of the mix as much as is possible.
18  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: Critical Thinking: Taking Honesty Seriously on: Nov 27, 2017, 02:08PM
I think it is a good illustration of why we need more critical thinking, and why we won't get it. 
We need more of what we won't get.

Sounds... well, like a lack of critical thinking.
19  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Uranium One scandal debunked on: Nov 20, 2017, 04:56AM
Hey, I'm down with that!  PARTY ON DUDES!!!!!!


Shoot, that's the word in Alabama per their own governor. Is their senate nominee a sexual predator? Well, yes, it looks that way. Will this impact your vote? Look hon, we only have a 2 seat majority in the senate... we NEED him there.
20  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Republican duplicity re: sexual assaults on: Nov 16, 2017, 12:12PM
"Al Franken accused of groping, forcibly kissing radio news anchor"

Ok boys, let's admit it: they are coming for all of us.


Let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

Guess I do have some ponderies about that...

Weiner dude denied it, and he was attacked for it.
Spacey and CK acknowledged and apologized. still attacked for it.

Is there anything wanted other than simply attacking and trying to take down anyone who has had a single incident of sexual misconduct in their past?

And is there a time limit? The current environment my be against certain things, but standards were different 30 years ago. Are we necessarily going to try to apply standards of today to the time of then?

Otherwise... especially as this gets into claim of "harassment" rather than the underage sex or self sex acts... yeah, that pool gets VERY large.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 284