yobnoc

Welcome aboard what? Seems dubious, somehow...

I was waiting to see if anyone would post on the President* dipping his toe in the waters of dictatorship, suggesting he gets two years added to his first (hopefully only) term. I know many people who lamented about wishing Obama could run a third term, but it was in the abstract and always with a dismal sigh, because it's inherently seen as a non-starter. Never once did Obama complain that he should be given a longer term though. This is the stuff of autocrats, folks. And I bet the base DGAF.

Falsifiability is a term that has a specific meaning. You cannot disprove it. No matter how absurd it is on the surface, there is always some special pleading apologetic to get around the glaring inconsistencies. Any scientific hypothesis formed has to be falsifiable. It's a scientific term. And a lot of simple folks try to use that as if it bolsters their claims. "Aha! You can't PROVE he doesn't exist, therefore god!" The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim.

So, the low-wage earners get breadcrumbs and the rich get richer. Gotya.

This is such a misleading statistic. If I make 1,000,000/year and get a 1% wage increase, it's disingenuous to look someone in the eye who makes 30,000/year who gets a 4% raise and say "hey what are you mad about; you got a bigger pay increase than I did!"

You're on the money with that point; there are many easily refutable claims in the bible, but what I was referring to is not just biblical theology. A god claim could be simply a deistic creator being, not necessarily Yahweh. The Native Americans have a turtle creator story I believe. Big space turtle or something. Anyway, it's the overarching god-claim that I'm referring to, not necessarily the minutiae of the stories themselves. Many of those are indeed falsifiable.

False. The problem with a god claim is that it is unfalsifiable. Slipper fairies are also unfalsifiable, but you wouldn't say you're agnostic about them. Leprechauns: unfalsifiable. Also not agnostic about leprechauns. I think the solution isn't to try to convince me I'm not an atheist (I am), but rather to let people choose what label, if any, they prefer to apply to themselves. Also, feelings and faith don't get you any closer to the truth of a claim. And the bigger the claim, and the more consequential it is, the more evidence is needed to support it. If you told me you saw a bluejay in your back yard yesterday, I'd believe you based on your personal testimony. For one: it is completely inconsequential to me if you're lying, and two: people seeing bluejays in their back yard is a common occurrence that doesn't strain the imagination. If you tell me that you know the origins of the universe and what happens when we die and that I need to follow the worship instructions and teachings from a bunch of ancient stories from bronze-aged goat herders or else I'll suffer a metaphysical torture chamber for all of eternity, I require a LOT more evidence than personal testimony. And I do not accept the truth of the claim in any way prior to the presentation of sufficient evidence.

Meh. That all depends on preference and priorities. Apple is the best fit for my needs and wants.

If you look me in the face and tell me that the Loch Ness Monster is real, I’d tell you I do not believe that, and that I do not believe it because I have not seen evidence to support that claim. If you told me that there are magical fairies that live in your bedtime slippers, I’d give you the same answer. This does not mean I’m agnostic on the subjects, although I’ll give you that agnosticism is very poorly defined, and people tend to have their own subjective definitions on what it means. To be clear, I don’t see the prospect of Nessie, slipper fairies, or God as open questions. They are claims equally lacking merit (actually I’d say there is more [still insufficient, but more] evidence for Nessie than God), and should not be believed until the claimants can provide evidence to support their claim. Until then, which has not yet happened and does not seem likely to happen, I do not believe any of those claims. That is atheism.

Unfortunately there's only one function for "liking" someone's post. What I like is that you clarified the misunderstanding that came from the nuances of our clumsy language. I'll have to look into the claim that people were exterminated for their religious beliefs alone; the only one I'm aware of that did that was Hitler, and he was decidedly *not* an atheist, though it is a popular claim by apologists that he was. He wrote at length about his Christianity, was endorsed by the Vatican, and "Gott mit uns" was a slogan of the Nazi party, meaning "God with us."

I am an atheist, and I definitely don't refuse to believe in a god or gods. If given sufficient evidence to warrant belief, I absolutely would accept it. I can say with 100% certainty that if the Abrahamic god (Yahweh, Allah) was somehow (unlikely) proven to exist though, I would not bend the knee based on principle alone. Those gods are monstrous, and it would go against my moral compass to worship such entities based on the atrocities credited to them.

Atheism is *not* a religion. By definition, it is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. A lack of belief in any religious deities logically cannot be a religion. If it is, please elaborate on how atheism fits the Oxford definition for religion: 1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 1.1 A particular system of faith and worship. 1.2 A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. I'm sure you'll advocate for the metaphorical meaning in 1.2, but in the examples of its use it uses "consumerism is the new religion..." Even the metaphorical 1.2 definition I don't find fits for Atheism. I don't see how it could fit any more than not believing in unicorns or bigfoot could fit the definition of a religion. Do you believe in Leprechauns? Are you part of a religion if you don't? I'd say that's absurd, and I think most people would agree. While it is true that there were dictators who were atheists, I haven't seen any evidence that anybody was killed in the "name" of atheism. Even the sentence sounds absurd. There is no doctrine to draw off of that would be referenced as an instructive guide to kill the "others," as you have with at least the three Abrahamic religions.

I found myself wondering what it is about Hillary that invokes such a disproportionate visceral response every time you mention her. I mean, I only dislike her because I think she's opportunistic and mean - hell, even her own staff had emails where they acknowledged she was a huge biotch. But like...you take it to a completely different level. What has convinced you that she's just the most awful, terrible, no-good, lying, cheating, murderous woman ever to walk the planet? I'm genuinely curious as to how someone can hate her more than David Dennison, given the plethora of factual information available about both of them. Like...Trump literally committed a felony in coordination with Michael Cohen to deceive the American electorate which, it's not a stretch of the imagination to believe wholeheartedly, caused him to win the election due to a mere 70,000 votes stretched across 3 states. Can you name something more an affront to the American electorate that Hillary has ever done? Facts only please.

I know exactly what you're experiencing. I have terrible ears for this sport. I perforated my eardrums several times when I first started. I began to use Afrin nasal spray about 20 min before a jump, and took non-drowsy sudafed in the morning. Helped me a ton. Or...a tonne (since you're a Canuck ;-) kidding). Good luck!

I haven't been banned. I don't engage in such a way that I have to worry about that.

18USC1510: (a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. See the word "endeavors?" That includes attempts. And implicitly dangling pardons in public view is the bribery part.

Except those pesky details, like attempting to obstruct justice is a violation of the statute. It's like robbing a bank. If you attempt to rob a bank, but aren't successful, you're still in a heap of legal trouble. RM3 made it pretty damn clear that the only reason he couldn't arrest David Dennison is that he's a sitting president. What a shit Justice Department guideline. Nobody is above the law. Our system is robust enough to handle the president being arrested.

Oh for sure a different thread; I was only pointing to those two examples off the top of my head where I think that the libertarian approach is best. I generally fall to the left-center-left on most issues, but some of the things the "purist" liberals advocate for drive me absolutely crazy. Anyone who spouts off about strengthening unions, for instance. I manage Union employees. While I fully support their core cause (negotiating for better pay/benefits and demanding safe working conditions), they've become just another money-making corporation that is just as susceptible to corruption, and a lot of their work involves protecting people who legit should be fired. Like, I've seen a hi-lo driver drop a unit (I'm purposely being vague) that costs roughly 35k and ruin it. As is the policy, the driver was sent to medical to provide a urine sample, and failed. Two days later, the driver was back at work, on a hi-lo, and received back-pay for the days he was on suspension. It's absolutely ridiculous. I digress... The point is that nobody fits neatly into a political box (except trumpvangelicals), and one of the problems I have is with the administration of Social Security. And due to the poor administration of Social Security, I'd be chomping at the bit for an opportunity to opt out of it.

Do you think the libertarian ethic is ever right? I don't agree with the party line, but there are some issues I can get behind, like decriminalizing all drugs and marriage equality.

The only acceptable response for you would be for me to say “gee, I guess you’re right.” Which is the crux of this whole thing. If I were given the choice to vote for a politician who was for an opt-in system, I’d vote for him/her. If, which is more likely, but still pretty unlikely in my estimation, some pol came up with a permanent fix that gained traction in the do-nothing-House, I’d support that too. But right now it’s a system that subsidizes welfare off the backs of the middle class, and it’s broken. So yeah...we’re not going to agree completely, but the mockery was pretty uncalled for. We can disagree on stuff like this without it dripping with contempt. I don’t begrudge y’all for holding the position you do, I just have a different position.

I think the main reason I can't get on board with the right anymore is because they've co-opted Christian evangelicalism as a political platform. That, and all the conspiracy theories aiming to assuage their unrealistic denialism of climate change. So, until they become the party of fiscal conservatism again, which I don't believe will happen before the party dies completely, I'm voting blue all the way downticky.

I'm a well intentioned, left-libertarian-leaning, young-ish man. I generally find myself agreeing with those folks you mentioned, but I was surprised at how nasty some of the arguments can get on the occasion when I find myself in their crosshairs for a libertarian position.

Whoa, careful...you'll get crucified on here for suggesting that!

See Volume II, Page 2, paragraph three, beginning with "Fourth..."

. So they can pocket the money most Americans never see. Um....yeah you did?