chyron8472

TV’s Frink said:

I bother expanding gay ice creams.

moviefreakedmind said:

My older sister is my favorite person on the planet, by far.

My older sister and I are friendly, but I do not count her as a “friend”. A close acquaintance, maybe. She watches my kiddo sometimes, and we can have a reasonable conversation about random things (in a group, say at a family party). However, she and I don’t have any similar interests but one, never hang out for any particular reason, and we don’t seek out each other’s opinion on really anything.

suspiciouscoffee said:

If I had kids, and I never will, I wouldn’t care too much about the harmless kids shows they watch on TV. I would, however, not let them on YouTube or other online video places, where the content aimed at young kids is genuinely terrifying.

(I didn’t click on that.) My wife and I watch family-friendly Let’s Plays of video games sometimes, but instead of watching them on Youtube, I download them and watch them through my media server because of the inapproprate ads that show up regularly on Youtube. My daughter can watch someone play Yoshi’s Wooly World or Wind Waker, but she doesn’t need to watch the R-rated movie trailer that pops up mid-stream.

Besides, the Youtuber would probably get more money from me if I sent them $5 on Patreon than by my meager number of views.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

There’s good lessons in shows with less pink talking animals in them.

Cool.

I’ll look for parenting advice elsewhere though.

HA! hehehe…

Indeed.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I haven’t seen Bill Nye Saves the World but the main problems people have with him is that he’s harsh on climate change deniers and he differentiates sex and gender.

The problems I have with both NDT and Nye are that they should stick to teaching science and quit dumping their opinions about philosophical and cultural matters. It’s like they can assert, because they are science celebrities, other not-scientific random crap they opine.

Just like you and I can assert, because we log on to a forum, other not-relevant-to-our-respective-day-jobs random crap that we opine!

I seriously have no idea what the problem is here.

The problem is the people that listen to celebrities who talk about things they may-or-may-not know what they are talking about.

FTFY

Yes

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I haven’t seen Bill Nye Saves the World but the main problems people have with him is that he’s harsh on climate change deniers and he differentiates sex and gender.

The problems I have with both NDT and Nye are that they should stick to teaching science and quit dumping their opinions about philosophical and cultural matters. It’s like they can assert, because they are science celebrities, other not-scientific random crap they opine.

Just like you and I can assert, because we log on to a forum, other not-relevant-to-our-respective-day-jobs random crap that we opine!

I seriously have no idea what the problem is here.

The problem is the people that listen to celebrities who talk about things they may-or-may-not know what they are talking about.

FTFY

Yes and no. People who are public role models should understand that they are public role models and behave accordingly. People shouldn’t listen to them as much, sure, but also they can learn to keep their mouths shut.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I haven’t seen Bill Nye Saves the World but the main problems people have with him is that he’s harsh on climate change deniers and he differentiates sex and gender.

The problems I have with both NDT and Nye are that they should stick to teaching science and quit dumping their opinions about philosophical and cultural matters. It’s like they can assert, because they are science celebrities, other not-scientific random crap they opine.

Just like you and I can assert, because we log on to a forum, other not-relevant-to-our-respective-day-jobs random crap that we opine!

I seriously have no idea what the problem is here.

The problem is they are famous and use their fame as a soapbox for [you-don’t-know-what-you’re-talking-about]. People give more weight to their opinion than is warranted because of that popularity.

moviefreakedmind said:

I haven’t seen Bill Nye Saves the World but the main problems people have with him is that he’s harsh on climate change deniers and he differentiates sex and gender.

The problems I have with both NDT and Nye are that they should stick to teaching science and quit dumping their opinions about philosophical and cultural matters. It’s like they can assert, because they are science celebrities, other not-scientific random crap they opine.

It’s like when people point out that religious leaders shouldn’t tell you how to vote, and that politicians shouldn’t tell you how to pray. They should stick to science and pull the stick out for other matters that are not their field.

Trident said:

So are we all if we’re measuring approval ratings by skin color

Not necessarily. Measuring the opinions of a demographic, while using a common physical feature for them to refer to them, does not make one bigoted.

I don’t really like Neil Degrass Tyson or Bill Nye.

I feel like they’re more celebrities than actual scientists.

paja said:

And there is also a Star Wars sale on GOG.com

https://www.gog.com/games?sort=popularity&search=star wars&page=1

Thanks for that.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I wanna talked gooder.

I’m having trouble going back to sleep after a thunderstorm woke me up and my stomach kind of hurts.

Took some Tums, now waiting for my stomach to stop bothering me.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

JEDIT: /s

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t listen to anything Kanye (West) says

WYSHS

I know I shouldn’t but the star of Space Jam on money would be awesome.

Then we should put Bill Murray on the $2, Gandalf on the $10, Mario on the $1, and Captain James T. Kirk on the $5.

JEDIT: /s

Possessed said:

Polytheistic religions just seeing multiple advanced beings and calling them all gods because thats how they interpret them, and the one God most believe in May well just be one of them.

In fact, Paul went to Rome, where they had a monument to the “unknown god”, just to hedge their bets to make sure they didn’t leave any god(s) out at risk of angering them, and he told them that that god is actually God Himself.

JEDIT: Wait, I read your post wrong. You’re saying the ancient polytheistic gods might have existed and if so been like the Stargate Goa’uld?

darthrush said:

What I’m getting at, is that spiritual experiences are entirely subjective, and since people get different answers, how can there be one true god?

Because God’s relationship with me is not necessarily identical to His relationship with someone else; someone else might be nearer or further in that relationship to where they started; they might have different experiences and struggles in life which God is with them through; because God is greater and more complex than to be fit into a simple box with a distinctly defined shape, that when you look into it everyone sees the same thing; and because the Body of Christ has several different parts—hands, eyes, feet, et al.—and none can say it is more important than another, while at the same time they may not understand each other’s function or purpose.

Mrebo said:

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

Well it’s like I said the Bible was written by men thousands of years ago so you can’t really take much of what it says literally. I don’t care much for the Bible, that doesn’t mean I can’t believe in God.

Of course you can believe in God. It just doesn’t make you right. Or wrong. You’re just guessing along with everyone else with an opinion on it.

Obviously

I know but some people think it’s not only not obvious, it’s in fact wrong.

Bet chyron thinks the existence of God is obvious.

To me.

Sure. But assuming you don’t think yourself specially endowed with God sensing power, it’s something that could be obvious to anyone. They just have to know where to look.

Yes.

The Bible says the Spirit reveals the truth of God, and that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who don’t believe because they rely solely on miracles and the wisdom of man in their attempt to find Him.

So if someone wanted God to reveal Himself to them, He will—but by His Spirit, not because we are wise.

Rogue-theX said:

chyron8472 said:
…and that Jesus himself vehemently chastized such self-righteous people.

Can you go into this with a bit more detail? Who did he chastize? why? How?

Thanks 😃

Matthew 23 New Living Translation (NLT)
Jesus Criticizes the Religious Leaders

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach. They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden.

“Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear robes with extra long tassels. And they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the seats of honor in the synagogues. They love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Rabbi.’

“Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters. And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your Father. And don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher,’ for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be a servant. But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell you yourselves are!

“Blind guides! What sorrow awaits you! For you say that it means nothing to swear ‘by God’s Temple,’ but that it is binding to swear ‘by the gold in the Temple.’ Blind fools! Which is more important—the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred? And you say that to swear ‘by the altar’ is not binding, but to swear ‘by the gifts on the altar’ is binding. How blind! For which is more important—the gift on the altar or the altar that makes the gift sacred? When you swear ‘by the altar,’ you are swearing by it and by everything on it. And when you swear ‘by the Temple,’ you are swearing by it and by God, who lives in it. And when you swear ‘by heaven,’ you are swearing by the throne of God and by God, who sits on the throne.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the law—justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things. Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy—full of greed and self-indulgence! You blind Pharisee! First wash the inside of the cup and the dish, and then the outside will become clean, too.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity. Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed. Then you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would never have joined them in killing the prophets.’

“But in saying that, you testify against yourselves that you are indeed the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead and finish what your ancestors started. Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?

“Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. I tell you the truth, this judgment will fall on this very generation.

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

Well it’s like I said the Bible was written by men thousands of years ago so you can’t really take much of what it says literally. I don’t care much for the Bible, that doesn’t mean I can’t believe in God.

Of course you can believe in God. It just doesn’t make you right. Or wrong. You’re just guessing along with everyone else with an opinion on it.

Obviously

I know but some people think it’s not only not obvious, it’s in fact wrong.

Bet chyron thinks the existence of God is obvious.

To me.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The latter part regarding the misogyny and anti-gay stuff is the kind of religiosity I’m referring to when I say that we shouldn’t be expected to respect religion. If you think that homosexuality is a crime against god, then I don’t respect your opinion and I don’t think that anyone should respect your opinion. If you believe women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, or should be forced to wrap themselves in burkas and other oppressive garb, then I don’t respect your opinion. The list goes on and on. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I find all of those individuals that think that way to be totally unworthy of respect, but their religious views are. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable and no one else should either.

If I’m allowed to play devil’s advocate (guess chyron needs new representation), it wasn’t long ago that the consensus thought oppositely: that accepting gender norm heresies meant one’s opinion didn’t deserve respect.

The tables have turned on religion, at least in most Western countries, but how are we to grapple with “truth” in an objective way? Is it all about consensus?

How about just letting people live their lives?

People generally don’t do that. They enjoy poking in other peoples’ business and telling them how to think. …Members of this forum are also not exempt.

There’s a big difference between telling you that your opinion on X movie is silly and telling suspiciouscoffee that he shouldn’t be gay because it’s a sin against God and he’s going to hell unless he “converts.”

Yes, there’s a difference between [being civil about] X, and [being mean about] Y. And, speaking for myself, I haven’t said that about coffee. In fact, I have said the reverse—that it’s not directly about the following of rules and that Jesus himself vehemently chastized such self-righteous people.

But people even on this forum often don’t just stop at saying opposing view in general is “silly”. The TLJ Review Thread is evidence enough of that. And that’s my point. Correlation does not imply causation.

There’s no relation or comparison between how religion often treats people different than themselves, and how people act in the TLJ Review Thread. None.

Just because you do not acknowledge the comparison as evidence that people in general can be mean-spirited, that doesn’t mean there isn’t one to be made.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The latter part regarding the misogyny and anti-gay stuff is the kind of religiosity I’m referring to when I say that we shouldn’t be expected to respect religion. If you think that homosexuality is a crime against god, then I don’t respect your opinion and I don’t think that anyone should respect your opinion. If you believe women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, or should be forced to wrap themselves in burkas and other oppressive garb, then I don’t respect your opinion. The list goes on and on. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I find all of those individuals that think that way to be totally unworthy of respect, but their religious views are. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable and no one else should either.

If I’m allowed to play devil’s advocate (guess chyron needs new representation), it wasn’t long ago that the consensus thought oppositely: that accepting gender norm heresies meant one’s opinion didn’t deserve respect.

The tables have turned on religion, at least in most Western countries, but how are we to grapple with “truth” in an objective way? Is it all about consensus?

How about just letting people live their lives?

People generally don’t do that. They enjoy poking in other peoples’ business and telling them how to think. …Members of this forum are also not exempt.

There’s a big difference between telling you that your opinion on X movie is silly and telling suspiciouscoffee that he shouldn’t be gay because it’s a sin against God and he’s going to hell unless he “converts.”

Yes, there’s a difference between [being civil about] X, and [being mean about] Y. And, speaking for myself, I haven’t said that about coffee. In fact, I have said the reverse—that it’s not directly about the following of rules and that Jesus himself vehemently chastized such self-righteous people.

But people even on this forum often don’t just stop at saying opposing view in general is “silly”. The TLJ Review Thread is evidence enough of that. And that’s my point. Correlation does not imply causation.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The latter part regarding the misogyny and anti-gay stuff is the kind of religiosity I’m referring to when I say that we shouldn’t be expected to respect religion. If you think that homosexuality is a crime against god, then I don’t respect your opinion and I don’t think that anyone should respect your opinion. If you believe women shouldn’t be allowed to drive, or should be forced to wrap themselves in burkas and other oppressive garb, then I don’t respect your opinion. The list goes on and on. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I find all of those individuals that think that way to be totally unworthy of respect, but their religious views are. I don’t think that that’s unreasonable and no one else should either.

If I’m allowed to play devil’s advocate (guess chyron needs new representation), it wasn’t long ago that the consensus thought oppositely: that accepting gender norm heresies meant one’s opinion didn’t deserve respect.

The tables have turned on religion, at least in most Western countries, but how are we to grapple with “truth” in an objective way? Is it all about consensus?

How about just letting people live their lives?

People generally don’t do that. They enjoy poking in other peoples’ business and telling them how to think. …Members of this forum are also not exempt.

Possessed said:

Well it’s like I said the Bible was written by men thousands of years ago so you can’t really take much of what it says literally.

Are you saying that anything written thousands of years ago can’t be taken literally, because writings thousands of years ago weren’t even then reliable? Like, people who lived so long ago were generally stupid?

Or are you speaking specifically to the fact that their scientific understanding was comparatively limited?

JEDIT: That was a question, not intended as a jab.

I’ve been catching up on this thread. People keep asking why Luke died.

According to the novelization, Luke gave himself over to the Force. Luke, before disappearing, even thought he heard the voice of Obi-Wan saying “Let go, Luke…”.

If you think about it, Obi-Wan and Yoda also gave themselves over to the Force in a similar fashion, especially since Obi-Wan disappeared an the moment before Vader’s saber hit him.