moviefreakedmind

TV’s Frink said:

Here we go again.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/622174783/why-are-they-shooting-anger-grows-in-pittsburgh-over-police-killing-of-black-tee

JEDIT: Apologies if already posted.

Police murder people on a daily basis. Most Americans don’t care.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

dahmage 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. Generally the people are coming here because their own countries are lousy. Doesn’t mean they have a right to enter.

Jay Harold Christ mrebo… of course it isn’t magic.

but locking up parents, and shipping off toddlers, when the parents came to SEEK ASSYLUM is fucking nuts, and this is why people are making noise about this (Not because they hate Trump, Jay). this is why people are starting to say that the USA might be committing human rights violations.

I’ve yet to hear what the solution is.

I don’t get why you can’t just bring yourself to admit that this is wrong. Why must there be a cut-and-dry obvious solution in order to cease doing something really horrible? Also, you should be glad that people want to immigrate to the US. Once people stop wanting to move here, that’s a sign that the United States is a shithole just like everywhere else.

Not a matter of me needing to adopt the moral preening that is so popular and prevalent. Day-in/day-out moral preening takes the place of reasoned debate and finding solutions.

You don’t every try to have reasoned debate or find solutions. I’ve never once encountered you making a post as part of any kind of debate.

Mrebo said:

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 think illegal immigration doesn’t exist or you’re not aware of why it’s problematic?

Yeah, that’s obviously what I said. (sarcasm). It isn’t the problem that right-wingers claim it to be and it never was. It’s not destroying the country. It’s not really hurting many people. We were already deporting a ton of illegal immigrants under Obama. Deporting illegals is a bipartisan cause in this country. The Republican notion of illegal immigrants coming in by the millions and voting illegally and taking jobs from citizens is an exaggerated myth.

Mrebo said:

dahmage 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. Generally the people are coming here because their own countries are lousy. Doesn’t mean they have a right to enter.

Jay Harold Christ mrebo… of course it isn’t magic.

but locking up parents, and shipping off toddlers, when the parents came to SEEK ASSYLUM is fucking nuts, and this is why people are making noise about this (Not because they hate Trump, Jay). this is why people are starting to say that the USA might be committing human rights violations.

I’ve yet to hear what the solution is.

I don’t get why you can’t just bring yourself to admit that this is wrong. Why must there be a cut-and-dry obvious solution in order to cease doing something really horrible? Also, you should be glad that people want to immigrate to the US. Once people stop wanting to move here, that’s a sign that the United States is a shithole just like everywhere else.

Acting as though the left is some crazy extreme side of the spectrum because of a select few extremists is a very common trend among people that are sympathetic to the right but can’t bring themselves to admit that they lean right.

Jay said:
Find better sources.

He should’ve just not cited anything, that’ve been really convincing.

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.

chyron8472 said:

I really don’t like the disdain you’re showing here. My relationship with my Savior does not suffer because my church does not doctrinally agree wholly with Catholicism.

I don’t know why you’d be surprised. He’s decided to dedicate himself to the Catholic religion. I imagine that would be a hard decision to live with if you didn’t buy into to all the talking points 100%.

Yuck

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:
I think people can decide for themselves what books are “for their own good”. I’m sure you’d be less apologetic if Catholic doctrines were tyrannically banned.

History does not seem to support the concept that people are capable of correctly judging the truth on their own all the time. I think things that are true should be promulgated, and things that are untrue should be suppressed. Or do you think that Facebook taking strides to eliminate fake news is “tyrannical”? People have a right to the truth, and the Church’s intent was to protect that right.

History supports the concept that people are capable of great stupidity and great brutality, and the Catholic Church has participated in that just as much as everyone else has. When Facebook starts taking strides to eliminate fake news by murdering or jailing people then I will deem that an accurate analogy. Obviously they weren’t protecting anyone’s right to the truth by ensuring that those people didn’t have a right to comprehend the truth unless they learned Latin. I honestly thought, until now, that everyone including the most devout Catholics could agree that the Catholic of the olden days was horrifyingly corrupt and immoral but I guess that’s not the case.

Warbler said:

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 don’t know, but it would surely have more of a point than to be outraged over people that you can’t actually interact with that are actually abstaining from standing for a respectable reason.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Frank your Majesty said:

I don’t think he’s saying that religion is the reason for crime, but rather giving an example of how atheism is not directly leading to the downfall of society.

(something about) “the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is.”

That statement can be logically true whether or not the first thing causes the second. It doesn’t claim causality.

Exactly.

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

I don’t like the idea of standing to worship a flag, or worshipping a flag in general. I also am not a big fan of standing.

TV’s Frink said:

Well that was very obviously not what you said in the part I quoted, but ok.

You quoted it out of context. I brought up that example in response to someone saying that religion was a necessity for morality.

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.

Frank your Majesty said:

I don’t think he’s saying that religion is the reason for crime, but rather giving an example of how atheism is not directly leading to the downfall of society.

Yes. This is very obviously what I was doing.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is.

At the risk of opening a Pandora’s Box, I’m gonna ask what evidence there is of this.

Yeah even I don’t get that one.

States like Louisiana, which is more religious than other states, has a far greater crime and murder rate than more secular states like Vermont or New Hampshire. I’m using it as an example of how it’s totally false that religion makes a society less criminal.

And the Bear Patrol kept the bears away from Springfield. You could tell because there were no bears in Springfield.

Seriously, how can you possibly claim that religion is the reason that Louisiana has more crime than Vermont?

I’m not. I’m saying that it proves that religious populations don’t deter crime and secular ones don’t invite crime.

The whole reason I brought it up was to debunk the claims of people like Jordan Peterson who claim that religion is a necessity in order to keep society from collapsing. Obviously it isn’t because secular societies are by and large doing fine and often are doing better than the religious ones.

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Move somewhere else. Take better pictures of yourself.

This isn’t an option unless I uproot everything I’ve done this past year.

Fair enough. But it is an option.

It’s a really horrible option.

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

Do you realize how expensive and rare books were? There was basically no point in translating into the vernacular because most people who could afford books were educated enough to read Latin anyway.

Yeah, I don’t need your history lesson. I know how illiterate people were, but surely the Bible could have been read in foreign languages. Translate the Bible into French so that French priests could read it in that language to their congregations.

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

5. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.

That’s because you’ve apparently never read 1 Timothy, or Acts for that matter.

I just quickly read through 1 Timothy (which I’ve read at least four times before), and I don’t see anything like what Possessed said. I’ve also read Acts four or five times and am really not sure what you’re referring to. If you’re referencing Peter’s vision, it simply removes dietary restrictions, it doesn’t say that one cannot ever place restrictions on diet. In fact, St. Paul writes that people should avoid meat sacrificed to idols if it is a cause of scandal to others.

“They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” - 1 Timothy 4, and it’s in reference to false teachers. The Catholic church also prohibits marriage for priests and nuns.

6. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
   a. Most people couldn’t read.

That has nothing to do with forbidding people to read the Bible. They wouldn’t even allow people who could read to read it to people that couldn’t read in a language they could understand.

Interesting. Do you have evidence to back this up?

In mass, the Bible was read in Latin for centuries.

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

Do you realize how expensive and rare books were? There was basically no point in translating into the vernacular because most people who could afford books were educated enough to read Latin anyway.

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.

I find it kind of disturbing that you can’t just acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Middle and Dark Ages was incredibly tyrannical. This last point reeks of “Well, it was banned for people’s own good.” Not to mention that it’s widely accepted by pretty much all historians that the Vulgate was a very inaccurate translation.

It was banned for people’s own good. When someone’s salvation is at stake, it’s important that they don’t fall into error and reject the Church. That’s not itself tyranny, although tyrannical people may have enforced it. It was a means of protecting the truth. Ideally, people should just have been catechized better, but that wasn’t always practicable. The Vulgate may unfortunately have been an inaccurate translation, but at least it didn’t contain doctrinal errors.

I think people can decide for themselves what books are “for their own good”. I’m sure you’d be less apologetic if Catholic doctrines were tyrannically banned.

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.

Obama isn’t the president anymore and Obama wasn’t as bad on the whole as Trump is on immigration.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

the more secular a US state, the less crime-ridden it is.

At the risk of opening a Pandora’s Box, I’m gonna ask what evidence there is of this.

Yeah even I don’t get that one.

States like Louisiana, which is more religious than other states, has a far greater crime and murder rate than more secular states like Vermont or New Hampshire. I’m using it as an example of how it’s totally false that religion makes a society less criminal.

RicOlie_2 said:

5. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.

That’s because you’ve apparently never read 1 Timothy, or Acts for that matter.

6. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
   a. Most people couldn’t read.

That has nothing to do with forbidding people to read the Bible. They wouldn’t even allow people who could read to read it to people that couldn’t read in a language they could understand.

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

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.

I find it kind of disturbing that you can’t just acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Middle and Dark Ages was incredibly tyrannical. This last point reeks of “Well, it was banned for people’s own good.” Not to mention that it’s widely accepted by pretty much all historians that the Vulgate was a very inaccurate translation.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Move somewhere else. Take better pictures of yourself.

I doubt that there are no tolerable available people around.

I thought you thought all company was intolerable.

Just 99%. Unless he lives in a town of a few thousand people, that leaves a decent amount of tolerable people.

DominicCobb said:

Move somewhere else. Take better pictures of yourself.

Or don’t online date. Unless he lives in a tiny, tiny town, I doubt that there are no tolerable available people around.