Contributing to a conversation doesn’t make someone a snowflake. I can talk about rape and never have been raped. By your logic, you’re also a snowflake. Besides, labeling someone with a word with negative connotation isn’t a productive way to have a conversation. Its just insulting them. You can still have a conversation with ad homonyms. I personally haven’t seen it going anywhere, though.
Wow, cryophilia that might be the most dishonest argument I’ve seen. It certainly is the worst one i can think of. Read a whole post before responding, Oh intelligent and rational one.
Emotions are inherently irrational. Deal with it. Trauma is inherently irrational. You’re cherry-picking the part of the paragraph that you think makes the other argument seem absurd. If anyone here’s the irrational one, it’s you.
Maybe you’re just dense? It seems pretty damn obvious if you can read between the lines. It seems to me that you don’t like that you dont understand, so you’re blaming it on everyone else. Dont blame others that you aren’t picking up what others are putting down I’m a dude, and it’s pretty straightforward if you can put yourself in the shoes of someone who has had a terrible thing done to them. They don’t want to be even near a situation like that again. The point isnt the bear. You could replace that with anything. It could be a humpback whale, a lion, or a capybara. The animal isn’t the point its the inherent unfairness of women that have to live their life in fear of men. Due to a past experience or even just caution.
Let’s say i choose being in the woods with a bear over a woman. Does that make me sexist? I personally dont see it. Im not setting a different standard for men or women. Maybe I’m just gay, or afraid of women. I dont see how it’s sexist if i say, im more afraid of x than y. Therefore, i choose y. Maybe, I have more bad experiences with x, leaving y. Sexism would be to set different standards for the sexes where this question isn’t setting different standards for men and women. It’s pointing out that the already existent standards for men and women and how different they are.
I would say a peaceful change by vote of the people (not politicians) would be a better way than violent revolution. Violent revolution can be justified, but it will end up hurting many people and destabilizing a country. War from internal and external parties would be garunteed. Peaceful revolution is not an easy nor even plausable outcome, but it would harm far fewer people.
Im curious: How does not voting show you wish for revolution? My view is that I’d rather vote for someone who is working within the system (corrupt and broken though it may be) than someone who wants to tear it down and install a dictatorship. Not voting just means you’re complicit and signals you don’t prefer one over the other. I don’t like either, but i definitely have a preference.
Yeah, it seems so, i personally don’t like our system either, but that would have to come down to a vote from the people to tear it down and start over. People dont get to force the issue like trump and many extremists, and apparently, like this other person wants.
Sooooo, basically what trump tried, but its somehow okay because you said it?
I don’t like either candidate, but I’ll be damned if trump is going to be president again and project 2025 comes to fruition.
And let’s be realistic here: zealotry, whether its religious or ideological, will always happen. My point is that you shouldn’t punish the many for the crimes of the few.
Yes, some people in religions can hold delusional beliefs. However, there are also people who release their delusions and instead hold onto unfalsifiable beliefs. There are also people who try to merge their religion into reality and are willing to change their mind on the attributes of their religion. However, there are many aspects of religion that do not have proveably false natures. There are people who haven’t been shown how their beliefs conflict with reality. You are just as bad as the theists if you wish to harm or outlaw the freedom of religion these people have. You are going after the freedoms of millions if not billions of innocent people because of the actions of some radicals with power. It goes back to my previous statement. You’re advocating a similar thing to what they are.
This shows me how radicalized you may be. 2 wrongs do NOT make a right. Yes, there are some people who have radicalized hard into their religion to the point of zealotry. If you do the same, you’ll fall into similar pitfalls. The radicalized people who are gaining political power do need to be stopped, i agree. However, you can not assume that all religious people believe the same as the radicals. There are a huge number of people you would persecute that would agree with you politically but disagree with you on the notion of god. You are falling into the same evils you seek to destroy. If you fight fire with fire, you’ll see everything burn. If you claim to be morally superior, don’t commit the same crimes as the accused.
I’d like to know what your definition of mental disorder is as that may make it clearer where our disagreement lies. My definition would be a condition that has a clinical effect on a persons psychological well-being as diagnosed by a professional using the DSM as diagnostic standards.
I’m sorry and I’m not defending the actions of people who believe in chriatianity by saying this but, you cant blame the actions of a large group of people on one individual. You really need to look in the mirror. Much of the things you’ve said are abominable. Yes the things that christians advocate are also abominable, but you really need to take a step back and look at your own beliefs. Or perhaps ive misunderstood what you’ve typed. If that’s the case, i think you need to learn to word things less accusatory and ask more questions. Accusing someone will only put them on the defensive, and the conversation will stop there. You are putting the sins of the many, many different people and diverse beliefs on to one person that may disagree with some of them. I also dislike christianity but there is a big difference between a person and an ideology.
If you create someone, a living thinking person,do you have authority to destroy them? I’d say you do not. Do your parents have the right to destroy you? No, they do not. So why does god have this privilege?
I’m not saying I’m feeding into their persecution complex. I was saying that you are. Telling them that the religion they identify so strongly with should be destroyed just makes them feel justified in their belief.
I have a question, suppose that a different god or being did all the things said in the bible attributed to god. Are these deaths and atrocities still moral? Are they good because god did them? Or are they inherent good things to do? What if you were the one who started the flood or unleashed the plagues or anything else like that? Is the act still moral? Is the death of thousands if not moral at that point?
I disagree with the notion that religion is a mental disorder. I myself don’t subscribe to religion or the notion of a god, but you need to be careful with how you say things like this as this will feed into christian feelings of persecution. This kind of rhetoric is exactly what the christian god has done. Cleanse the unbelievers because they’re evil. Do not commit the same failure that this other guy is. We can’t commit the same crimes as the proposed yaweh and think ourselves morally superior.
Yes, I’d rather believe in something real.
The company has gotta compensate for inflation somehow, right? They dont want to actually pay their employees, no no no, that would cut into profit. They have to make even more money so they push it onto the customer. Agreed honestly fuck this shit.