Reply With Quote
you're a nut trying to act like you're somewhat sane. lmao!
Pretty much.
- 40 years of trickledown trial. Didn't work. Conservatives still believe it does.
- Human caused climate change agreed by 90% of scientists and 97% of specialized climate scientists. Conservatives still believe it's a liberal conspiracy.
- Conservatives think universal healthcare will have negative consequences when it's proven to work fine in every other OECD country.
- Conservatives decry any tax payer funded social program as "ebil socialism" and don't realize the irony that they are biggest socialists on the planet who puff their chests every time the military gets another trillion dollars from the tax payer.
- Conservatives exaggerate any reasonable gun control ideas to wholesale gun grabbing.
I don't see the malleability here.
The right suffers from a religious problem IMO. Religion punishes doubt, and discourages questioning beliefs, with a lot of self-identified conservatives being religious. The "God" language stress in many platforms shows this.
My theory is that this tends to impair ones critical thinking abilities in other areas, much like a compromised immune system makes one susceptible to disease. Conservatives tend to be less able to spot bad arguments and bull in general, as they are so used to the kinds of rationalization and excuse making that is required to be religiously faithful.
you're a nut trying to act like you're somewhat sane. lmao!
I disagree, RG, it ebbs and flows. In my opinion it has actually been a little bit better of late. JMO.
I also disagree that any side of an argument has a monopoly on smugness pseudoreason or even openmindedness.
Case in point.
The big book of multiple choice. Amazing how "God" always seems to want what you do. Wonder why. #obliviousChris
21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt. Exodus 22:21
18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. https://www.biblestudytools.com/deuteronomy/10-18.html
. “ ‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God. https://www.biblestudytools.com/levi...ticus+19:33-34
Oblvious Chris will make excuses or ignore the parts of the big book of multiple choice he wants, because of his own biases.
Never said any side has a monopoly, but the two sides are in no way equal. Making the case for such is a lazy false equivalence that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
(edit) Not sayiing you are here, but I have seen it made, I call it the "both sides" fallacy.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-22-2019 at 07:12 PM.
And you know there's many, many more verses of this type. Helping the poor seems to be a direct command of God.Luke 14:12-14
He said also to the one who had invited him, ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’
Proverbs 19:17 17 Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward them for what they have done.
I think it's a disease to believe and defend everything one says or happens to think to the nth. I also think this proviso applies especially to me since I have the most influence over me. And little over others.
The older I get, the less certain I become about what I thought I already knew.
It's funny to me because Christianity pretty much contradicts the tenets of American Conservatism. I believe early Christians weren't even opposed to abortion. Aquinas felt the baby wasn't "alive" until the quickening, at which point is was imbued with a soul.
Before hitting the post reply button I ask myself nearly every time: is that true, is that fair and do I really believe that?
It's not rare that I withdraw something I was about to post.
Jesus would be considered a lib by republicans if he was around today.
yep
ugh, class warfare iden y politics!is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven
"malleable"
Helpful here is the concept of cognitive dissonance.
A good example is that the bible advocates slavery, and in some places human sacrifice, albeit not as strongly.
Modern Christians hold the thought " I am a good person" at some level, conscious or otherwise.
Being a good person is not compatible with worshiping evil. So the parts of the bible that talk about human sacrifice or say that slavery is OK are glossed over. excuses are made, and all sorts of attempts at distraction and diversion are made to obfuscate this.
The mental gymnastics are fun to watch.
That many people that call themselves Christian are so nasty to immigrants "speak english" "go back where you came from" is just a prime example. The bible, taken overall, is fairly clear about the moral lessons of helping the poor and people in need. Indeed many Christian groups are appalled that people like Chris would ignore this.
But. the right has it's own political correctness that is every bit as insidious and nasty as anything that they say about SJW on the left. Step out of line, out of cannon and you are a "RINO" and find yourself primaried out of office. Support abortion? You aren't really conservative, no matter what your other positions are.
Indeed. The parable of the widow's farthings demonstrate the moral and very Christian underpinning of marginal income taxes.
https://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/ly...s_farthing.htm
Even back then, the concept of personal surplus was obvious. I would be willing to bet that this particular episode came up when the income tax was first being debated in Congress, especially when it comes to the progressive nature of that tax.
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus:
https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp
I backspace over a lot, and edit out a lot of nasty derision that I look at and instantly regret as not being worthy. That said, there are some stupid mother ers who post here, and I have less patience for that as i get older.
That goes tot he core of the folly of asserting the unseen. "There is a soul in this cluster of cells" reminds me of the Dragon in the Garage analogy from Sagan.
Further, if you want an interesting moral take on this Tracy Harris breaks down some of the moral issues involved in a rather thoughtful, and thorough way:"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg9o0Q5vDuQ (Atheist experience podcast, taking a call from a gentleman who says abortion should be illegal)
Beat me to it
Agreed. Not my book, but what is there is pretty consistent overall. It is one of the less ambiguous tenets/concepts that the authors of the book appeared to be trying to get at.
You got the coding for the clip though. heh.Beat me to it
There we go. Worth watching no matter what your opinion of the subject is, IMO. A calmly reasoned discussion that explores some of the ethical issues in a thoughtful way, and both sides made their case in that way.
There are billions of poor people and letting them come here won't benefit the world.
Letting people in the country that can't contribute isn't compatible with big government programs that require we tax success for them to live at some arbitrary high standard that is deemed a human right.
If global warming is the most pressing issue that impacts the entire world then sending the poors to the US, which has high per capital pollution, isn't beneficial to anyone.
How did you change from a Bernie Bro to what you are now?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions