Warbler

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

I don’t take you seriously because I don’t believe you really want to die. People who think life isn’t worth living don’t spend their time debating topics that are largely about quality of life.

I find this post terribly irresponsible. What if you’re wrong?

That would be unfortunate. mfm should seek help, but he’s said repeatedly he won’t seek any form of treatment.

I’d like him to stop referencing the meaninglessness of life as if it’s a supporting argument. I’d also like him to stop mapping his feelings about life and death onto everyone else (“Why would anyone want to live longer?”). Whether he really wants to die or not, almost everyone else doesn’t. I won’t indulge that. Suicide has affected me personally several times. I can assure you I take it seriously.

I don’t like being referred to as though I’m not present. If you find me so objectionable then tell me, don’t talk to other people about me like I’m an animal or child.

He was responding to Frink. When person X talks to person Y about person Z and person Y responds to person X, person Y is normally going to refer to person Z in the third person.

TV’s Frink said:

What in the actual fuck?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/melania-trump-wear-jacket-visiting-children-separated-families/

It is either 1 of two things.

1. She and/or those advising her are incredibly stupid to not realize how this would look.
2. She deliberately wore the jacket because she wanted to send just that message about the splitting of parents and children.

Either way, its bad.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

It seems shortsighted to dwell so much on whether families are kept together

Tell that to the toddler crying for its mommy.

My Spanish probably isn’t up to the job but it’s no easier to explain to a toddler why she was carried through the desert or why she can’t stay.

um… when did you last explain anything to a toddler?

nothing, nothing compares to the anguish a toddler feels when their mom is not with them. and i am just talking about a 1 hour trip to the grocery store. if a toddler had to leave home, sure that is sad, but if they are with their mom/dad? not anguish.

Whenever a person commits an offense resulting in separation from children that is very hard for the children. Typically the parents should have to answer for that.

did you know that the majority of these separations being complained about, are from those attempting to seek asylum? yeah, lets punish them for fleeing a shitty situation. get educated. to say what jay says, do some research it isn’t my job to do it for you.

Asylum isn’t a magic word that let’s people stay.

As usual, I don’t get it.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

The decision to prosecute all who enter illegally is a hard choice. I know it’s easy to think of Trump as a combover twirling villain who enjoys inflicting hardship but illegal immigration has been rampant and unless we are going to do nothing about it, hardships will continue.

This isn’t true. Illegal immigration isn’t a problem now and it hasn’t been in recent memory, if ever.

You’re drunk.

Mrebo said:

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

It seems shortsighted to dwell so much on whether families are kept together

Tell that to the toddler crying for its mommy.

My Spanish probably isn’t up to the job but it’s no easier to explain to a toddler why she was carried through the desert or why she can’t stay.

um… when did you last explain anything to a toddler?

nothing, nothing compares to the anguish a toddler feels when their mom is not with them. and i am just talking about a 1 hour trip to the grocery store. if a toddler had to leave home, sure that is sad, but if they are with their mom/dad? not anguish.

Whenever a person commits an offense resulting in separation from children that is very hard for the children. Typically the parents should have to answer for that.

did you know that the majority of these separations being complained about, are from those attempting to seek asylum? yeah, lets punish them for fleeing a shitty situation. get educated. to say what jay says, do some research it isn’t my job to do it for you.

Asylum isn’t a magic word that let’s people stay. Generally the people are coming here because their own countries are lousy. Doesn’t mean they have a right to enter.

I thought we had some sort of process in place for those requesting asylum? Did many people come here from communist countries and request asylum?

Mrebo said:

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

It seems shortsighted to dwell so much on whether families are kept together

Tell that to the toddler crying for its mommy.

My Spanish probably isn’t up to the job but it’s no easier to explain to a toddler why she was carried through the desert or why she can’t stay.

um… when did you last explain anything to a toddler?

nothing, nothing compares to the anguish a toddler feels when their mom is not with them. and i am just talking about a 1 hour trip to the grocery store. if a toddler had to leave home, sure that is sad, but if they are with their mom/dad? not anguish.

Whenever a person commits an offense resulting in separation from children that is very hard for the children. Typically the parents should have to answer for that.

The public perception is that crossing the border illegally is not as bad as a lot of other crimes. Keep in mind some are doing so to avoid persecution.

The question is whether it is practical and legal to keep families together when parents are prosecuted. Generally, as I wager you know, the answer is “no.”

The other question is whether or not all the parents we are prosecuting, should be prosecuted.

To address separation for violation of immigration laws, it appears that it does require a change in law and spending a lot more money. As Jay said a couple pages back, maybe Repubs should accept that as a cost of cutting down illegal immigration.

possibly true.

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Jay said:

https://twitter.com/ImmCivilRights/status/1008902662828511232

It was bad policy when Obama and the Democrats supported it and it’s bad policy now, but it’s a travesty now because the media tells you it is and there are elections in a few months.

Jay, i can see some differences:

1. as you like to remind us (and pretend you are the only one who realizes), Governing involves hard choices. Presidents can’t make everything ‘good’.
2. It sure seems like Obama wasn’t in love with what he was doing. Trump on the other hand is.

do you see the difference?

The difference I see is that you view Obama as having made a difficult choice, and Trump as doing something he loves. This is absurd.

It is not all that absurd considering the things he has said.

You realize you can’t attack policy differences because there are none, so instead you attack the man based on your perceptions of him.

I don’t know about anyone else, but my perceptions of him are formed by what he has said and done.

Just call Trump “Hitler” already and spare us any illusion of there being a policy debate here.

I don’t call him Hitler, but I do call him a selfish jerk, a sexist, an egotist, a bully, a constant liar, probably a racist, need I go on?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Lol at the idea that Trump is trying to solve anything.

As snark, fine. But what do you think he’s trying to do?

Win. That’s all he’s ever cared about his whole life.

And $

$ = winning

To Trump, yes.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

It seems shortsighted to dwell so much on whether families are kept together

Tell that to the toddler crying for its mommy.

My Spanish probably isn’t up to the job but it’s no easier to explain to a toddler why she was carried through the desert or why she can’t stay.

I think we should focus on addressing the overall problem because as it exists now millions of people are going to keep being hurt in ways large and small, even when you’re not seeing headlines.

I am not necessarily saying you are wrong, what I am saying that toddler crying for its Mommy, that matters. The overall problem matters too, but so does the toddler crying for its Mommy.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Trump is trying to solve the illegal immigration issue.

By building a wall costing zillions and bsing about how he’s going to get Mexico to pay for it?

Apparently that is part of his chosen approach.

Do you agree with me that the idea is totally insane?

1. It would cost waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too much.
2. It would take years to get all the property needed(no doubt they would need to acquire a whole lot of what is currently private property).
3. It would take years and years before the thing is finally finished and during that time we would still have an immigration problem.
4. It would take a huge amount money to pay for all the man power to guard the way and make sure people didn’t try to climb over it.
5. What is to stop people from tunneling under it?
6. There is no way in hell Mexico is going to pay for it.
7. This is America, not Berlin.

Am I wrong in any of this?

Mrebo said:

It seems shortsighted to dwell so much on whether families are kept together

Tell that to the toddler crying for its mommy.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Lol at the idea that Trump is trying to solve anything.

As snark, fine. But what do you think he’s trying to do?

Win. That’s all he’s ever cared about his whole life.

And $

Mrebo said:

Trump is trying to solve the illegal immigration issue.

By building a wall costing zillions and bsing about how he’s going to get Mexico to pay for it?

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Scripture existed before the Pope. When someone asks you for proof of the Pope’s authority, what do you do? You show him scripture.

My beliefs aren’t based on historical justification, they are based on faith.

Possessed said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I very rarely leave my house, but I’ve decided that if I ever find myself present at a performance of the National Anthem, I won’t stand.

The Warbler will see you now

What would be the point?

I’d still like to know how he is going to get Mexico to pay for the wall.

Mrebo said:

In book I’ve been reading, this guy’s work translating the bible (really he oversaw the work) is discussed. Pretty interesting the interpretations we accept as legitimate.

Unfortunately I would have to subscribe to read the entire article. The problem with Thought for Thought translation is are you translating the text means or what you think the text means.

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Well, I haven’t the sufficient expertise to argue the history with you, so I won’t at this time.

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us),

Why are making the distinction?

The Catholic Church existed before Protestantism, so the Catholic interpretation is older.

I still don’t see the reason to make a distinction between saying “we interpret it differently than Protestants” and “Protestants interpret it differently than us”. It is the same thing. Protestants and Catholics interpret the scripture differently.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

Tyndall would like a word with you on that subject.

Tyndale’s translation was in fact ideological. Among other things, he sought to undermine the clergy and translated the Greek word ekklesia with “congregation” rather than “church,” essentially undermining the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Basically he was imposing his own ideas on what Scripture was saying, and the Catholic Church did not want him to mislead people. It was wrong to execute him, but in the Church’s view, souls were at stake.

Well I am not expert on the accuracy of Tyndale’s translation. But from what I know, I think it was more than just the Catholic church objecting to bad translation, it was objecting to translating the Bible from Latin into English and other languages. I am pretty sure there was Catholic opposition to the KJV.

chyron8472 said:

“Rey is a [sexist term meaning inexplicably overpowered female badass]”

I could be wrong, but I think there some debate going on about whether or not the term is actually sexist.

Okay, maybe I am confused as to what was going on with MalàStrana.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

Not that I’m complaining, but why was MalàStrana banned?

https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Star-Wars-Episode-VII-VIII-IX-George-Lucas-original-story-outline-scripts-treatments-or-his-ideas/id/17833/page/3#1216922

This is why I don’t post in the Star Wars section or talk about the new films anymore.

RicOlie_2 said:

we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us),

Why are making the distinction?

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

Tyndall would like a word with you on that subject.

Jay said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

chyron8472 said:

Jay said:

I suggested he go read up on it himself. If he found something to counter what I posted, he’d be perfectly welcome to share it and refute what I said. I’m open to being proven wrong and corrected.

But you said you’re not going to post articles to back up your claims.

So not only do I have to find sources to inform myself, but also to prove you’re not blowing smoke when responding to the conversation.

If you want to give credibility to things you say in a debate, you need to cite where you get your information from.

 
You acted like citing sources in this thread to substantiate an argument is an infantile activity. As though such a practice is beneath you.

Frink did your reading for you, see above. It editorializes in parts, but it’s not grossly unfair.

Not the point. Cite your own sources. The fact that this is an informal, non-scientific, non-academic setting is irrelevant to the importance of proving you’re not making things up in a persuasive argument.

I have nothing to prove. If you smell bullshit, do your own research.

Usually, When someone makes a claim, I see nothing wrong with someone else asking for evidence that the claim is true(unless we are talking about claiming something extremely obvious like 1 + 1 equaling 2). If you don’t wish to provide it, okay, but be surprised if people don’t accept your claim as the gospel truth. Just saying.

I don’t expect anyone to take my posts as gospel. I express my opinions on political matters like anyone else, and people are free to accept or ignore as they see fit.

They would be more likely to accept if you provided evidence. Normally, the burden of evidence is on the person making the claim as opposed to the person disagreeing with claim.