|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:This made me laugh pretty hard considering the woman that posted it works as a CNA and makes probably $8-$10 an hour. Or at least she used to a few years ago. She's literally part of the 50% of lazy bad Americans who don't pay any income taxes at all. Barack Obama recognizes that the bully has stolen all the Lego bricks from the other child. The other child knows that the bully will take whatever toys they try to play with, and decides to just lie down in a corner rather than attempt self improvement. Our president attempts to fix the problem. A good fwd: FWD: fwd:
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
prom candy posted:If you want to argue with people who know their poo poo you need to find stuff in the New Testament as most Christians (AFAIK) aren't expected to follow all the rules in the Old Testament. Does anyone know of any crazy rules in the NT? Well, Matthew 5:17-18 means you just shut that argument down straight away - Christians have to follow everything in the Old Testament. quote:- “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
prom candy posted:If you want to argue with people who know their poo poo you need to find stuff in the New Testament as most Christians (AFAIK) aren't expected to follow all the rules in the Old Testament. Does anyone know of any crazy rules in the NT? Luke posted:14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. But really you shouldn't let them people away with poopooing the Old Testament. 1. The Old Testament if full of hosed up immoral poo poo (slavery, rape, genocide, stoning for breaking stupid rules, child sacrifice, etc). So was God just some hosed up psychopath until he became/had Jesus, and we're just supposed to ignore that? Before Jesus came, would it have been reasonable to refuse to worship God because he was immoral? How can God be "all good" if he was clearly not good for a long time? 2. All the anti-gay stuff is in the Old Testament, so if you want to hate on gays biblically, you better be able to deal with the rest of the Old Testament. 3. The 10 Commandments are in the Old Testament, so unless you are willing to throw those away, you better be able to deal with the rest of the Old Testament. If you just want to look for highlights in terms of stupid/immoral/good/contradictions passages in the Bible, a good resource is The Skeptics Annotated Bible Also it was hard to stop and just place the etc in those parentheses... modig fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jul 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
modig posted:2. All the anti-gay stuff is in the Old Testament, so if you want to hate on gays biblically, you better be able to deal with the rest of the Old Testament. It's not though, most Christian bigots who have actually done their homework will point to Romans 1:26-27 Some Book That Makes It Okay to Hate People posted:"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
I asked a friend about the babies being thrown against rocks. His reply was, "they were hell spawn  "
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 17:27
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
prom candy posted:It's not though, most Christian bigots who have actually done their homework will point to Romans 1:26-27 I was unaware of that verse, thanks for correcting me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
evilbastard posted:Well, Matthew 5:17-18 means you just shut that argument down straight away - Christians have to follow everything in the Old Testament. That one's really not that clear cut. When you fulfill something it means you bring it to its conclusion. Fulfilling an order would mean delivering it for instance. The common argument, which I tend to buy, is that he fulfilled the prophecies and laws by becoming a scapegoat for humanity's sins. It makes a lot of sense from even just a narrative standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Deuteronomy has some loving horrible laws in it, including that one,
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:For the time, it's not even a horrible law. The alternative to "the rapist has to marry her" was "she's never going to get married, since she's now impure." Its true, it is possible to imagine even more barbaric laws than those found in the Old Testament. The point of modern (my?) criticism is that if we consider the laws in the Bible barbaric, it implies 2 things. 1. We don't actually rely on the Bible for moral judgement. 2. The Bible isn't a good source of moral advice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
One would think God could have the time to say, "She's a human being, not a life support system for a broken hymen, you assholes." These people rend their garments about "moral absolutes" when they talk about the consensual sex gay people have, but trot out "It's better than the other bronze age nomads" regarding the treatment of rape victims. Dr Christmas fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jul 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
The Code of Hammurabi posted:If a man has ravished another's betrothed wife, who is a virgin, while still living in her father's house, and has been caught in the act, that man shall be put to death; the woman shall go free. That predates Deuteronomy by about a millennium.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
prom candy posted:If you want to argue with people who know their poo poo you need to find stuff in the New Testament as most Christians (AFAIK) aren't expected to follow all the rules in the Old Testament. Does anyone know of any crazy rules in the NT? This is a cop-out. The vast majority of the "traditional values" Christians want everyone to be held to by civil law come from the Old Testament. Jesus gave some conservative (for moderns) opinions about OT law and marriage which were fairly liberal at the time (for the Jews, who had weird hangups even then) but it's really peripheral to the core message of the Gospels. If you're arguing with someone worth talking to the real issue that you always need to go to is that Christians pick and choose what they like from the OT and thus the "traditional values" they espouse aren't even "biblical values". They're just some cultural group trying to impose their culture on everyone else while being incredibly self-righteous about it. Of course the distinction shouldn't matter in civil law but it ought to matter to a self-professing Christian.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:That predates Deuteronomy by about a millennium. That last one would have been a drag for Newt Gingrich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:That predates Deuteronomy by about a millennium. Those laws seem a lot more sensible. Why does God hate womenfolk so much? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:Those laws seem a lot more sensible. Why does God hate womenfolk so much?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Here's God's instructions for giving abortions:Numbers 5:11-31 posted:Then the Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. Basically wives: if your husband suspects you're unfaithful then you get tested. If you pass, well done. If you fail, then your baby is aborted and you are now barren.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Augster posted:Here's God's instructions for giving abortions: God will use his magic to abort your baby if you take some offerings to a priest. But he won't use his magic to be like "yo dude, just a heads up, your wife and this other dude are loving in the barn, I'll make sure they won't conceive tho so its fine since women are just baby factories."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
Boxman posted:Barack Obama recognizes that the bully has stolen all the Lego bricks from the other child. The other child knows that the bully will take whatever toys they try to play with, and decides to just lie down in a corner rather than attempt self improvement. Our president attempts to fix the problem. Also, they're Duplos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 15:18
|
|
|
Ana Lucia Cortez posted:Those laws seem a lot more sensible. Why does God hate womenfolk so much? Well a lot of the rest of the code of Hammurabi involves drowning people to death for really petty things. They just happened to be slightly more egalitarian in their terrible laws. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Well a lot of the rest of the code of Hammurabi involves drowning people to death for really petty things. They just happened to be slightly more egalitarian in their terrible laws.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Well, that's one way to interpret it. They don't list any punishment for raping a woman who isn't betrothed to someone, though. We're actually not sure. We're missing a big chunk of like 40 or so laws. Maybe that's where they implement the gynocracy MRAs always complain about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
cbirdsong posted:Some people have invented a Gmail add-on that automatically checks for keywords in common forwards, and then automatically presents links that debunk them: http://www.lazytruth.com I just wanted to add that I work with the developer of this plugin, so let me know if you have feedback / ideas / etc. I think it's a great idea and wanted to plug it again. http://www.lazytruth.com/
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Petey posted:I just wanted to add that I work with the developer of this plugin, so let me know if you have feedback / ideas / etc. I think it's a great idea and wanted to plug it again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
It doesn't look like it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Few pages back, there was something about the US paying welfare to illegal immigrants. Is that a real thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 08:54
|
|
|
Not unless they're the best identity theifs in the world. The closest thing they get to government healthcare is a trip to the ER.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 08:57
|
|
|
machinegunmessiah posted:Few pages back, there was something about the US paying welfare to illegal immigrants. Is that a real thing? Think about it this way, to get federal welfare aid, you'd have to submit documentation to the federal government. Illegal immigrants not only don't have the required documentation (e.g. social security numbers), but applying for aid would expose them to deportation because it would notify the government that they are illegally in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 10:04
|
|
|
I imagine somebody once told a 'welfare queen' anecdote and, to mix things up, decided to make the woman buying champagne and lobster with food stamps Hispanic instead of black.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 10:44
|
|
|
A thought occurred to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 11:19
|
|
|
machinegunmessiah posted:Few pages back, there was something about the US paying welfare to illegal immigrants. Is that a real thing? One thing that I guess they could point to in a roundabout way is SNAP benefits going to US citizen children of undocumented parents (  anchor babies). Good thing that even that is being fought against.Last year in Kansas, they changed the eligibility and payout formula to no longer count undocumented members in your household size. So, for example, if your household brings in $2200 per month for 3 US citizen children and 2 undocumented parents, you would no longer qualify for any SNAP benefits, since that income divided over the only 3 counted members is above the income threshold. Previously, when income in mixed documentation households was prorated, they would receive a total monthly benefit of ~$253. So in their quest to avoid giving illegal immigrants a single dollar of aid, Kansas decided it was a good idea to cut the benefits legal US citizens, resulting in more than 1000 being dropped from the program entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 14:01
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Think about it this way, to get federal welfare aid, you'd have to submit documentation to the federal government. Illegal immigrants not only don't have the required documentation (e.g. social security numbers), but applying for aid would expose them to deportation because it would notify the government that they are illegally in the US. Yeah, I thought it was weird, I just don't live in United States and don't know how you apply for aid and if 'Welfare For Immigrants' wasn't some extremely humanitarian government program... Lansdowne posted:One thing that I guess they could point to in a roundabout way is SNAP benefits going to US citizen children of undocumented parents ( I dunno, that seems kinda reasonable. Is there any other reason why would the parents be 'undocumented' than being there illegally? Not trying to get all flame-y, I just genuinely don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
What about legal immigrants? Green card holders and such? I assume they can apply for whatever? That letter didn't say anything about "illegal" immigrants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
machinegunmessiah posted:Yeah, I thought it was weird, I just don't live in United States and don't know how you apply for aid and if 'Welfare For Immigrants' wasn't some extremely humanitarian government program... Regardless of what you think about what undocumented immigrants deserve, we're still talking about US citizens living in poverty being denied aid simply because some members of their family are undocumented.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:What about legal immigrants? Green card holders and such? I assume they can apply for whatever? That letter didn't say anything about "illegal" immigrants. I know when I got my green card I was specifically told that I couldn't apply for certain benefits, though I don't recall which ones. It may vary between states, also.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
On the other hand, when the federal government told Nebraska to stop providing pre-natal care to illegal immigrant mothers through Medicaid, they passed a law over the governor's veto providing care to their unborn children through CHIP, under the reasoning that once they were born the child would be a US citizen. One of those crazy occasions where pro-life politicians actually follow through on the further implications of their stance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
machinegunmessiah posted:Yeah, I thought it was weird, I just don't live in United States and don't know how you apply for aid and if 'Welfare For Immigrants' wasn't some extremely humanitarian government program... The issue with the first one, "Welfare For Immigrants", is it manages to both be extremely specific and overly broad. Its mostly a problem with the way the term "welfare" is used in the US. Welfare was a real cash-assistance program, but it ended in the late 1990's; its now called TANF and has gone under a lot of reforms. But people still call it Welfare. But at the same time, people will refer to any sort of programs designed to help people as welfare: SNAP - Food Stamps Section 8 - Housing subsidies Unemployment Insurance Medicaid - Medical insurnace TANF - True Welfare And so on. Any sort of social program just gets lumped into "welfare". In most cases, they can't directly benefit. But if they have citizen children, their children can benefit, which could be argued gives them an indirect benefit (except for the fact that children cost way more than what these programs would ever provide and they'd be better off getting nothing and having no children from a financial perspective). The result is that people complain about "welfare", but may be referring to a different program, or just flat out combining and confusing different parts of different programs. As to your second question, the problem is you have US citizens going hungry or being malnourished because the people who are responsible for them can't afford to feed them. That should trump any concerns over benefits the parents may indirectly derive from the money. What's more, the benefits are already prorated based on the number of family members who qualify. For example, the family that Lansdowne mentioned only gets $253/month for three children. If the parents were here legally, they would be getting (off my head number) ~$400/month. So they already aren't getting the same benefits that people who are here legally would get. They only get the portion that the children qualify for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Is it fair that 5% of the nations competing in the 2012 Olympics have 40% of the medals while the bottom 50% of the countries competing in the Olympics have only 10% of all medals? Should an Olympic medal tax be levied on those nations at the very top? After all, they use many of the resources provided by the bottom 50%. I propose a $multi-million dollar per medal tax imposed on all medals given to (earned is such an unfair word) China, USA, Italy, S. Korea, Australia and Russia. The tax will be collected by the Human Rights arm of the UN and shared among all of the nations comprising the bottom 50% of medal winners. In these unfair times, where the wealthiest nations enjoy an unfair advantage, leading to an unfair share of gold, silver and bronze medals, we should even the playing field for all other nations' athletes who work just as hard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
pillsburysoldier posted:Is it fair that 5% of the nations competing in the 2012 Olympics They're attempting sarcasm but simultaneously making a point about imbalanced resources and exploitation. These are the moments  was truly made for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:05 |
|
|
losonti tokash posted:On the other hand, when the federal government told Nebraska to stop providing pre-natal care to illegal immigrant mothers through Medicaid, they passed a law over the governor's veto providing care to their unborn children through CHIP, under the reasoning that once they were born the child would be a US citizen. One of those crazy occasions where pro-life politicians actually follow through on the further implications of their stance. That just got me to think of an angle I never heard considered before. If you believe life truly does begin at conception, shouldn't that mean all fetuses provably conceived within US borders are citizens? Or do they not become citizens until physically born here? If so, does this introduce some sort of grey period where a fetus is a person, just not a citizen of any country? Nothing really meaningful to consider, but it might be fun to watch the gears turn in the head of your favorite pro-lifer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2012 00:33
|
|