The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

But for those who do believe, citing laws handed down by God probably carries more weight than laws created by man. And any enticement for folks to behave themselves, particularly when it comes to the big ones like murder, theft, bearing false witness or adultery can only be a good thing.

Did you just justify the oh so feared Shariah Law -- however you like to interpret it (see article I posted in this or the other thread on Sharia in The Netherlands for clarification).

Will we see a Quaker running into a gay bar and just standing there until everyone magically drops dead?

I think the CDC would have a thing or two to say if that happened.

Gosh, why does it feel like I am explaining social norms to someone on the Autism spectrum between you and GF?

Oh, this is awkward...

*raises hand*

Autism spectrum is my reality.

Tell me this, does it make you feel better when you empathize with someone else? Or do you feel nothing? Or is it a knee jerk reaction when your friend tells you that their dad just died for you to say "I'm Sorry" Or do you simply say "Did you see the game last night?"

Do you stop for a moment to provide the person some measure of comfort or just continue and tease them like if nothing happened because you tease each other as part of your relationship? Do you go out of your way to not go to funerals because you feel that would be selfish and that it solves/fixes nothing?

Emotions and empathy are difficult subjects for my brain to process.
I'm not good with them -- recognizing and/or reacting.

Edit: Just to make sure, simply saying "Oh no, I'll pray for you" shouldn't be where it stops, it should be the first act opening the door to real material support, be it social (being there for someone) or pragmatic (Helping them financially or otherwise).

See, that's the kind of track anyone should follow. Don't stop at the thoughts and prayers, give a little!

Know you're moving goal posts.

We're all quite good at that, aren't we.

More strawmen

A whole army if the need requires it.

Isn't the Ancient Egyptian Legal system older and based on concepts dealing with Ma'at?

The Proto-dynasties are of approximately the same era as the old Sumerian ones, so there are probably similarities between the two realms. However, no early texts have survived (or were found), unlike the codes on stone. Manuscripts which did survive are from a much younger time.

A bit more on Egyptian law from Brittannica.com.

Just like Egyptian law is tied to religious concepts...

Actually, not really... Ma'at wasn't a goddess in the true sense of the word, but the concept of life. She stands for justice, harmony and truth. The ancient Egyptian law is based on common sense.

The weighing of the feather after death is a culmination of the life. If you lived a harmonious, just and truthful life, you would be more likely to pass the feather-test, than when you had committed an act against those three concepts.

Given that the majority of major religions Poo-Poo on same sex couples, it's not a strawman, it's just not an issue you have to deal with if you are not.

Walking in someone else's shoes is not something we're good at, I guess.

I don't know what is worse, a white person saying it to a white person or a non-white person to a white person?

I say, try walking in the other person's shoes first.

At this point I can't even keep track of it. I am in favor of church/state separation so I don't know why I am being asked about Iran.

Used it as an example to expand on Annoyed's religion based set of rules which could be beneficial to society, which also included the part about the "Straight, white male".

Our social interaction has its basis in communication. We communicate and then we act...well...not everything is verbal communication too. Me clenching my hand into a fist is worth a few good paragraphs to let you know what my action is gong to be. You avoid the thoughts and prayers, then there will certainly be no action.

One of the things I completely fail in, verbal communication and social interaction -- my living hell as it were.

This is me to a T:

How's about Lord Ba'al.. I hear he's a fair but firm god.. Or apophis!!

[Annoyed]

Change in political subject, since this article showed up today---

Typical of California (Democrats, that is) to pull a stunt like this.



The Democrats complain about President Trump not fulfilling his promises, not building the wall or not building the wall fast enough -- and then complain about Trump not abiding by and thus being in violation of California's State regulations..!

Jeeza Louisa... the wildlife will be cut off.. the fish won't be able to swim in the rivers.. the rivers from other states won't be redirected to flow into California properly.. the wall will be too strong --- or not strong enough! blah, blah, blah... (Democratic) California wants to secede from the rest of the USA anyway, so just build the wall around the chronic Democratic controlled California. Problem solved.


BTW, just *maybe* there is a way to build a wall with the river flowing beneath without causing problems to the natural flow of water. Just need to build a strong enough, reinforced steel or whatever (waterproofed and sturdy enough) cage to keep people out and let the fishies continue to swim.. as long as the fishies are people sized, such a barrier shield should be okay according to EPA regulations. Unless of course, the Californian EPA rules are so stringent, that it makes such a task impossible, which is in addition to all of the *red tape* to jump hoops thru.

The problem isn't in the mechanics of closing the borders to illegals. It's the desire to, or lack thereof. Particularly in leftist strongholds like Calif., where they actually want to bring in as many illegals as possible.

[Annoyed]

Did you just justify the oh so feared Shariah Law -- however you like to interpret it (see article I posted in this or the other thread on Sharia in The Netherlands for clarification).

Used it as an example to expand on Annoyed's religion based set of rules which could be beneficial to society, which also included the part about the "Straight, white male".

I didn't include Sharia, or all aspects of any religion. I'm just pointing out that some of the key points of Christianity are a decent set of rules for living. And I'm not pushing a religious agenda; note that I disregarded half of the Ten Commandments that were purely religious in nature.

[aretood2]

I wish I could be so........ forgiving.
Remember that clip I put up about the 15/10 commandments yesterday?
If you watch is carefully, "Moses" drops the first 5 commandments which are, as Annoyed pointed out, about basically "god's ego"
You shall have no other god before me as your first commandment sorta makes the notion of a pacifistic god redundant, if not heretical.
Makes me wonder how it would have played out if there were 10 others that did not involve Gods ego......

I'm going to ignore the "ego" thing since that is another discussion all together.
Annoyed's point as I saw it was that religions do have beneficial rules with them, that if that side of religions work for people, why mess with it? Like your question in the religion thread...if the philosophy behind it is good...does it matter if it is true for the individual?

Are they worse, or just a shut down tool?
I crap on my fellow whites (and Australians) a lot, not because I -want- to, but because it must be said. We all to often forget that damn near everything we interact with today has been built on the notion of advancing (acceptable) white culture at the expense of all others.
If we do not recognize that, we WILL repeat it, and it's not about blame either.

I find it funny that conservatives cry that liberals are trying to erase history but then cry foul when liberals want to include history that is not to their liking in other areas.

Notice that "drugs" are classy (like prescription meds and the opioid epidemic), but crack is a Black problem we should lock them up for?
We want to "help" the opioid "sufferers"
We want to "punish" the "crack criminals"
As for suicide, it's pretty universal unfortunately.

If you ask me...."Our little calm town can't possibly have a drug problem. That's an inner city problem".

If there is no action to be done, a hurricane wipes out parts of Texas, or the Caribbian, or a earthquake devastates Mexico and I have no money to send, and I cannot hop a plane to help out, what value is "my thoughts and prayers"?
Thoughts and prayers is used as a symbol for empathy, but if your next thought is lunch, I doubt your empathy, and your thoughts and prayers.
Sometimes, we can do nothing. Better to say that I can do nothing than salve our own hurt feelings, don't you think?

Of course the would be recipients also take offense at the lack of such a statement. Maybe you don't with your tripped up hippy stuff there, but most people would wonder why you can't stop and say some words of solidarity at the very least. The "My dad died and you never even bothered to text me" issue.

I need you to expand on that, because my knee jerk reaction is not what I think you were trying to convey.

Anyone who believes that God doesn't want Christians to have homosexual relations is an unapologetic bigot that deserves to be ostracized and fired from whatever job they have for spreading hate and inciting violence.

*raises hand*

Autism spectrum is my reality.

Let's say that an entire country has taken offense at Trump's lack of timely reaction to its plight. Inaction, even something as "useless" as words, causes offense. In the end, everything we do and say is selfish. We do good deeds because it makes us feel good and we can avoid the debilitating guilt of inaction. The mere fact you try to help someone else is selfish for that reason. There truly is no such thing as a selfless good deed. You benefit from it one way or another, otherwise you wouldn't do it. So people sending best wishes is selfish just like people hopping on a plane to provide real tangible assistance selfish too.

Emotions and empathy are difficult subjects for my brain to process.
I'm not good with them -- recognizing and/or reacting.

See, that's the kind of track anyone should follow. Don't stop at the thoughts and prayers, give a little!

That should be the general argument. Yes. however, as I said, even giving a little is selfish. Some things are just more selfish than others. And there is a limit to how much we can give before we too become subjects of charity. So that's why sometimes people also give their best wishes. Sure they'd love to help, but they have already invested all they feel they can in helping. So the only thing they can do is send their best wishes. The recipient's do benefit from it. kind words or consolation (no matter how small) do have a positive impact on the recipient' state of mind, similar to receiving praise for a job well done.

I admit, social media is still relatively new, people still haven't figured out how to use it properly, especially for these things. People are just trying to figure out what is appropriate and that will take time. Technology, as always, moves at a much faster pace than laws, or social norms/procedures and needs.

Actually, not really... Ma'at wasn't a goddess in the true sense of the word, but the concept of life. She stands for justice, harmony and truth. The ancient Egyptian law is based on common sense.

The weighing of the feather after death is a culmination of the life. If you lived a harmonious, just and truthful life, you would be more likely to pass the feather-test, than when you had committed an act against those three concepts.

Dude, that is religious. Let me modify the red quote on that page and you tell meif it looks like religion:

"ONE WORSHIPED THE GODDESS MA'AT LORD JEHOVAH BY LIVING A LIFE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HIGHEST PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE, ORDER & HARMONY."

Ma'at is a religious concept personified in the goddess of the same name. Hint's the "Soul" being weighed "After death".

I say, try walking in the other person's shoes first.

Sometimes the speaker may forget that it is a two way street.

[garhkal]

We must all be considered Shol'va by now!

[jelgate]

We must all be considered Shol'va by now!

Kel shek nemron

[SoulReaver]

(OT) the Hammurabi code!
the sort of 0-tolerance stuff that would make american-italian fascists like Rudolph Mussolini Giuliani look like libertarians

interestingly king Hammurabi himself was above his own laws
it's like that POS fancied himself a god

[Gatefan1976]

I'm going to ignore the "ego" thing since that is another discussion all together.
Annoyed's point as I saw it was that religions do have beneficial rules with them, that if that side of religions work for people, why mess with it? Like your question in the religion thread...if the philosophy behind it is good...does it matter if it is true for the individual?

If you do that, you are ignoring my entire point in making the comment. What would have happened if instead of the first 5 commandments being about God, they were 5 more ways not to be crappy to one another? God chose to have 10 "tweets", he used HALF of them to talk about himself. What if he used them to advance the philosophy, rather than himself? Yes, you can go to the Torah to read more, but many wouldn't.

I find it funny that conservatives cry that liberals are trying to erase history but then cry foul when liberals want to include history that is not to their liking in other areas.

Gotta have it all, the good and the bad.

If you ask me...."Our little calm town can't possibly have a drug problem. That's an inner city problem".

Well, that plays off your history comment really, doesn't it.

Of course the would be recipients also take offense at the lack of such a statement. Maybe you don't with your tripped up hippy stuff there, but most people would wonder why you can't stop and say some words of solidarity at the very least. The "My dad died and you never even bothered to text me" issue.

That example doesn't fly. IF you personally know the person, then sure, you are an arse for not offering condolences or help. I was speaking of "thoughts and prayers" in the situation where you don't know the person. FH was speaking specifically to the -prayers- part of it. Prayer moreso than thought is seen as a "active" thing to do, you have to add these people into your rituals, but does it actually achieve anything?

Anyone who believes that God doesn't want Christians to have homosexual relations is an unapologetic bigot that deserves to be ostracized and fired from whatever job they have for spreading hate and inciting violence.

I am glad I asked

[garhkal]

Kel shek nemron

Tek'Ma'Te my friend..

[Falcon Horus]

[COLOR="#000080"]Let's say that an entire country has taken offense at Trump's lack of timely reaction to its plight. Inaction, even something as "useless" as words, causes offense. In the end, everything we do and say is selfish. We do good deeds because it makes us feel good and we can avoid the debilitating guilt of inaction. The mere fact you try to help someone else is selfish for that reason. There truly is no such thing as a selfless good deed. You benefit from it one way or another, otherwise you wouldn't do it. So people sending best wishes is selfish just like people hopping on a plane to provide real tangible assistance selfish too.[/COLOr

Ah... this makes sense.

Dude, that is religious. Let me modify the red quote on that page and you tell me if it looks like religion:

"ONE WORSHIPED THE GODDESS MA'AT LORD JEHOVAH BY LIVING A LIFE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HIGHEST PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE, ORDER & HARMONY."

Dude, it's not religious to live a life respecting justice, order and harmony. You can strike both Ma'at and Jehovah. Ma'at is a concept, Jehovah is not.

Ma'at is a religious concept personified in the goddess of the same name. Hint's the "Soul" being weighed "After death".

It's not a religious concept.

Sometimes the speaker may forget that it is a two way street.

The first one who wants to walk in my shoes, I'll gladly take up on the offer to walk in theirs.

[pscard]

It's kinda silly that two world leaders have reduced their rhetoric to name-calling. I wish they would have a REAL dialog of peace.

[jelgate]

That would require them to actually care about the people in their country

[garhkal]

It's kinda silly that two world leaders have reduced their rhetoric to name-calling. I wish they would have a REAL dialog of peace.

Or they could both just get into the Thunder dome.. Two men enter, one man leaves!!

[Annoyed]

It's kinda silly that two world leaders have reduced their rhetoric to name-calling. I wish they would have a REAL dialog of peace.

That ain't gonna happen, not with that nut job in NK. He has been belligerent & provocative for how many years?
Look at it this way. Would you rather have flying insults or flying military hardware? If it avoids a war, let 'em stick their tongues out at each other for all I care. I really don't want to see a war here.
But it might happen.

I don't think the US will strike first. If he launches against the US or an ally, there's a fair to middlin chance we can shoot down whatever he launches (if it doesn't fall out of the sky on its own)

But successful or not, if he strikes first, I'm pretty sure there will be a war. The US doesn't need nukes to put him down, thankfully. And I really don't think that NK has a sufficient arsenal to sustain a nuclear war. So it won't likely be an all out nuclear holocaust. But we will take him out and there will be a lot of civilian casualties in NK.

The worst part of this is that the NK people aren't the problem, it's just the nuts running the country. It's sad, but even though they will be kept to a minimum, there will be casualties.

[aretood2]

Dude, it's not religious to live a life respecting justice, order and harmony. You can strike both Ma'at and Jehovah. Ma'at is a concept, Jehovah is not.

I don't think that word means what you think it means...Hey everyone! The bible isn't about living a life respecting justice, order, and harmony...neither are the Buddha's teachings. Who knew?

It's not a religious concept.

The whole "Weighing the soul after death" thing doesn't really sound like pure philosophical or scientific conceptualization.