SatanLucy wrote:

I condemn this unprovoked aggression against Islamic Republic of Japan.

"Trump Claims The 'Islamic Republic Of Japan' Shot Missiles At USS Abraham Lincoln"

https://youtu.be/i7t2edbwAlQ?si=W5uIVvgjkqPkesqo

Yeah, so he misspoke, meant to say Iran instead of Japan, he's suffering from cognitive decline, never makes sense,

I will have you know that Islamic Republic of Japan did no such thing.

I'll have you know there is no such thing as the Islamic Republic of Japan

Stand with Islamic Republic of Japan!!!

How about you can stand with the Islamic Republic of Japan, and the rest will just be content to know a verbal faux pas doesn't bring a country into existence.

The real reason Trump went to war, so Don Jr, and Eric can make a killing in the Prediction Market.

SatanLucy wrote:

Sure, just don't be a crybaby, okay?

I won't, that's your job too.

You are playing the victim, what a surprise,

Does Graham Platner think he's a Republican or what?

Rape and neo-Nazi, those are considered qualifying attributes with Republicans, if you add pedophile, they might even elect him President.

In the Democratic party those things are disqualifying, he needs to step down, and then do the right thing and become a Republican.

He'd do much better as a Republican, with rape and neo-Nazi on his resume, Trump wight even make him a Supreme Court Justice.

SatanLucy wrote:

No, I said you'd vote for him because he's a pedophile, it was RemyBrown that votes for him because he's a rapist, pay attention.

I thought those two were same things according to you?

Why can't people be consistent in their bullshit...

You made that up of course, I would never say something so stupid. that's your job.

SatanLucy wrote:

Also, Biden likes to smell young girls and pinch their nipples, so you are still not really explaining why would I vote for Trump over Biden.

I'd rather try to teach my dog to play chess, at least there is some chance of comprehension,

No, I said you'd vote for him because he's a pedophile, it was RemyBrown that votes for him because he's a rapist, pay attention.

Shoresy wrote:

I was never American, and you stopped being an American long ago. People of the world claim your allegiance, and your country no longer exists.

I thought you were from Florida, the rest of the country wishes it wasn't, but unfortunately, Florida is actually in America.

linate wrote:

with someone like trump, even if it was proven beyond doubt he was a rapist I doubt it would change polling too much. I think both parties kinda assume he's a perverted deviant already. I dont even know how much the Epstein stuff would take him down if the claims were better proven.

He'd probably pick up a vote from SataLucy, I don't believe for a second SatanLucy is from Bosnia, probably Indiana, maybe West Virginia.

He got RemyBrown's vote when he raped E. Jean Carroll.

Shoresy wrote:

From one non-American to another non-American, I got what you meant.

Look, Trump made is all ashamed to be Americans, but you can't just deny it, man up and admit you are American just like you were last year. Look at the bright side, Trump could choke on a Big Mac and die.

BTW, last year you were getting married, did you? You disappeared for a while, then you came back with a new name and a new nationality, is that because you tied the knot? That's not how it works, if you marry a Canadian that doesn't make you Canadian, I married a woman from South Dakota, that doesn't mean I'm from South Dakota.

Shoresy wrote:

I noticed you said "people of"...before making the laundry list.

What I said was "people of color", I forgot that's a term Trumpers don't know, allow me to translate for MAGA folks, it means darkies, vermin, coons, or the N-word.

Sorry to confuse you.

Terminator (1984) - There is a Storm Coming (in) - YouTube

linate wrote:

They would rather have broad based prosperity than prosperity by a select few who can achieve it right? Assuming thats the case why do you focus so much on outliers and rich people, why dont you focus on policies that promote broad based prosperity?

If they dont want broad based prosperity why not?

Oh please, the Republican party is now the party of Trump, broad based prosperity would be bipartisan prosperity. Governing for all the people is a thing of the past, it’s all about culture war now, it’s “us/them” thinking, prosperity for “them” would be considered failure. The agenda is to dominate, punish, and disenfranchise the opposition. Broad based policy initiatives have been replaced by a siege mentality, fear mongering, and attack politics.

"Broad based prosperity" would include prosperity for people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ, and the dreaded “libs” who are tolerant of those groups. The Trump movement see’s them as the enemy and prosperity for “them” would mean defeat. They see it as a zero-sum game, they want to win, and they want the “others” to lose.

SkepticalOne wrote:

I think you could characterize humanity as an animal that uses language, and I suppose a puerile contrarian would say “Except that humanity includes people that can’t talk”, but it would just be pointless.

Given that up to a quarter of humanity are religiously unaffiliated and up to 10% of humanity have no spiritual beliefs, it's not a small thing to gloss over when characterizing humanity.

OK, OK, my bad, I said “vast majority” when it’s only 90%, I’m sorry I upset you.

In my view, agnosticism isnt distinct from belief or non-belief. There can be agnosticism on either side of the belief divide.

Well that's certainly a novel definition, I wonder why it’s a word in the first place then. If there are only two categories, why even name a third category? 

Except this is not a novel definition. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge rather than a statement of belief. The word itself is derived from greek 'a' and 'gnosis' meaning 'without knowledge'. Ie. agnosticism isnt a third position, it is in a category on its own.

OK, so you are saying atheism is a statement of belief. 

Humans are predisposed to believe, but that is not the same thing as innate belief.

You seem to want to make this conversation all about words, do you even remember what it is supposed to be about? If you do, that would be what we call context.

The context is you claiming human cultures 'always' having a spiritual component means humanity has a built-in spiritual element. I am arguing against this in two ways:

Yeah, except for that’s not what I said. 

Let’s debate the difference between “innate”, “predisposed”, and “built-in” now.

1. large groups of humans dont subscribe to the religion or the supernatural.

2. The desire to fit in and the impact a social group can have on personal views should not be overlooked, especially when attempting to describe an epistimological snapshot of the human brain a priori.

You can’t say humans have eyesight because there are blind people

You can’t say people have two legs because there are people with one leg

You can’t say the sky is blue because there’s that whole nighttime thing.

You can’t say epistemological is spelled that way because there are people who spell it epistimological.

You can’t say SkepticalOne is a puerile contrarian because, hmmm, well, OK, you can say SkepticalOne is a puerile contrarian.

I'll just point out, Christianity is not mentioned in what you are replying to, AND neither of our religious views are relevant to this conversation. This is a distraction for you.

OK, so you don’t get the whole context thing, got it.

45% of women will be the victim of sexual assault, so men win the evil contest by a 20% margin.

25% of girls and 5% of boys will experience child sexual abuse before reaching adulthood, so pedophiles get the prize for "most evil".

FLRW wrote:

Ok,ok, Stephen Hawking didn't think that way.

Allow me to explain the difference between doesn't and didn't; doesn't is current tense, didn't is past tense.

SkepticalOne wrote:

It's not an argument from popularity, it's simply a matter of thinking that the default state would be the state that humanity has always been found in

Except that humanity includes non-belief.

I think you could characterize humanity as an animal that uses language, and I suppose a puerile contrarian would say “Except that humanity includes people that can’t talk”, but it would just be pointless.

If you were thinking the default state is a matter of the "a priori" state, the state of a person as they are born, then I think you are still wrong, that would be agnosticism, wouldn't it?

In my view, agnosticism isnt distinct from belief or non-belief. There can be agnosticism on either side of the belief divide.

Well that's certainly a novel definition, I wonder why it’s a word in the first place then. If there are only two categories, why even name a third category?  

I think it hinders rational discussion when you just make up your own definition of words, I’m sure you will disagree, but I think rational discussion requires people to be speaking the same language. But then again, I think hindering rational discussion is the whole point of puerile contrarianism, which is why I think it’s pointless

Cognitive scientists generally concur that our brains are biologically hardwired to develop spirituality and supernatural beliefs, so maybe that is the default state..

Humans are predisposed to believe, but that is not the same thing as innate belief.

You seem to want to make this conversation all about words, do you even remember what it is supposed to be about? If you do, that would be what we call context.

I also think context is important to rational discussion.

The unspoken and unproven premise of innate beliefs doesnt sidestep this fallacy.

FYI, I'm not a Christian, at least most Christians tell me that, so you don't really have to have the same visceral reaction to everything I say, your emotions are not conducive to rational discussion.

I don't know who it was that made you so angry with Christianity, but I know it wasn't me.

I'll just point out, Christianity is not mentioned in what you are replying to, AND neither of our religious views are relevant to this conversation. This is a distraction for you.

OK, so you don’t get the whole context thing, got it.

You know that Stephen Hawking doesn't think that way 

Well, being dead and all, I know that Stephen Hawking doesn't think any way.

but Rev Jim Bakker definitely does.

Jim Bakker doesn't know what a cognitive scientist is.

SkepticalOne wrote:

Let us try one more time. I do hope you engage this time.

LOL, I get it, you are programmed to say this every time I ring the bell.

Your explanation doesnt address the problem. You are arguing all cultures believe in a spiritual realm therefore spiritual humanity is the default. This is an argument from popularity.

It's not an argument from popularity, it's simply a matter of thinking that the default state would be the state that humanity has always been found in, if such beliefs are innate, then I think that would be the default state.

If you were thinking the default state is a matter of the "a priori" state, the state of a person as they are born, then I think you are still wrong, that would be agnosticism, wouldn't it?

Cognitive scientists generally concur that our brains are biologically hardwired to develop spirituality and supernatural beliefs, so maybe that is the default state..

The unspoken and unproven premise of innate beliefs doesnt sidestep this fallacy.

FYI, I'm not a Christian, at least most Christians tell me that, so you don't really have to have the same visceral reaction to everything I say, your emotions are not conducive to rational discussion.

I don't know who it was that made you so angry with Christianity, but I know it wasn't me.

I have to say, I am impressed you had six paragraphs and only one sentence was (mostly) relevant to the discussion. Your ad hom and red herring game are on point!

I explained why my post went so far over your head, and you just automatically repeat your inane misunderstanding.

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

fauxlaw wrote:

I'm not sorry you are, after all, easy to ignore. Biden sure was. Too bad you can't do the same about Trump

Trump is President, he's destroying the economy, ruining America's reputation as a world leader, using his position to rob the country, defacing the White House, working to discredit our democratic system, and tear down the Constitution to move toward fascism and dictatorship, and you think we should just ignore him? You are like a character in a Fellini movie, only more absurd.

Obama hasn't been in office in almost 10 years, and you are still obsessed, he lives rent free in your head, too bad you can't ignore Obama.

We had a black president over a decade ago and you are still traumatized by that, it's time to quit obsessing and just get over it. You've had your White Supremacist President now; it's time to quit being such a whiney baby about Obama.

SkepticalOne wrote:

Science has never found a single non-spiritual society of human beings anywhere or at any time in history, everywhere and always, the vast majority of human beings have made belief in a transcendent, reality commonly referred to as spiritual, as an orienting part of how they engage reality. 

Even if this were true, it does nothing to establish the veracity of a spiritual world. Popularity=/= Truth. This is not a pathway to a rational conclusion.

LOL, you really need to try reading things in context, maybe if you did, you’d know what Google search to do to make it look like you are paying attention. Rather than just having an emotional Pavlovian response to words you see, try looking at context, read a sentence, then the next one, look for a chain of reasoning, maybe try something like, read what a post is responding to, and then try to logically follow along and maybe you can understand the response.

Let me try to dumb it down for you. What you quoted was my response to Double R’s contention that Atheism is the “default state”, which might be a principle of your faith, but as I was pointing out, has nothing to do with the facts. I get it though, you fundies don’t really work with facts, when fundies claim that what they say is true, all they are really doing is claiming status for beliefs that advance their agenda.

If you don’t even know what your own contention means, and since you can’t answer the simple question as to what you mean by "exist" as it relates to the subject matter, then it isn’t a serious philosophical discussion, you are just participating in the culture wars, and “theists” are the “them” of your us/them thinking. I know most fundies try to justify their beliefs by proclaiming those who hold different beliefs are wrong, and yours is a typical fundamentalist mischaracterization of the competing faith. You admittedly don’t understand your own position; all you know is that it is contrary to the opposition’s.

it’s about defending your faith based religious beliefs against “theists” who you see as competing with your own faith-based beliefs, which is fine, just don’t try to say it’s about science and logic. You aren’t really talking about science or logic at all; you are only attempting to make it appear that way; you are simply claiming status for your own faith-based beliefs by misrepresenting science and logic as supporting your own faith-based assertions. 

It’s not about logic or philosophy, it’s strictly emotional, you are just acting out, which is fine, needy, but fine with me.  Personally, I think you should just grow a pair and confront the Christian that left you butthurt, that would probably be a lot more effective than "acting out" online.

Whatever floats your boat kiddie, but don’t pretend you are having a philosophical discussion, you are just proselytizing your faith.

Misterio wrote:

Laws are not written on stone. Americans can ammend it.

Well yeah, but it is much easier if Americans actually want to amend it, problem is the majority (55%) of Americans want birthright citizenship. MAGA does not represent America, they just make the most noise.

It's not a human right violation if Americans don't give citizenship to tourist's babies born in the US. Most of the countries have an embassy in the US, so it's very easy for the tourists to register their babies in their respective embassy.

No, it's not a human right violation, but it is a violation of the Constitution, and no matter how much you whine about it, Americans aren't going to change the constitution to abolish birthright citizenship. I think most Americans are kind of attached to that pesky due process thing too.

This law makes no sense.

Tourist babies are not why Trump wants to abolish Birthright Citizenship, that's just a distraction he fed to the gullible people to agitate them. People who are agitated and divisive are easy to control, Trump works with your outrage like Picasso worked with paint. They love to talk about "owning the libs" but it's really Trump's mindless followers that he owns.

Birth tourism in the United States is a very rare practice, and obtaining a tourist visa with the intent of giving birth in the U.S. is already illegal, "tourist babies" is much ado about nothing.

We aren't going to amend the Constitution for a non-problem just because Trump is throwing a tantrum.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution confers citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., excluding ONLY the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

The first sentence of section 1 is very clear and straightforward. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

What it does not say is, “Unless whiney baby Trump throws a tantrum, or “unless they are black or brown”.

The second sentence includes “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What it does not say is, “unless Trump wants to deport people without due process” or “if the wear masks they do not have to abide by Constitutional law”.

Sorry MAGA, you did not overthrow the government on January 6, you are not above the law, just get over it.

Even the best Supreme Court money can buy can't deny the Constitution.

The Constitution wins, Trump loses.

SatanLucy wrote:

I am sure you are not aware of this, but people can actually say things they dont agree with.

No shit, I refer to that as "all the BS you make up".

Amazing, right? Well, you learned something new, thanks to free education I provide here.

Oh pulease, "all the BS you make up" is nothing new.

SatanLucy wrote:

You would think that after Hitler, people would learn to doubt the government more, but sadly, it didnt happen and now we have trump, Putin, Kim and Xi who are also Hitler. all the shite you make up, maybe take notes.

Oops, you forgot you are supposed to be a big Kim fan, remember?

If you can't remember all the BS you make up, then maybe you should take notes.

SatanLucy wrote:

Donations to Palestine from private donations in USA are 100 million in total in year 2025.

that is less than 0,5$ per adult, and about 3$ per each leftist.

That's about $3 more than you have donated.