Page #129
Pages: #1... #124 #125 #126 #127 #128 #129 #130 #131 #132 #133 ...#201|
Started by #610414 [Ignore] 14,May,20 02:51
New Comment Rating: 3 Similar topics: 1.Food stuff 2.STUFF, JUST STUFF 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 4.A Forum Topic 5.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
What is it that you believe in Biden? That gas prices will go higher and food prices, and will you be the first to buy a electric car? Should we buy oil from Russia, Iran and not drill our own?
CAT
First, Xoner, I would like it if you would use this thread in the forums. It’s a lot easier.
You ask what I believe in Biden. I believe that Biden is a more honest person. I didn’t vote for him because he had a great agenda. I vote AGAINST Trump. You and many people blame Biden for the high cost of gas and food. I say it could happen to any President. What’s more, you complain but don’t provide proof Biden did something specific, like imposing tariffs on China goods. That caused shortages that brought prices up. During the height of the pandemic it didn’t matter that much, but now? WOW!! As far as gas prices, why are the oil companies making obscene profits? Remember, in this country, government can’t touch them.
So, Xoner, how would YOU handle it differently?
Every business he ever started himself failed miserably. Because a lot of his endeavors were laced with fraud, he saw the inside of the courtroom more than his work office.
He has been bad businessman, but a pretty successful swindler all of his life.
If you think highly of his business skills, you just fell for his boasting, his one and only truly amazing skill. Unfortunately, it's not a skill that makes a good president.
If that makes you think that I should love Biden than, you're mistaken. Biden started
his career in politics, by standing in front of big donors, asking for money, promising to prostitute himself for them.
only registered users can see external links
He said it as a joke, but unfortunately, it was also the truth. Republicans don't joke about that, they take sucking off big donors very seriously. But, it shows Biden never was anything else than a standard politician. Only a handful of politicians actually work for people, like Bernie Sanders has done his whole career. The rest of them give all their time and effort to help their donors make more money, by screwing their employees. They sometimes throw a bone to their voters, who have been trained to only care about stupid culture war bullshit. All Republicans and most Democrats work for their donors, like big oil, that makes record profits now, while lots of people struggle to pay for gas,
to go to their 80 hour/week jobs, so they can rent a one room apartment.
a bit. However, because I don't get to vote, I'm not feeling any loyalty to either party, like so many Americans do. That doesn't mean I'm neutral, that just means I'm nonpartisan. Most of you feel the need to defend 'their' party, because of some feeling of loyalty. Many of you were raised to think they're even part of your identity.
I don't have that bias. I'm a lefty and in my country I have 5 parties to chose from.
If I lived in your country, I would probably feel the need to vote for the Democrats,
but I would do it with gag reflexes, because they are just as right-wing as our main right-wing corporate party, that has been in power since 2010 and made a damn mess of everything.
However, I do have a dog in the hunt. America has huge influence over the rest of the world. When your banks failed due to risky bets, we had a recession that lasted for years. When the US goes to war, over a terrorist attack in the US, we get pulled into it and the terrorism that resulted of it killed people in our counties too. When you vote for a wannabe dictator with his fingers on the button, all our lives are on the line.
--------------------------------------- added after 10 minutes
Xoner, Fact check: Despite claims of Trump-era 'energy independence,' the US never stopped importing foreign oil.
But, either way, Trump did not contribute to any oil surplus than any other president. You say you didn’t vote for a Sunday school teacher, fine, but then you are saying it’s ok for a president to be a lying degenerate that started an insurrection to bring down our form of government.
I hope you never have to use it .BUT it beats the alternative of being homeless because a business venture failed or the medical bills were to high.
A good businessman is a good job provider, right?
The idea was that Trump would make a good president, because he was
a good businessman. He wasn't!
Trump is just an heir to a big business. It takes no skills to keep a big business going, you just hire good people to run it. Trump said he 'hires the best people'. No he didn't, he hired a lot of crooks and that's why so many of them have seen prison.
Ivana Trump is buried at Donald Trump’s New Jersey golf club. Could that mean a tax break for the former president?
Ivana Trump's burial place is now garnering suspicion that its location could mean tax breaks for her ex-husband, former President Donald Trump.
Did SHE already have the spot BEFORE she divorced him?
This could have all been arranged a long time ago.
IF so, then oh well, that is why you are not as rich as Trump, you haven't got accountants and lawyers to help you make money and KEEP IT.
1 time,and 1 time only, did I reach in to get a egg from a nest and it did not have a shell,only that thin membrane that is usually inside the shell.
I guess the chicken got lazy?
All I know is, I dropped it trying to get it out of there and it bounced 1 time from about a 2 foot drop and then SPLATTERED all over me and the poor hen.
Aug 1, 20:29 system: You were blacklisted by tasha
She even gifted me with an inappropriate gift. The thing is that members like this one are too chickenshit to face those they blacklist.
My question to the group, “Should I reciprocate or wait till this snake disappears?”
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Interesting film.
Republicans voted down healthcare for veterans, just to screw Democrats:
only registered users can see external links
Jon Stewart has been fighting with the veterans for their healthcare for years now:
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Which famous right-wingers are helping veterans to get their healthcare
that they are entitled to by law?
Fox News bothered to write about it:
only registered users can see external links
Off course they let Jon Stewart speak for just 5 seconds:
only registered users can see external links
Or they cover it in 30 seconds:
only registered users can see external links
Fox News refused to have Jon Stewart on to talk about veterans' healthcare
'We’ve been begging':
only registered users can see external links
Because they 'support the troop' only when they are dying abroad, not when they're
dying at home, from being poisoned abroad.
--------------------------------------- added after 122 hours
Finally, your politicians listened to your veterans and gave them the healthcare they have earned.
However, it took an absolute vicious shame campaign by Jon Stewart, to change their minds, because they were determined to fuck over your veterans again.
Off course to get the Republicans to vote for that healthcare, Democrats must have promised to say nothing negative about those fucking assholes and say it was a bipartisan effort. See this weak messaging:
only registered users can see external links
Democrats should have vilified those Republicans who voted against the veterans.
Republican politicians are horrible, vindictive hypocrites. They praise veterans all the time, but fuck them over whenever they can.
Democrats can be hypocrites too and then Republicans shout that from the rooftops.
Democrats should have had the balls to not make a deal with Republicans, but to shout about this appalling display of hypocrisy, until Republicans begged to make it right.
It was just another display of pure evil from Republicans and more weakness from Democrats. When will voters finally learn who are against them and when will Democrats finally learn how to fight?
A reaction to that opinion piece, from the Amazing Atheist:
"Christofascist Karen Wants Theocracy!"
only registered users can see external links
Should the law be inspired by religion? And if so, which one and why?
Atheist lack any moral or other type of compass in life, they run rampant and wonder why disease and death and hatred rule the earth. They don't want any rules, don't believe in respect of life, property or responsibility either.
free for all chaos.
Religion in it's elementary form ,regardless of which 1, gives people a direction, a road map. That is why church and state are separate in the US. 2 forms of government.
Fuck any kind of belief system.
Morality has nothing to do with beliefs.
Get a grip.
Why are you on sex site if you care about religion?
I am on a site like this out of curiosity mostly.
What does it mean when someone has no moral compass?
Without an ethic (moral system) one has no philosophical base for moral decision making. One has no moral compass. A moral compass is not a regulatory map but rather a social contract with those who one lives in community to act justly, fairly, morally, respectfully and compassionately.Sep 28, 2018
Sue, Phart. This from a man that by his own admission hasn't had it in years.😉😉
There are beliefs that are supported by good evidence; rational beliefs.
And there are beliefs that are not or insufficiently supported by evidence or
even contradicted by evidence. When they are laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true, we call those 'dogma'.
I don't accept a religious book or the words of a preacher as good evidence.
In the words of Matt Dillahunty:
“I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.”
Maybe you prefer the term 'conviction' better; accepting a proposition is true,
based on sufficient evidence.
If something isn't true, again, I won't say I don't believe it, I'll just say it's false and that's that.
If something is unknown then I'll say I don't know. If something is unknown but irrelevant then I'll say I don't care.
Anything that happened in the past few hundred years is written by the winners as cat says.
that is why the truth about our civil war is so hard to find now,the "winners" rewrote history.
The truth is that the civil war was fought over the right to maintain slavery.
There is nothing that the 'winners' changed on that fact, the history is clear.
But everywhere the right-wing is winning, they are trying to erase that history.
Your side is banning books, banning classes from schools and forcing professors to register their political views with (the) state. That's not just an effort to rewrite history, that's outright fascism.
Everyone thinks that what they believe is true.
My mission is to discuss those beliefs and hopefully help people shed some of their false beliefs. And what is very important is that I also am willing to shed (some of) my own false beliefs. People might think that I don't, but I would and I have, with valid arguments.
I recently changed a 'belief' on the 'big bang'. Theoretical physicists have been speculating that the whole universe began at a size smaller than one atom. They were not sure whether the size of the universe now is limited or infinite. They are still not sure, but many now think that if the universe is infinite, it has always been infinite. At the Big Bang, it was infinitely dense. Since then it has just been getting less dense as space has expanded. However, infinite keeps being infinite, even if it expands at incredible speeds. When I was presented with that idea, it conflicted with my 'belief' that the universe started as one very small point. I just understood the new idea and dropped the old idea, withing seconds. I didn't replace it with the new 'belief' yet, I just hold both ideas as possibilities, until the scientists provide me with more evidence.
On the subject of religion; I don't reject it, without having thought about it.
I never believed there was any truth in it, but I consider the implications, for
the 0.1% change there is truth in it. Pascal's wager is the idea that you better believe in god, because if he's real, you would go to hell if you don't. I think that is absolute nonsense, because it proposes a god, who is petty enough to punish people with hell, for just not believing in him (the idea he's male is also stupid). I see that as 0% chance. So, I hedge my bet and at least take an interest in religion and allow religious apologists the chance to convince me.
If they cannot present me with good arguments, it's god's own fault for not being evidently true, if someone with rationality cannot believe in them. If they are so petty to send me for hell to that, I don't care, because spending eternity with such a narrow-minded character is also hell.
Actually, I think the chance is higher that IF a god exists, they would reward the rationality to reject all the major religions, because they spread ignorance, division and oppression, which in my opinion is objectively evil.
There are no "facts" that we can fall back on.
So although you and leo agree you don't believe in anything, you believe something. You believe There is nothing. That somehow over the course of many years , atoms just lined up and formed for the most part, intelligent beings capable of reason and logic.
The idea of the Big bang, is that somehow from chance, the dominos landed just right.
How often have you thrown dominos? or played any game of chance? I don't do it often but when I do,the winning is very seldom.
That information, and logical thinking, tells me that the random chance of atoms lining up to make humans are slim.
I don't go to church every sunday .Mainly because of the hypocrisy. The church is falling apart as a whole because of the lgbtqxyz crowd infiltrating it. How can you say you hate the sin, but love the sinner if you allow them to be in a position to influence others to live the way they do instead of the way the Bible says?
And i could go on.But the point is,even I , with my limited knowledge can deduce that life as we know it is hardly random.
I think the ufo sightings for example, are about 40% real. It is quite possible the Gods that different religions came from are from elsewhere and brought the seeds of life here. If you look back at the limited education people had 1000's of years ago, the word GOD would be appropriate to describe a being of much higher intelligence and ability's than the people native to earth or are young in the species develpement. .
I guess you do.
Besides,if the earth was flat,cat's would have pushed us all off the edge and watched us drift away into the unknown.
However, even if there would be such a 'creator', I think all religions are just based on human created myths. I see no more value in them than in the myths of ancient Greece.
"atoms just lined up and formed for the most part, intelligent beings capable of reason and logic."
Over millions of years organic molecules reacted with each other to create a competing system of organic chemistry, which after lots more millions of years created the simplest form of life. Evolution started long before life, but once evolution starts, it can in the end result in intelligent beings capable of reason and logic. If you think that is a random process, you don't understand evolution.
"the dominos landed just right." is an argument that is used by christian apologists. It is not known if the dominos could have landed any other way. It is also likely that there are an infinite number of universes and then it is only logical that we would find ourselves in one that supports life. That is not more of a stretch than thinking an intelligent created it, because that leaves an even bigger problem where the intelligence originated from. We see in this world that intelligence can only exist in a complex being and it is more unlikely that such a complex being is somehow created by random chance.
I see the panspermia hypothesis as possible, but unlikely. Life in the universe seems to be very scarce. There are probably other planets where life started, but if it started there, it could have started on our planet, which is very supportive for life. That is more likely than the beginning of life traveling and surviving a trip through space, where life is probably separated by at least tens or hundreds of light-years.
I don't care what the bible says, but it's such a mix bag of messages that people can claim it says anything. It is not clearly against all the things you say it is.
"I think the ufo sightings for example, are about 40% real." There is no claim, supported by less evidence, than aliens coming here in spacecrafts.
I certainly don't believe in that. And I also see no compatibility between the belief in a god and the belief in aliens. I really don't understand how you choose the things to believe in and the things to reject, but it is not guided
by evidence, that's for sure.
My core principles are based on humanism.
I shared my principle of morality before.
The only way to believe as many true things and as few false things
as possible, is gathering evidence and use logical reasoning.
For example, your statement "I think the ufo sightings for example, are about 40% real". Are you saying you think 60% of those ufo sightings are faked? Than, I might agree with that. Or are you saying that 40% are real visitors from outer space. Than I think you are crazy, or at least gullible (easily persuaded to believe something; credulous). There are many more plausible explanations. Have you heard of Occam's razor?
I don't know if anyone has done research on the percentage of fake UFO reports and 60% sounds low, but I would accept that number if it is presented by an independent investigator, who looked at all the UFO reports and determined the percentage of reports that turned out to be faked eventually or clearly shows signs of tampering (I have heard of one UFO photo that after image enhancing showed a well-known brand of light bulbs on the light behind the porthole of the flying saucer).
So, what about the rest of the reports? Do you think that the supposed 40% that we cannot prove are faked, or even when they are proven beyond a doubt to be legitimate UFO sightings, is evidence for extraterrestrial life, visiting Earth? Because there must be many other possibilities more likely than that. All those pictures and videos show some blurry, amorphous lights or blobs. What is the evidence that interstellar spacecrafts look like that?
It's not evidence for that, that we only see pictures of lights or blobs.
That's called circular reasoning. (If it was actually seen with the naked eye), it's way more likely that lights or blobs are created by physical distortions of light in air/gas pockets (like the mirror effect on hot roads) or bulb lightning.
The air-force is not using the term UFO (Unidentified Flying Objects) anymore for a reason. Calling a light or blob an 'object' is an assumption.
It requires evidence of substance to conclude the appearance is substantial, aka an object. Therefore the term used currently is UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). That is better, but the Aerial suggests there is actually something visible in the sky and many times it's not, it's just an interaction between light and the CAMERA. Even if I believe that the photograph or video is not faked, I still don't believe that people actually saw it with their naked eyes. The most likely hypothesis for any UFO report is that people are lying or mistaken. Claims are not evidence.
When I accept the claims of scientists, it's not because I trust their authority, but because I have examined their arguments, evidence and logic. Scientific consensus matters, but if they don't support their claims with evidence,
I don't accept them. I also consider the reliability of the science; one study without peer review is interesting, but not as reliable as decades of work that has resulted in thousands of peer reviewed articles, that are available to any scrutiny. If then there are a handful of scientists who try to scrutinize, but fail (refuted by peer review), that only legitimizes the articles more.
Then there is also the reliability of the scientists themselves. I trust publicly funded scientists more than privately funded scientists, who are dependent on companies with profit motives or political groups with political motives. When politicians get campaign donations from large companies, their political motives are almost as untrustworthy as the motives of the large companies themselves. That's why politicians shouldn't receive any money from large companies. The only source of money for politicians should be party membership contributions, with a reasonable maximum, affordable to almost everyone and government finances. They should not be allowed to accept donations (= bribes), trade in commodities or benefit from any specific business in any way, to assure their independence.
So you ask, does my Christ exists? Does my Allah? Does any religious deiety? That, my friend, is not a certainty. It is a belief.
However, whether God exists or not only matters if there is an afterlife and God has some control over what type of afterlife you get. Because, there is nothing you can say that would convince me that God has any hand in the current life. The world wouldn't suck for so many people, if God was good and had the power to make the world better. All the arguments that Christians use to justify that problem are unconvincing to me.
I also don't agree with how religion claims morality. Christians and Muslims make a mess of morality and no one can convince me a good God would approve of that type of morality. The God of the old testament would, but anyone who thinks that THAT God is good has many screws loose. Unfortunately that's a fucking lot of people, which convince me that the world would be better off without religion.
Still, I like the Christian holidays and the character of Christ. And I actually am annoyed when people who say to love Christ disrespect all his core values. People who preach 'fuck the poor', 'respect the rich', 'kill the thieves', 'bomb the Muslims', 'healthcare is a privilege' and 'hate the immigrants' are not Christians. An atheist like me makes a better Christian.
I don't need a bible to say 'Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.' Ephesians 4:32.
Absolute nonsense, atheists have a morality based on reason.
We just don't base our morality on the idea of a supernatural dictator.
It's simply based on the goal of treating others how they deserve to be treated
(as we would like to be treated ourselves) and minimizing suffering.
Atheist morality requires own responsibility to use logic and reasoning.
Religious morality is based more on what people are told to think and do.
Religious morality is based on punishment and reward in the afterlife.
Atheist morality is based on improving life, by improving the world.
To much left to interpretation.
Leo for example thinks it is perfectly fine to fuck someone's wife without their knowing. Where as other men may find it wrong.
Leo does not think it is wrong, the man may very well think it is punishable by rock to the head or worse.
So how does a atheist deal with that? at least with religion, there is a fear of punishment for wrong doing.As what is wrong is laid out in simple terms,the punishment is laid out.
I do say that if the woman wants then that's fine. They can have sex.
The woman's husband must learn that there's no biggy in his woman having sex with someone else. Likewise for other situations.
Monogamy isn't natural.
It's probably introduced by religious conventions.
Religion, however, has nothing to do with morality. Religion is based on unsubstantiated beliefs and so it can't decide or dictate anything.
Mr Phart, I'm not religious.
Mr Phart, I'm not atheist.
I just don't give a shit about one or the other. Can't you get it?
Mi vida no es exactamente parrandera, but, yes I can party, in addition to doing the more serious, often boring, but sometimes necessary stuff.
Que vive la música cubana y latinoamericana.
Gracias.
Who says there isn't? Do atheists not believe in laws?
I believe in laws, but they have to be based on the goal of treating others how they deserve to be treated (as we would like to be treated ourselves) and minimizing suffering.
Simple example; I wouldn't like to be murdered, so we have laws to prevent that.
I don't think there should be a law to prevent fucking someone's wife or husband, because couples are protected by laws to allow them to divorce a cheating spouse.
If the spouse, who is cheated on, thinks that it is 'punishable by rock to the head or worse', I don't agree and they should be punished for doing that, but maybe a bit less, because motives matter too.
No religion needed. Secular laws are superior, because they are not corrupted
by the antiquated idea that men own women like cattle, as endorsed in the bible.
"So how does a atheist deal with that? at least with religion, there is a fear of punishment for wrong doing."
LAWS!?! It's like you think a criminal only has to worry about the afterlife.
And that's from a guy who lives in the US, that has the highest incarceration rate
in the world.
So religion lays out in simple terms what is wrong?
The second commandment is "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images".
How many people are in jail for making graven images?
Or are visual artists all going to hell?
Don't try to argue with a guy who things it's good to be afraid of something. He's the creation of modern America, one of the millions of suckers created by the exploitation of capitalism and religion, once whose brain has been programmed to be afraid!
Wow!!! I've never in my life met anyone who explicitly promotes "fear of punishment for wrong doing". I knew these people existed but never actually met one. I'm sorry for the world and humanity.
--------------------------------------- added after 7 hours
Typo: things = thinks
Here is an atheist explaining why theists understand morality all wrong.
If you don't want to see the whole thing, I would recommend his example,
starting at 5 minutes.
only registered users can see external links
When I say "I don't care" I mean I reject all religions. So I don't care to follow any. Because I know that arguments based on beliefs are not valid.
Thanks for the link. I'll take a look.
I'm all about advancing knowledge. The difference between beliefs and knowledge is that the last is based on facts, research, logic and reasoning. People who think that morality cannot be based on facts, research, logic and reasoning are just wrong. Even their morality is based on that, even when it's flawed. This is what is explained in the video, by Matt Dillahunty. He takes his damn time, so if someone is only willing to spare a minute and a half, starting
at 5 minutes gives a basic, but good impression.
Makes sense.
I've always had a problem with the word "morality", especially when people associate it to myths like religion. I remember myself thinking, at the age of 12, that this is stupid.--------------------------------------- added after 91 secondsAnd then you have people, like this phart, who claim that "religion induces fear to people and fear makes them be moral".
This is the most shitty argument I've ever heard in my life.
The term 'morality' has been hijacked a lot by religion, while they pretend that some rules in a book, filled with child sacrifice, slavery, ra.pe, polygamy, in.ce.st, prostituting their own children, killing firstborns, cutting up concubines in 12 pieces after she was raped all night, and lots of other fucked-up things that people did thousands of years ago, should make one moral and just having discussions about how to live in harmony with each other, does not.
After all, not only religions preach childish stuff (yes, I've read many "holy" texts), but also differ from one another greatly. The choice of religion isn't according to any truth but according to the place one is born (more or less). For example, someone born in Tennessee is likely to be a southern Baptist and never be aware of, for instance, the bahai faith. Someone born in Saudi Arabia will, in all likelihood, start believing in Allah and not in Krishna. Hence religions are manmade stories. What's funnier is that extinct religions are referred to as mythologies. So Neptune is a mythical figure. But ask a Roman: he'd certainly disagree, or even punish you, if you called his god a mythical figure, a figure that appears in Disney cartoons or Japanese manga.
How is it then possible to say "I'll base my life on such and such religion". Why not base it in the Odyssey? Or in Mahabhatata. Or in the Avestas. Or in Kalevala. Or in Moby Dick. Or in cartoons. Or in science fiction. (There are religions, actually, based on science fiction: scientologism and raëlianism.)
Of course, Ku Klux Klaners, white supremacists, gun lovers, etc, and Phart, can't comprehend that. They base their lives on religions (well, they choose one, a very specific one) and on fear! They constantly live in fear! A fear that they themselves created. They created hell and live in it! How very pathetic!
This is the most RIDICULOUS argument ever uttered by someone who thinks he can think.
Living in fear of someone or something is the ultimate degradation, trivialization, dehumanization of one's humanity. Any religion (maybe all?) that base their teachings on fear are senseless. I understand that you're afraid of people in your community, so you have guns to kill them if they break into your house. I'm not afraid of that. You and others may be afraid of your gods or rulers or governors, I'm not. There's nobody I will put above me or others.
Your fear mentality and admission that others should also be afraid of something in order to behave belongs to an era when despots had to be afraid by people so that people be allowed to live. It explains why religions exist: because of people like you who claim that they need someone or something to be afraid of. Suckers like you. You create religions, you facilitate the existence of bosses who take advantage of you and destroy the very natures of democracy and free society.
I'm not afraid of anything dude. I'm happy and live as fairly and meaningfully as you can never even imagine.
I never fuck anyone without their knowing. I only fuck if they want a fuck. It has to be clear that they're very interested. Otherwise I don't fuck. I'm not a rap1st. Also, I'm fucking adult women. I'm not responsible for their family situation. They're responsible to tell or not their spouses, their parents, their siblings, their friends, their priests, their gods,
their bosses .... So long as they're happy fucking with me, I'm happy too and treat them exquisitely well. I love to make them feel loved and love to give them orgasms before me having any.
I'll show you again Mila's pussy. She's married. I fuck Mila frequently, for a few years now. I've no idea who knows that I'm fucking her. My girlfriend does know because I've an agreement with her: to tell her when I have sex with other women. Mila knows I'm on this site. I showed her your comments and asked her: "sgall we stop fucking because phart thinks I shouldn't be fucking you?" She just laughed and said "phart is a loser". And immediately afterwards we fucked.
Let me show you her pussy. I thoroughly enjoyed eating it, fingering it, and fucking it. It was especially funny because we kept taking about you while fucking.
Leo for example thinks it is perfectly fine to fuck someone's wife without their knowing. Where as other men may find it wrong.
[deleted image]
"Where as other men may find it wrong.
Leo does not think it is wrong, the man may very well think it is punishable by rock to the head or worse."
We live in western democracies governed by laws. There's no law against fucking a woman, so long as there's mutual consent. Laws aren't made by individuals.
They are basically only condoning sex, if it makes a woman pregnant.
But, as soon as the baby is born, they don't care anymore about it.
It's only use is be a serf, working for the lords.
They actually do have a point, if you think about it. Indeed, using guns means that you must buy them and so they make profit. It's money they care about, not about life.
STATEMENT 1.
Religion is a bunch of bullshit. (Especially the American types: baptists, anabaptists, evangelicals, Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists, reborn christians, etc.)
STATEMENT 2.
Laws should not (in principle) be based on bullshit.
THEREFORE:
The logical conclusion is....... ok I'll let you fill in the blanks.
You shall have no other God's before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. ...
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. ...
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy. ...
Honor your father and mother. ...
Thou shalt not kill. ...
Thou shalt not commit adultery. ...
Thou shalt not steal.
Let's see, How can I pass any kind of a law about theft,and it not even resemble number 10 on that list?
Oh and by the way so you won't think I didn't check,
Muslims don't like stealing either.
Theft (stealing in secret) is punished by the amputation of the offender's right hand, and armed or highway robbery may be punished by execution, crucifixion, or amputation of hands and feet from opposite sides of the body, depending on the severity of the offense.
How can I pass any kind of law regarding taking a life without there being some similarity with number 8?
Again, muslims are not big fans of murder either,
Capital punishment is prescribed for premeditated murder so as to implement the justice demanded in the Sharia. A sword or rifle is used for executions. Every sentence of capital punishment is reviewed up to the King before the execution is implemented.
How can I encourage people to be carful about sex to prevent monkey pox and aids and there not be some corelation with number 9?
How can parents discipline their kids , and it not be related to number 7?
granted there is not many laws that would relate to the other 6 but, to a point there is because how can government pass laws and hold citizens accountable without it being kin to some of those others?
No God before me? Um,so that black gal that carried pot into Russia is getting a good lesson on that as she left the US and took her attitudes and disrespect for laws to russia.And is in Jail for it.
I was trying to point out there is no way any government or laws could exist to keep the world in a shape as we know without at least being similar to religious teachings.
Most laws are influenced or inspired by religion.
New Comment Go to top