Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
It's probably some sort of subconscious pettiness. More than anything, they want to be told that they're right. Unfortunately, being right here means boiling the Earth in a lake of fire, yadda yadda yadda...
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."I think the rationale is that, since it doesn't look like the world's going to convert to Christianity en masse anytime soon, every day that goes by sees the birth of more people who will never join The One True Faith and so be sent to Hell when they die.
Suppose that, over the next ten years, a billion people will be born, three-quarters of whom will be non-Christians. If the apocalypse doesn't happen for another ten years, those 750,000 people will wind up in Hell. If the apocalypse happens this year, however, those people will never be born, and the total number of people suffering in Hell will be reduced.
I'm not expecting a logical reason since I doubt anyone that believes this shit ever even considered that. It's just an amusing contradiction I noticed.
On a serious note I dislike this notion that because god did it that makes it somehow okay. I see this from time to time and it bugs the hell out of me.
That type of contradiction is inherent to many ideologies. For example, people who take a "Christian approach" to human sexuality will typically insist on abolishing abortion, teaching abstinence until marriage, preventing access to contraception, and denying young people any information about sex. That this results in more children out of wedlock and more abortions is apparently completely incomprehensible to them, because God's will, Bible, morals, mumble mumble.
It's necessary to understand to the extent that you realize how impossible it is to make deals with anyone who holds these views. They are psychologically conditioned to ignore contradictory evidence; it washes off them like they are made of Teflon. All you can hope for is that they have individual epiphanies in response to adverse events in their own lives, but that's not enough when it comes to legislating. Compromise is an illusion.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On another topic (one that I was just discussing with another user), I would argue that the horseshoe theory applies to authoritarian vs libertarian policies.
You see, the reason why Despotism doesn't work is because the Despot becomes corrupted by power and a lack of consequences. Likewise, Anarchy doesn't work either, because the people are corrupted by their freedom and the lack of consequences.
Therefore, there exists an overlapping principle in both Anarchy and Despotism: GIFT
Leviticus 19:34![]()
![]()
Eh, it's more like a textbook case of "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good". They don't want people to get abortions or have children out of wedlock, but they don't want people to have pre-marital and/or non-procreative sex, period, and they refuse to compromise the latter principle for the sake of the former.
edited 12th Jul '15 12:22:28 AM by RavenWilder
![]()
Muslims are perfectly fine with contraception.
Islamic sexual jurisprudence has more specific rules than Christian, mainly because Islam's core (the Qur'an and hadith) go into more specific legislative detail than the New Testament (though don't tell a Christianist that...). Also, the rules of evidence are very strict and specific, though sharia courts tend to flat-out ignore the requirements (because in most areas where sharia law is supposedly "applied strictly," enforcing the subjugation of women is more important than protecting their legal rights).
This may also give some insight into the thought processes of those who support Christian sexual morality.
edited 12th Jul '15 3:56:46 AM by Ramidel
"" sharia courts tend to flat-out ignore the requirements (because in most areas where sharia law is supposedly "applied strictly," enforcing the subjugation of women is more important than protecting their legal rights).""
Exactly. For example, a woman denouncing rape without the required four witnesses will be condemned for false testimony.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Indeed. Yet somehow, a woman accused of adultery or fornication without four witnesses can be convicted easily in most of these places. The Double Standard is strong with this one.
Jim Carrey called Jerry Brown a "corporate fascist" who "must be stopped."
edited 12th Jul '15 6:42:05 AM by AngelicBraeburn
The artist formally known as Deviant Braeburn

edited 11th Jul '15 7:36:36 PM by kkhohoho