I loved the clip where Trump advocates punishing a WOMAN for having an abortion He did retract his statement the next day, claiming the doctor should go to jail, not the woman... but the video and transcript are quite clear about what he said... its obvious his campaign team advised him to recant his statement... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/30/trump_some_form_of_punishment_for_women_if_abortion_becomes_illegal.htmlMATTHEWS: Should the woman be punished? For having an abortion?
...(trump dodging the question like an expert, going to far as to challenge the host about his own religious beliefs)...
MATTHEWS: The churches make their moral judgments, but you’re running for President of the United States to become Chief Executive of the United States. Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman?
TRUMP: Yes.
MATTHEWS: 10 cents, 10 years, what?
TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: Well why not, you take positions on everything else.
FYI, Trump used to be vocally pro-choice... Now that he is campaigning for the republican nomination, he changed his views to be more republican... but he doesn't understand the details, like not sending women to prison for having an abortion... |
|
|
|
To be fair, I don't believe the issue in NC has anything to do with where a tranny takes a piss That is simply a red-herring used to pass sweeping legislation during and "emergency session"... ground-breaking legislation which passed in under 24 hours... Everyone keeps ignoring the elephant in the room! Basically, this is about city/local rights vs state rights... its similar to what caused the civil war! The civil war was fought over whether states had the right to make laws which disagreed with federal laws... this is the same exact situation... this is whether cities have the right to make laws which disagree with state laws... same thing on a small scale... yet swept under the rug as if it is legislation protecting women's right to privacy... its a red-herring |
|
|
|
I think with Nevada, some of the delegates didn't show up for the state convention to cast their vote so Sanders ended up winning it.
Basically yes... Nevada appointed 8915 delegates to vote at the convention... 4,889 for Hillary and 4,026 for Bernie based on the votes at the caucus (52.6% of the vote somehow gives her 54.8% of the delegates) The convention is when the nomination actually happens... so these 8915 people need to: 1) Show up 2) Vote for the person they claimed they would vote for during the caucus (some people may have simply changed their mind) The convention vote ended up being 2,386 for Hillary and 2,964 for Bernie! Over half of her delegates either did not show up or voted for Bernie Bernie somehow wins Nevada by an 11% margin (landslide?)... 55.4% to 44.6% This whole election process is really crazy... caucuses are chaos in a bottle |
|
|
|
I can see you are trying to attach this to me personally as if I have a problem with trans people, I don't. I have a problem with the rights of others being taken from one group of people and given to another
I don't have a problem with you personally, I'm arguing against your logic, not calling you a poopy face... You are exactly arguing for rights being taken away from tranny's... you just cannot see it for some reason The reason media outlets are reporting that NC struck down "anti-discrimination laws" is because that is exactly the situation... |
|
|
|
My point is it is a fact many people are not comfortable with this. I personally don't give a shit who uses what bathroom (as long as the ladies don't turn it into a biohazard area). Do you deny that pedophiles exist? What would stop them from using this arrangement to perv on children in schools for example, and then claim minority protections and victim-hood when exposed?
What is to stop a pedophile from dressing as a woman, and being a perv in the woman's room, regardless of whether tranny's are allowed in there? If someone is doing anything illegal, that is the crime... not pissing in a stall with the door closed Stopping tranny's from using the bathroom of their new gender, does not stop a pervert from dressing as a woman It does make a difference indeed, because people would be less likely to stop it for risk of being accused, charged, or being sued for "discrimination". Stop what exactly? What exactly are you afraid someone is doing in the bathroom? And how exactly do you think having the laws written the way you like will make a difference? Do you seriously believe that if a tranny is allowed to piss in the women's room... people won't prosecute a pervert for raping a woman? I don't even understand your logic Women should want tranny's in there... if some pervert tries to rape her... the tranny might kick his ass! I think this is the logic behind unisex restrooms... nobody is going to do anything crazy with both men and women in the same bathroom |
|
|
|
My point is it is a fact many people are not comfortable with this. I personally don't give a shit who uses what bathroom (as long as the ladies don't turn it into a biohazard area). Do you deny that pedophiles exist? What would stop them from using this arrangement to perv on children in schools for example, and then claim minority protections and victim-hood when exposed?
What is to stop a pedophile from dressing as a woman, and being a perv in the woman's room, regardless of whether tranny's are allowed in there? If someone is doing anything illegal, that is the crime... not pissing in a stall with the door closed Stopping tranny's from using the bathroom of their new gender, does not stop a pervert from dressing as a woman |
|
|
|
I understand your complaints, but is it not true that allowing anyone to just choose what bathroom they want to use creates problems and conflicts for the vast majority of the population as well? It is very possible people could just masquerade as trans just to get into opposite sex bathrooms for reasons of degeneracy. Why do you think it is ok to transfer your discomfort to others to alleviate your own?
I do not believe this at all... It's propagating fear of the boogeyman... Nobody is doing anything crazy in the bathroom... if they do, you call the cops It is a total red herring and nothing to do with the reason for the repeal of all local anti-discrimination ordinances |
|
|
|
While I wish we could just let people use bathrooms based on gender identity, this seems like a valid option for places wanting to be transgender friendly.
As a trans person currently living in NC, this law sucks ass. Big burly transmen will be in the girls room and freak them out, transgirls will be in the guys room and risk being attacked. Either way, police may be called and take time to check ID's, not to mention if you get an officer that isn't TG friendly....
You're pretty much stuck between outing yourself to the world as trans and risking your safety, and risking being charged with a sex crime.
Going to the bathroom shouldn't feel like Mission Impossible to avoid being seen -_-
So what is your issue with unisex bathrooms then? I don't have one, but I'd rather just be able to use the one I identify with anywhere rather than having to hunt out a 'safe space'. If everywhere had a unisex bathroom I'd be totally okay with it, but that simply won't happen. You'd be surprised... I bet unisex bathrooms will be all the rage in the future... anywhere from 2-20 years from now, depending on your local area |
|
|
|
How many atheists are here! Let's suppose that we believe a mith not exist. But what if God exist and there's a life after world life and there are heaven and hell? What if all of what religion tells?
You are basically using Pascal's Wager, which is debunked as a logical fallacy (though christians love citing it for some reason) You cannot use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in a single religion... because what if it was another religion that was correct? If you use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in christianity... what about Hinduism? Shouldn't you also believe Hinduism and Islam and every religion on the planet? Because, "what if you're wrong?" Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg"What if I’m wrong?" I mean, anybody can be wrong. We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot.
You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the christian faith. You know what it’s like not to believe in a particular faith because you’re not a Muslim; you’re not a Hindu.
Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu. If you’d been brought up in Denmark at the time of the vikings, you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you had been brought up in classical Greece you’d be believing in Zeus. If you had been brought up in central Africa, you’d be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.
There’s no particular reason to pick on the Judeo christian god in which, by the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up, and ask me the question, what if I’m wrong? What if you’re wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea? If i am wrong i just waste world life time but if you're wrong you exchange infinity for temporary You completely missed the point of my post, which you quoted, try reading it again |
|
|
|
The fact that the memory is stored in the area where your brain stores memories instead of where your brain stores make-believe fantasy doesn't mean it's real/legitimate in any way whatsoever You should quote the text that backs up your point, even if it is not this particular paper I have already posted the video for you 5 times... I refuse to do so again... I also linked you at least 5 sources from 5 different websites... If you cannot be bothered read any of my supporting evidence, you are not worth debatingFeel free to do some research about the subject... I am not going to entertain your ignorance any longer... I'm done with this topic If you have a question about what non-religious people believe about reality and why, refer yourself to google... google will (hopefully) fix your ignorance |
|
|
|
I bet Putin doesn't resign  I hear he's on the list for over $2,000,000,000 I am always impressed with Iceland... they are one of the few countries where citizens have integrity... Iceland also jailed the bankers rather than bailing them out like the US did for causing a recession |
|
|
|
This generally sounds like a good idea, until you think about the dirty (pun intended) things people can do in there.
I used to work in a bar, and the women's bathrooms were always disgusting at the end of the night. The men's bathrooms maybe had a little bit of piss on the floor, but the women's bathrooms looked like a bunch of animals were in there. I would rather not share a bathroom with these creatures. Funny post mate  ! I would have say that it is pretty much the inverse. I never went to the girls toilets, but I saw this place as much more clean that us were. It seems I was wrong, but maybe this is an exception due to their location ? I have to agree with Rengar here... I've had to clean bathrooms and the mens room is almost always cleaner at the end of the night... I'm not saying women poop on the floor, but half of them don't sit on the toilet seat... they hover, and end up pissing on it... There are always hundreds of little pieces of toilet paper all over the floor... I don't even understand this... It's like a cat had a fight with a roll of toilet paper... I have to sweep before mopping... something I never had to do in a men's room |
|
|
|
How many atheists are here! Let's suppose that we believe a mith not exist. But what if God exist and there's a life after world life and there are heaven and hell? What if all of what religion tells?
You are basically using Pascal's Wager, which is debunked as a logical fallacy (though christians love citing it for some reason) You cannot use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in a single religion... because what if it was another religion that was correct? If you use Pascal's Wager to justify believing in christianity... what about Hinduism? Shouldn't you also believe Hinduism and Islam and every religion on the planet? Because, "what if you're wrong?" Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg"What if I’m wrong?" I mean, anybody can be wrong. We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying teapot.
You happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the christian faith. You know what it’s like not to believe in a particular faith because you’re not a Muslim; you’re not a Hindu.
Why aren’t you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you’d be a Hindu. If you’d been brought up in Denmark at the time of the vikings, you’d be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you had been brought up in classical Greece you’d be believing in Zeus. If you had been brought up in central Africa, you’d be believing in the great Juju up the mountain.
There’s no particular reason to pick on the Judeo christian god in which, by the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up, and ask me the question, what if I’m wrong? What if you’re wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea? |
|
|
|
Gays aren't normal. Being normal mean that are like the majority. You're doing the confusion between being unormal and being discrimated. That's not because I said that they were not normal that they should be discriminated. That's another story, not the point of this subject. Seen by the way that they're not how the human was intented, they're not normal. Also, we're not animals, so comparing ourselves with them is not the best thing to do. Finally, these same animals reproduct themselves, even if gays, they just don't say in couple with their faggot boyfriend !
Are you retarded? Anything that isn't in the majority is not normal and should be discriminated against? What the fuck? Where do you idiots find this bullshit? So... if you are left-handed... fuck you... if you have freckles or red hair, fuck you... if you are black or Jewish, fuck you... if you are gay, fuck off... if you wear glasses, you deserve to die You really need to re-think your game-plan... you just made an enemy of basically everyone... Are you in the KKK? If you think homosexuality isn't natural... here is a link to a documentary that you won't watch, which explains everything you don't understand Animal Homosexuality Documentaryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYdcvRe7ox8God created the man to go with the woman. Two men fucking together is disgusting. Can I even call them man ? They lost everything that made them men : honour, manliness, procreation, family. Gays derivate from the standard. Does left-handed : are against the Nation, against the perpetuation of the Race and against God's law ? No, so no hate toward them. Yeah, BADecker, that's funny ! About the KKK, I won't reply to this  ... I'll take that as a yes to questions #1 & #5 |
|
|
|
Did you ever went to Rome and visited catacombs ? They were made before the officialisation of the Cristianity, and I can tell you that they are huge, with thousand of peoples !
Why would I do that? 1) People have to put dead bodies somewhere... B) The catacombs were not huge in 200AD... they were barely big enough to fit a dozen skulls iii) It was not a popular religion, but it wasn't invisible either... nobody is claiming there was not a single christian before 330AD... just that they were few and far between... more like the number of Wiccans (witches) in America, or perhaps as high a % as Mormons... there were a few, and they were persecuted, so they mostly kept to themselves in hiding (hence the catacombs... its a freaking tunnel underground where they can hide/escape!) |
|
|
|
Christianity was not a thing until around 330AD when the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the official religion... so yeah, there was no "structurated Chruch" [sp] until 330 AD
I don't know what you mean by "stolen by the Church" (or why you capitalize the word church)
But yes, the first Christians were basically stolen... Rome told them to convert to Christianity or die... literally... convert or die
They stole the pagan holidays which people already celebrated (Easter and Yule (spring equinox and winter solstice)) in an effort to make the transition easier for the populace
Any questions?
Is there anyone who is naive enough to believe anything you say anymore? Acts 11:25,26: Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch The flow of words and concepts suggest that they were called Christians right at that time, during the first century A.D. Why would you think that this section of Acts is looking ahead to 330 A.D.? Acts 14:23: Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. No structure in the church until 330 A.D.? Acts is from the first century A.D. All one need do is read the first 10 chapters of Acts to see that there was no command by Rome for anyone in the early Church to convert or die. Rather, it was the Holy Spirit - God Himself - Who touched the hearts of the people and brought them out of the darkness of Jewish legalism to oneness with Himself in the newly formed Church... all within the first century A.D. I can see why you are upset with all that theology you took in school. You obviously flunked. The fact that the word appears in the New Testament is not relevant to the discussion... Before Rome adopted Christianity, there were only a handful of people who believed that crap... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_ChristianityWhile the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great reigned (306–337 AD), Christianity began to transition to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Hell, Christianity was illegal until 313AD! Edict of Milan
In 313 Constantine and Licinius announced "that it was proper that the Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best", thereby granting tolerance to all religions, including Christianity How much structure do you think an illegal religion had for 300 years? Do you think they built a church and announced they were doing illegal activities? NO! They would be arrested (and probably killed) for that! Edit: It's also worth mentioning that until the 20th century, nobody identified as "christian"... nobody... it did not happen... People identified by their denomination... People called themselves, "Eastern Othodox", or "Quaker", or "Protestant"... not "christian"... The consolidation of various denominations under the single flag of "christian" is a new concept and only done to make "christian" the #1 religion on the planet... if they were separated by denomination, Muslims would be the top religion... can't have that... |
|
|
|
I'm european and seeing Bernie Sanders as United States president would be very good for me. He is very close to the "european" social-democracy, an ideal in wich I really trust.
Unfortunately it seems that Hillary will win the Democratic primaries...
You should elaborate what a European social-democracy actually is/means... Most of these ingrates were indoctrinated to think socialism is evil and of the devil (that's literally what they teach in school in America) Americans have no clue what a social-democracy is... all they know is they fear/hate it... because they were told to during the cold-war (they don't even know there is a difference between communism, socialism, and social-democracy) . Unlike those who have just discovered the thin veneer of glamour of collectivist thinking, like you. Cheers! That is a silly and ignorant claim... Please elaborate on your lies... Exactly which countries have you lived in and for how long? Elaborate on exactly what the problems are in each country that you believe makes them "train wrecks in action" Also... do you really think you know me well enough to claim that I, "have just discovered the thin veneer of glamour of collectivist thinking"? Do you really know anything about me or my background, or my education, or places I have lived? No... you're just being an ignorant asshole |
|
|
|
Is there anything that people do NOT know? Does everyone know everything? Silly questions, right?
Our knowledge, knowledge that is absolute fact, is a fraction of that which is available to know. As we gather knowledge little by little, we ofter formulate many opinions about that which we have found out.
Why should we wait around for science to tell us the details about God? Most of these details will forever be something that science will not be able to discern, anyway. Rather, now that science and nature have shown us that God exists, let's look for things that God has been telling us. Let's understand the logic of them, rather than waiting around for the next hundred thousand years until science can tell us a little.
This is what Christianity is all about. It is about God talking to us, showing us things that we could never find out through science, so that we have the opportunity to gain eternal life in peace and joy, a thing that science might never be able to prove in a million years, even though it is the absolute truth.
Tired of this user keep on appealing to ignorance and filling the answers with god of the gaps. So that's why you don't reply much. You are tired. What do you mean by "god of the gaps?"Try using google, asshole... here, I'll do it for you to show you how it's done: https://www.google.com/search?q=god+of+the+gapsYou only make yourself look ignorant by asking stupid questions (and beginning every single post with an insult) |
|
|
|
The fact that NDE can be reproduced with a magnet is proof that its a bullshit memory... Got a source for all of that? I feel like we are going in circles... this is the third time you asked me to repost something I already posted... do you read my whole post or just the first sentence? Michael Shermer travels to Laurentian University in Sudbury, Canada, to strap on the "God Helmet" in neuroscientist Michael Persinger's lab that duplicates out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, alien abductions, and other paranormal phenomena. Actually, the evidence shows that the memories from NDE are at least as valid as real memories. If you have a problem with the evidence, then you can critique the methods employed by the authors. Thonnard's study indicates that the memories are being generated in a valid way from valid perceptions; in fact, they must be generated in this way because the lack of EEG definitively indicates the absence of consciousness and the only thing that we know of which can generate memories that are at least as real as valid memories is consciousness. There is no scientific evidence linking NDE with hallucinations; for example, the patient from the AWARE study results had a true perception of a sound during a flat EEG, so his experience cannot be dismissed as hallucinations. Furthermore, where is the evidence that the memories are being generated after the fact? Thonnard's results evidence the validity of NDE memories, whereas the God Helmet does nothing but entertain skeptics. As mentioned earlier, OBE is only one element of NDE, but NDE requires a number of different complementary explanations. Does this Helmet really duplicate ALL of the salient elements of NDE, including the phenomenological characteristics that identify it as a valid memory (see Thonnard's paper)? You are wrong I have already debunked your evidence... I have shown why the false memories more closely resemble actual memories than an imagined event You misunderstand the article you are citing... All evidence shows that it is a false memory ( exactly like a dream)... it is not real!... it is not an "imagined event", which is NOT A MEMORY... this does not imply anything like what you are claiming... The fact that the memory is stored in the area where your brain stores memories instead of where your brain stores make-believe fantasy doesn't mean it's real/legitimate in any way whatsoever This does not give it credibility in any way... It's equivalent to a christian saying, "I know for certain that God exists"... NO! YOU DONT! THATS BULLSHIT! YOU ARE A GULLIBLE FOOL OR LIAR! You have no clue how unreliable your memories actually are... If you think your memory is flawless you are just plain stupid... how well do you remember events from 40 years ago? The answer is obvious to anyone 40+ years old... your memory is shit... there have been plenty of scientific studies on this Quit pretending you know everything... you dont https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201203/unreliable-memoryI previously cited SEVERAL sources debunking your claim... if you refuse to look at the sources I hand you... fuck offYou can watch a man wear a helmet with his eyes closed for a few minutes... then listen to him tell a story about how some alien came into the room, abducted him onto a spaceship... where he was anally probed, then returned to the room... That shit did not happen! You can watch the video and see it did not happen the way he remembers it! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-near-death-experience-isnt-proof-heaven/http://skepdic.com/nde.htmlhttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Scientific_explanationP Z Myers similarly suggested that false memories may be generated as the brain tries to make sense of a time when consciousness did not exist. Further wishful thinking may generate experiences confirming what a subject wants to believe and brain damage may prevent a subject recognizing that the experience was a dream. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConfabulationIn psychiatry, Confabulation (verb: confabulate) is a memory disturbance, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive. Individuals who confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from "subtle alterations to bizarre fabrications", and are generally very confident about their recollections, despite contradictory evidence Edit: Does this Helmet really duplicate ALL of the salient elements of NDE, including the phenomenological characteristics that identify it as a valid memory (see Thonnard's paper)?
Yes you stupid mother fucker! Did you not watch the video I linked for you twice now?!?!? Are you such an asshole that you ask for evidence... and when I provide it multiple times, you don't even look at it?!?!?Here you lazy asshole... I'll link it for you a fifth time (you and I both quoted the link at least twice now)... watch the fucking 6-minute video then shut the fuck up about your ignorant claims! |
|
|
|
Being an atheist and presenting points is soothing while still alive and healthy, but when on the sick bed or at the point of death there is a longing for a stronger being to come in and assist. So what can be done then?
Here are a couple 60 second clips of atheists explaining it to you (you could have just googled the answer like I did... how hard is it really?) Richard Dawkins on Bill Maher Show - No death bed conversionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzZ7VkDGuPcChristopher Hitchens - On deathbed conversion [2010]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E1Im3Tu1UsI suppose I should add a clip from Madalyn ... she's my hero! Madalyn Murray O'Hair's GOING TO HELL. - Antitheist atheisthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfGOZ9RjRP8I don't want to be saved - I'm not interested in your ideas...
The idea which you invented has caused more misery to every human being in all ages of history than any other single idea... even war has not caused as much misery as God |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
