Skipper

So the bloke gets 72 divine virgins.

What does his missus get?

A new kitchen perhaps.

Finally some gloves to prepare sandwiches more neatly

AI:

Incel communities exhibit a significant and disturbing "rape obsession", characterized by the frequent glorification, promotion, and justification of sexual violence against women. This is a core component of the extreme misogyny prevalent within these online subcultures, which are considered by some experts to be a form of violent extremism or even domestic terrorism. 

Key findings and characteristics include:

Prevalence of Discussions: A 2022 study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) on the largest incel forum found that users posted about rape, on average, every 29 minutes during the study period.

Endorsement of Sexual Violence: Analysis of forum discussions reveals overwhelming support for rape among users who express an opinion on the topic (89% support in one study), often viewing it as a justified response or "revenge" for women rejecting them.

Sense of Entitlement to Sex: The fundamental incel ideology posits that men are "entitled" to sex, and women who deny them are to blame for their situation. This sense of entitlement is used to rationalize nonconsensual sex.

Dehumanization of Women: Women are routinely dehumanized and objectified on these forums using derogatory slurs (e.g., "foid," "roastie") which makes it easier to justify violence against them.

"Rape Pill" Ideology: A specific subset within the community adheres to a "rape pill" ideology, which explicitly advocates for the legalization of rape and the removal of female consent as a factor in sexual relations.

Normalizing Violence: Beyond online rhetoric, the ideology has been linked to real-world violence, including mass killings perpetrated by self-identified incels (such as Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian) who left behind manifestos detailing their desire to "punish" sexually active women.

Fantasies and Encouragement: Incel forums are rife with graphic fantasies of violence against women, and members often encourage each other to commit violent acts, sometimes even urging those considering suicide to commit murder first. 

In essence, the "obsession" stems from a profound sense of victimization and a belief that women's sexual autonomy is the cause of their suffering, leading to a hateful and violent ideology that promotes nonconsensual sex as a form of perceived justice or power assertion. 

Why would incels even care about rape? They can't even get to first base with women

All this talk of prostates is making me hungry I mean gay I mean hungry

Nah because I eat anti-cancer foods

Great that we can add images now. I have a lonely album of dick pics that could really use a good home

Serving my country https://youtu.be/ygOL88rG8Oc

No, but really I have just been busy with stuff, and I really missed being on here. This is probably my favorite social media platform

I had a friend whose roommate was really into bdsm--especially ropes--with his girlfriend.

Oh, and he really liked playing Helldivers 2

Sorry if you got tagged twice. I was editing the post

But one excludes God, if I understand correctly, and I think that side is wrong because in all possible scenarios there is no logical explanation for God not existing.

We are talking about a transcendent reality, which is to say, it transcends logical analysis.

Some aspects of God can't be logically understood, though He's revealed Himself sufficiently in the Bible. I am fine with not knowing every answer about God. It is natural to not fully understand one's Father, but the people that disagree and say that they can completely know God by declaring Him fake are the same people that don't even do everything they tell themselves to do, so why would they think their mind is superior to God's? A perfect mind would know better than an imperfect mind. Makes no sense practically that a sinful person would think they know better than an inerrant being (aside from the fact that they make mistakes about things)

Assuming pronouns is a dangerous precedent

Bro used "they" for "man"

And a woman drives by and suggests in a loud voice that it might be prudent not to do balancing acts on railings.

Absolute worst thing to do--distract me while I'm balancing up high. What an idiot.

Now, taking into account engine noise, I would therefore suggest that yelling was a reasonable modus.

Yeah, a reasonable way to communicate with me in order to use words. But that was not smart to do considering it made me lose my balance by shouting suddenly at me. Anyone who respects parkour would not have done what she did. If she had concern about my safety, she went about it completely wrong. As the great Bob Reese Cookiemonster said to a Karen telling him to get down from doing his stunt, "If you really care about my safety, then you will be quiet." Why did he say that? Because the Karen's noise would distract him.

Same thing happened in my situation except the lady was not quiet during my stunt. And look what happens when you distract the parkour man: he loses focus and messes it up which is hazardous to his safety. Anyone knows if you shout at someone and they hear they'll divert attention to you. Why would you want me to be less focused on balancing so I don't fall off? Especially all of a sudden when I'm not prepared to hear you? Inconsiderate and oblivious to my safety.

When I was a lout, we'd have just stuck two fingers up at her and carried on.

Props to you if you could balance after a surprise shout five feet from you from a moving vehicle.

Little Debbie is braindead and thus uses AI to think for her

All people have a religion—I will argue that profusely. I don’t agree with the people that believe science is this all-encompassing study, practice, knowledge pool. It’s not all encompassing, and people know it because they also use non-science concepts like math and history and a moral system. Math is a non-science. I’m not making up that term. You don’t use the scientific method to prove math because it’s already objective. You accept it as it is even though it’s not scientific.

What I’m wondering is: what’s so illogical about the idea of religion and what’s so supreme about the supposition that “science is the answer to everything”? Science isn’t the answer to everything—that’s unrealistic—and I just showed how, so I don’t get it

You can have rational justification for both, I will agree. But one excludes God, if I understand correctly, and I think that side is wrong because in all possible scenarios there is no logical explanation for God not existing.

maybe we’re getting into semantics with you saying rational justification and me saying logical explanation, so I’ll say there’s no correct explanation for God not existing

For your theistically ambiguous definition

AI generated but thanks

Post the censored thoughts only. We need some retards in the chat

If you’re so magical, why are you SatanLucy’s shadow? You’re an overbearing secretary which is akin to a demon

I prefer sexy witches

Surely. I think though there are harmless people in this fkn world and I'm not referring to people with Down Syndrome or something of that sort. They are usually women. Men in general are violent by nature.

I don’t agree that the average male is violent. Men commit more violence than females, but I would like to see what data you have for saying men on average are violent in the normal course of their activities

I think people see faith all wrong. People think of faith as trust in something outside us. Faith is a trust and belief in ourselves. I have faith on my experiences. Not in others.

What are some crucial experiences you’ve had that dictate your faith? By faith, I mean your faith concerning God

I have faith the Burger is delicious

I don't understand why Christians use this argument. Do you know how many people from various religions have died for their faith? Do you know how many people have felt fulfilled by their religion, have considered their religion to be a complete explanation of the human experience?

Sometimes I think Christianity is such a cultural titan in the West that Christians have a real problem placing their religion in a broader context, in understanding that other faiths can be just as powerful, fulfilling, and moving to their adherents.

The argument was not - people are willing to die for Christianity so this means it’s true.

That was an explanation of Christians’ behavior showing that they really cared.

If Christianity is such a big movement, maybe people should look into it to see if it’s true. It’s a big deal and a concept that has impacted the entire world for a very long time.

Would you tell me why you disbelieve Christianity or would you like me to tell you why I believe in it?

We're back to the definition fallacy. 

Belief despite lack of evidence is one definition of faith. Just because you have a different definition doesn't mean others "don't understand what faith is." They are simply acquainted with other definitions than the one you're trying to strongarm over and against the others.

I did realize as I thought about this over the weeks. I was using a definition of faith that not everyone else was using, and I should’ve or we all should’ve agreed to a definition first

Finally got back to Debatecraft and read this. Man, I’ve missed the things you say because when you are not trolling, your statements are completely logical and they help me understand difficult concepts more easily under premise-conclusion structure. Thanks

The simple and undeniable fact is the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, the human experience of reality is theistically ambiguous, which is to say that the human experience can be interpreted religiously or naturalistically with equal rational justification.

What do you mean “theistically ambiguous”?

If atheists can assert laws of logic as self-evident, their senses as self-evident, their reasoning as self-evident, their definitions as self-evident, their starting premises as self-evident, then surely me accepting God as not only self-evident but also an explanation for logic, reasoning, senses, definitions and starting premises, surely I am the only one with an explanation then, while atheists work with no explanation for their core beliefs.

Yeah, that's why the argument can't be backed by saying "how obvious" or self-evident it is for premise X, no matter your position. I can say God is self-evident which I do believe, but for me to include that in an argument I do need to have supplemental evidence for it because no one I argue with would believe that unless they put bias before logic.

Saying something is self-evident doesn't work as evidence on its own because people need more support; it's more like expressing the concept's state-of-being.

In the same way when I say there is a creator of logic and atheist says there isnt, atheist is merely conceding to having no explanation.

That makes me think there is no substance to atheism then. All they do is shift burden of proof onto the alternative explanation and provide no explanation of their own besides "I don't know." Is that accurate?

That's interesting to view faith as a sixth sense. It's hard to picture at first. Maybe that's like the Holy Spirit being a sixth sense? But I think that reasoning hands over too much control of the Holy Spirit to a person, like the Holy Spirit is an extension of that person rather than the person being a vessel for the Holy Spirit.

I'm wondering how to conceptualize faith as a sense. It works as a 'sense' in that it stimulates and affects how we perceive the world, how we interact with the world--like a spiritual sense. That's interesting because all other senses deal with the physical, but faith is like a guide that transcends the physical and directly influences are spiritual perceptions.

Faith of something does not denote that thing exists, unless you want to admit that Freya, Vishnu, Allah, and thetans all exist too.

Yeah it does. Those examples you gave do exist at least in concept. Faith of something denotes that thing is at least an idea from a person or group.

Take unicorns. Unicorns don't have to be real for the concept of unicorns to be real.

Re: faith as evidence -- it's evidence to the believer. It is not an evidence that you can present to others as proof of the broad authority of your religion.

That doesn't mean faith cannot necessarily be used as evidence. Faith is based in evidence, not in feeling. Those who say otherwise don't understand what faith is.

Record of acts of faith can kickstart a trail of evidence. Many people died having faith in Jesus. Why would people be willing to die for their religion? Because it was important to them. Why was it important to them? Knowing the teachings of the Bible (or at least what was available at the time) fulfilled their life and gave them purpose. Why would the Bible give a person purpose? Because the Bible provides an explanation for the complete human experience as well as our origins and the future. The Bible gives a lot of answers that humans care about, and Christians find them satisfactory, at least they should. There is data lodged in faith that represents evidence for why the Bible is a truthful explanation for the world.

There is evidence based in faith; if you disagree, what data are you looking at that you interpret as evidence for an alternative?