Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Chaka-Z0]

Hi my name is Tood. I just fell .of the wagon last night. Someone slapped me, and I....*Gets teary eyed and someone holds my hand* I turned the other cheek! I just had to get my fix of Jesus!!! *cries*

Last week I called sick at work again. My boss was very worried so he payed me a visit and caught me praying by myself, again! *sobs uncontrollably*

Is it though?

Religion condemns abortion as a grave evil, why would you even ask that question? People outside religion being pro-lifers doesn't change the fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life
12% of athiests are pro-life in the US. I wonder what religious views are causing them to be so?

Irrelevant. I said is mainly a religious stance, but not exclusively, some people agree on moral basis of murder. Let me rephrase that, religious people (unless they a-la-carte their religion) are 100% against abortion. Any other type of non-religious people that are pro-life account for a much lower percentage.

It's a very nice and convenient cop out though. First, just point out that many people who are pro-life feel compelled on not just a secular moral grounds but also religious grounds.

See above, by design religious people are de-facto against abortion. So yes, they are compelled and obligated to be pro-life unless they are not true to their faith, no matter what their perspective on the matter could be.

And then discount that completely. You don't have to deal with the question of life, when it begins, and the moral imperatives involved. It's an easy and simple hand wavey solution.

Nope it is simply a point of view of life untainted by religious beliefs. You are the one assuming that there is mystique and holy and paranormal aspects involved in the creation of life. Me? I think it can all be explained by science and no fancy white-bearded man was involved in its creation.

Therefore, your moral imperatives are of your own creation and does not affect nor concerns me in any shape or form. These questions you raise originates from your internal beliefs about life, why should I even consider them? You say its an easy hand wavey solution, I say these questions are absolutely irrelevant to me.

By the way, the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been recognized as an official religion. As a matter of fact, their priest can now officiate weddings in New Zealand and the followers have won cases in court permitting them to wear a strainer on their head, as part of their religious head-wear which is exempted by the law, on their drivers license pictures. Have you considered their moral implications? And before you dismiss this as a joke from my part, I am dead serious, this is an official religion on the same level than yours, I'll need to consider their implications as well. Maybe I think that before a baby is born, its just a bunch of untied spaghetti's therefore the fetus doesn't have a soul?

The second copout is the "men" part. Because, after all, women who are pro-life are feeble things easily controlled by men and obviously are unable to come to the correct opinion that real women have.

I don't care if you're an atheist, a Muslim, a Cthulhu follower or a ballet dancer. Women can be pro-life too, sure, so what? In my book, any human being that thinks he should decide over what to do with someone else's body is a complete fool. How about you let the lady decides for herself, because ultimately, that's what it comes down to. I know most of you don't like to hear it, but by supporting the pro-life position you are undermining women's fundamental rights to freedom and independence unequivocally.

[Chaka-Z0]

I saw some talk about lizard men. I added two new minions to my hoards! They will be fine soldiers in my quest for liberty!

Gorgeous babies! just make sure you enclose their terrarium with tinfoil to prevent unauthorized mind control.

It's far to early to know what happened with Khashoggi, we'll have to wait for the dust to settle there.

Are you kidding? He's long dead buddy. He's never been seen exiting the premise, wait let me rephrase that, he's never been seen exiting the premise in whole. They tortured the guy so much during interrogation that he died, they cut him into pieces and buried his remains in the woods where we see a big unmarked van headed shortly after. Unless you're going to tell me officials usually go take a casual Sunday drive in the woods for fun.

We have motive, execution and intent. The only thing that is left to speculate is if he was supposed only to be interrogated and imprisoned, by order of MSB, or if he wanted his head on a platter. But your President decided to be their *****, to hell with all the patriotism of americans, who cares if they die abroad by orders of an alliedmoneycow country

[LtColCarter]

Gorgeous babies! just make sure you enclose their terrarium with tinfoil to prevent unauthorized mind control.

No need. They can use the power of their stink-eye to repeal any attempts at mind control.

[jelgate]

Or they have no minds to control

[LtColCarter]

Or they have no minds to control

Oh...they very much have minds of their own.

[Chaka-Z0]

Oh...they very much have minds of their own.

Their apparent laziness is subterfuge for the unimaginable amount of ancient knowledge acquired throughout the ages. The humans good to them will be rewarded in the Afterlife and those that wronged them will be forever remembered.

[Coco Pops]

This is a criticism I often have about the Democrats, and by what you folks are saying, yourselves as well.

You just can't accept that you lost in 2016.

There is an election coming up, and it's quite possible that the Democrats take the House back. If that's the way it goes, so be it, you win some, you lose some.

But if the Republicans keep the house & the senate, what are you going to do? Just continue to deny that you lost?

And didn't Trump say that had the Democrats won he would not recognize that win and complain a lot? Why would you do that?

And IF and that's a very big IF they win will he accept the result or cry like a baby?

[Gatefan1976]

How is it possible to cheat when using the proper processes? The EC is part of the process, it's not his fault that he employed it to his advantage better than the Democrats did. Anytime I hear "EC" I just read it as "Sore Loser".

The EC allows the marginal interference of others to be downplayed because it is (in numbers) so marginal. You don't need to leave a huge paper trail, you don't need to change millions of votes. Change 1000 in some 40 precincts and you win, but the effect is massive. Even if you believe, actually believe that some 5 million people illegally voted, they did it in places where those 5 million votes don't count for a dime. 3 million fake votes in California doesn't win you anything more, and anyone on the left trying to game the system would know that as well, so why would they do it?

[Annoyed]

The EC allows the marginal interference of others to be downplayed because it is (in numbers) so marginal. You don't need to leave a huge paper trail, you don't need to change millions of votes. Change 1000 in some 40 precincts and you win, but the effect is massive. Even if you believe, actually believe that some 5 million people illegally voted, they did it in places where those 5 million votes don't count for a dime. 3 million fake votes in California doesn't win you anything more, and anyone on the left trying to game the system would know that as well, so why would they do it?

And you think my conspiracy theories are wild?

[Gatefan1976]

And you think my conspiracy theories are wild?

3 million votes in a state that can only produce X votes is a waste of time, 50K over 5 that provide X times 5 however is worth it, and low enough to be "under the radar"
It's not a conspiracy, it's common sense.

[LtColCarter]

Their apparent laziness is subterfuge for the unimaginable amount of ancient knowledge acquired throughout the ages. The humans good to them will be rewarded in the Afterlife and those that wronged them will be forever remembered.

I actually have 5 iguanas. None of them, including these babies that I got this weekend, like my 13 year-old LOL. I think they are plotting to take over the government. LOL.

[jelgate]

Impossible. That is what my cat is doing. When she isnt planning to kill me of course

[aretood2]

Is it?
Drugs have an -additional- component, that being the physical, sure, but that physical component is still rooted in brain chemistry.

Nowhere near the same impact though. You can argue extreme cases, but those will always be just that. Extreme cases. When it comes to drugs, you need not look at extremes, the "normal" cases are rather destructive to a high degree.

There is such a thing as a recreational user though. I know people who never normally smoke, but get a few drinks in them, they will smoke a cigarette or take a few puffs on a cigar. Again, I never brought hardcore addictive substances into this discussion, what I have said all along is that for people with addictive personalities there will be no "simply going to church" because their brain is not wired that way. They will go to church all the time and twice on Sundays, and at that point, it's an addiction.

There's just one problem here. Alcohol and Nicotine are a different level than the drugs you initially began discussing...this is called moving the goal posts of which you have been doing a lot.

I have ALWAYS been specific, I blame churches (all of them, so drop the catholic bit, cause they are not the only church accused of sexual misconduct), I blame large organizations that encourage group-think and quash individuality, I blame corporations who think that the sum is more important than the parts, I blame governments who do the same. The very fact you have to put the caveat of "or supposed to be" tells me you know exactly what I mean, that when groups get to big, they create power structures, and the goal of any power structure is to protect ITSELF, not those it is meant to represent.

No, you mentioned tithes, and interestingly enough the ones with severe problems are the ones without tithes. Don't move goal posts.

Yeah, they make "offering's" instead, and make it pretty clear where you are on the pecking order if you don't "volunteer" your time or money.

Not really...I mean they are anonymous.

Nope, because the disconnect is between being "a law", and "strongly suggested".
You can be a catholic, or a JW and never tithe, but your peers will not think very well of you as you are not "helping the community"

See above.

At that point, they ARE no better than cartels.
If you don't care enough about people giving to you to tell them that there is a point where it is self destructive, you don't care about them at all, you reduce them to a resource to be plundered. This is true of any organization, left, right, religious or secular. It's very essence of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

I'm sure every Mexican would much rather have those charities in Mexico versus the cartels. Actually, I can guarantee it.

It's commonly called escalation Tood.

In these parks, that's called goal post moving.

It's broadly accurate.
The individual (Christ) is a person to be admired as a person, much like Tarana Burke should be admired, or Rosa Parkes, or Martin King.
The organizations that sprung from those ideals however, I'm not sold on.

Interestingly enough it isn't that hard to find a racist who would call MLK Jr. "One of the good ones".

Yes, beyond your control, and There are people out there who are out of control with their religious beliefs.

And that's the case for well...everything. You're basically appealing to the extremes to make your argument.

Religion condemns abortion as a grave evil, why would you even ask that question? People outside religion being pro-lifers doesn't change the fact.

It doesn't. In fact it's not even mentioned in the bible.

Irrelevant. I said is mainly a religious stance, but not exclusively, some people agree on moral basis of murder. Let me rephrase that, religious people (unless they a-la-carte their religion) are 100% against abortion. Any other type of non-religious people that are pro-life account for a much lower percentage.

But just because there are two arguments one person can hold. One religious and one secular, it doesn't mean that they are exclusive. A religious person my object on "religious" grounds but they can also very well hold to the secular grounds as well. To discount their opinions because they happen to have both reasons is nothing more than religious discrimination and bigotry.

See above, by design religious people are de-facto against abortion. So yes, they are compelled and obligated to be pro-life unless they are not true to their faith, no matter what their perspective on the matter could be.

No they are not.

Nope it is simply a point of view of life untainted by religious beliefs. You are the one assuming that there is mystique and holy and paranormal aspects involved in the creation of life. Me? I think it can all be explained by science and no fancy white-bearded man was involved in its creation.

Metaphysical in addition to the physical. I don't really think you understand religion to be honest. The two need not be exclusive. It is perfectly feasible for one's opinions to be based on both physical and metaphysical grounds.

Therefore, your moral imperatives are of your own creation and does not affect nor concerns me in any shape or form. These questions you raise originates from your internal beliefs about life, why should I even consider them? You say its an easy hand wavey solution, I say these questions are absolutely irrelevant to me.

No, all morality is subjective, or so goes the accepted view among anthropologists and sociologists. No one's morality, be it secular or spiritual is objective.

By the way, the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been recognized as an official religion. As a matter of fact, their priest can now officiate weddings in New Zealand and the followers have won cases in court permitting them to wear a strainer on their head, as part of their religious head-wear which is exempted by the law, on their drivers license pictures. Have you considered their moral implications? And before you dismiss this as a joke from my part, I am dead serious, this is an official religion on the same level than yours, I'll need to consider their implications as well. Maybe I think that before a baby is born, its just a bunch of untied spaghetti's therefore the fetus doesn't have a soul?

And here you miss the point entirely.

I don't care if you're an atheist, a Muslim, a Cthulhu follower or a ballet dancer. Women can be pro-life too, sure, so what? In my book, any human being that thinks he should decide over what to do with someone else's body is a complete fool. How about you let the lady decides for herself, because ultimately, that's what it comes down to. I know most of you don't like to hear it, but by supporting the pro-life position you are undermining women's fundamental rights to freedom and independence unequivocally.

You are the one who mentioned men as if pro-life is an inherently male thing. That's just not the case at all, not by a long shot.

[Annoyed]

Oh, good grief. What do people use for brains these days?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pol...ma-clinton-cnn

The suspicious packages sent to the homes of former President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and to the Time Warner Center in New York where —CNN is located — Wednesday elicited reactions from politicians across the aisle, many of whom condemned the incidents.

The packages sent to Obama and Clinton were identified by Secret Service officials as "potential explosive devices," and arrived after an explosive device was found at billionaire George Soros' home in Bedford, New York earlier this week. It's not immediately clear if the incidents are related.

Of course, they're related, you idiot!

[SoulReaver]

no attempts against Charles KOCH?
wait this is the US/SR don't touch the [real] elites