|
oldpainless posted:Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle Oldsideless, am I right?
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
I also until recently thought jastiger was a woman for some reason. It's prolly not unpopular in this thread, but it is here: I'm back in my tiny Texas hometown for a few months and imo these people should stop putting out confederate flags. It's funny to see them, but also really depressing to imagine, say a black family on a road trip, they need gas or snacks and our town is right here on the interstate... But then they see Jethro McAsshole's rebel flag flying on the exit and rightfully turn their asses around to stop at greener pastures. We are better than this bullshit, fellow hicks  I have a neighbour who flies a rebel flag right next to the US flag and every time I walk by it I mentally chant "Battle Cry of Freedom".
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
The only time you should proudly display a Rebel flag is if it's official Dukes of Hazzard merchandise, signed by cast members.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Has anyone said Americans be like this and Europeans be like that yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Leavemywife posted:The only time you should proudly display a Rebel flag is if it's official Dukes of Hazzard merchandise, signed by cast members. Agreed, but also applies to Lynyrd Skynyrd. The original band, not the current version. "In Birmingham they love the Gov'nor, boo hoo ooo Now we all did what we could do" That line is supposed to be CRITICAL of segregation you redneck fuckwits
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:You can't be politically Pro Life and also a good person. when many argue that a more ideal solution involves better, more comprehensive sex education for teens, possibly free if not subsidized contraceptive availability starting from high school, better support programs for financially vulnerable parents or single mothers, reforms to existing adoption services, etc, etc, etc, it really does seem like the goal no matter which side you're on is to try and limit, if not all together eliminate, the use of abortion from society as much as possible; opinions on that point really differ more by degrees than what's usually admitted - even the pro-choice crowd will argue that past a certain age of fetus that a mother's choice actually ceases to exist and there's now some legal argument/obligation for carrying it to birth and some pro-life people offer a number of exceptions imuo it's weird to label people that approach a common problem from an angle you don't like as being automatically terrible, especially on a subject that's legally settled in the west so all pro-lifers can do is grumble and argue for a lost cause without actually affecting what people can do with their bodies (pro-life politicians, however, that try to weasel out of providing services democratically established to be sound are poo poo excuses for public servants tho) - like i might as well label you repugnant just for holding views i don't like on comparable subjects like eugenics since your intent seems to be grounded in ignorant bullshit masquerading as concern for other people even tho you can't actually do anything but entertain and discuss a provocative idea
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:Agreed, but also applies to Lynyrd Skynyrd. The original band, not the current version. Skynyrd disowned the flag a couple of years ago. Which is even crazier than Rush distancing themselves from Ayn Rand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
hard counter posted:especially on a subject that's legally settled in the west so all pro-lifers can do is grumble and argue for a lost cause without actually affecting what people can do with their bodies lmao "legally settled." Like, you're technically right, but all the red states are doing their best to shut down every clinic they can.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
hard counter posted:imuo it's weird to label people that approach a common problem from an angle you don't like as being automatically terrible, especially on a subject that's legally settled in the west so all pro-lifers can do is grumble and argue for a lost cause without actually affecting what people can do with their bodies Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming all have a single abortion clinic per state. The pro-lifers and the people who they elect are the reason for that. You're a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming all have a single abortion clinic per state. The pro-lifers and the people who they elect are the reason for that. You're a loving moron. Yeah but see they didn't ban abortion so it's proof that it's been solved! People can get abortions if they want some of them just have to really, really want it and be willing to drive multiple hours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
in your hurry to mash post in righteous indignation did you guys not see the part where i called out shitstain 'public servants' who try to weasel out of doing their jobs? i understand that's a fairly common phenomena in the states (but in other areas it's definitely more settled) where there's reason to have anger at idiot public officials but choosing to instead attack the pro-life platform, which is already a minority opinion anyway, rather the laws that protect these idiot officials won't do anything to solve the lack of ethical diligence in public services, reforms won't and can't come through swaying public opinion anymore but instead by taking measures to enforce and ensure appropriate administrative conduct by public servants at all levels of governance way to ignore the underlying issues so you can call someone a moron
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
How do you think those public officials got their positions, HC?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
hard counter posted:in your hurry to mash post in righteous indignation did you guys not see the part where i called out shitstain 'public servants' who try to weasel out of doing their jobs? i understand that's a fairly common phenomena in the states (but in other areas it's definitely more settled) where there's reason to have anger at idiot public officials but choosing to instead attack the pro-life platform, which is already a minority opinion anyway, rather the laws that protect these idiot officials won't do anything to solve the lack of ethical diligence in public services, reforms won't and can't come through swaying public opinion anymore but instead by taking measures to enforce and ensure appropriate administrative conduct by public servants at all levels of governance settle down, beavis. Anyway, my latest unpopular opinion is I think countries should have more power to restrict tourism when it threatens the very thing the place is a popular tourist destination for. If people don't respect the ancient sites or natural wonders and litter and defile them, they should not let people in until they learn to respect them. There should be government subsidies for this kind of thing so they don't just tolerate it because otherwise the people there wouldn't make any money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How do you think those public officials got their positions, HC? if they couldn't bypass federal rulings in the first place it wouldn't be a problem who gets elected is it good they can just pretty much ignore legislature? not just on this issue but on any other issue so long as the right shitstain gets elected and starts weaseling? are there perhaps underlying problems that could be addressed instead of having to make sure every single pocket of dissent has been stamped out so one dude can't get elected somewhere and suddenly make it a miserable affair to get a service done?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:How is pro life different than any of that stuff? It comes from the same place of ignorance as thinking other right wing crap is the answer. Like, I wouldn't say my family members who are pro life are bad people. It doesn't come from an evil place. They are just loving naive and stubborn and incapable of thinking about it in any terms other than "omg think of all the precious babies dying!" To a point I think you're right but at this point its not really that difficult a concept to believe that abortion is bad but still keep your hands off of other womens' uteruses. Notice that i said POLITICALLY pro life as in, they go and protest and lobby and attack people for even thinking that life doesn't begin at conception. Its one thing to be a blissfully ignorant idiot at home, its another to turn that into political power to actually HURT people because of your superstitious beliefs. That crosses the line from blissfully misguided to actively evil. vintagepurple posted:I also until recently thought jastiger was a woman for some reason. You can't fly the rebel flag unironically and not be a bad person. There is no excuse to defend that evil institution. hard counter posted:when many argue that a more ideal solution involves better, more comprehensive sex education for teens, possibly free if not subsidized contraceptive availability starting from high school, better support programs for financially vulnerable parents or single mothers, reforms to existing adoption services, etc, etc, etc, it really does seem like the goal no matter which side you're on is to try and limit, if not all together eliminate, the use of abortion from society as much as possible; opinions on that point really differ more by degrees than what's usually admitted - even the pro-choice crowd will argue that past a certain age of fetus that a mother's choice actually ceases to exist and there's now some legal argument/obligation for carrying it to birth and some pro-life people offer a number of exceptions The difference is the pro-choice side is a coherent moral argument that achieves the goal stated in its platforms. THe pro life side is just a bunch of superstitious nonsense and pearl clutching that actively harms people outside of their own little bubble. Its inherently a lovely and inconsistent position to have, and these aren't children we're dealing with, but actual adults that can't form rational arguments. NO QUARTER FOR THEM. Also another PHUO I have, and I have no real solution to it that is perfect, but you should have to earn citizenship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:Mexico: not north america Not WASP, not North 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Right, because "killing humans is bad" isn't a coherent moral argument at all. Just because their definition of "human" isn't 100% in line with yours doesn't mean they're batshit insane
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:Right, because "killing humans is bad" isn't a coherent moral argument at all. Just because their definition of "human" isn't 100% in line with yours doesn't mean they're batshit insane WASPs a few hundred years ago killed basically everyone they met and so did WRCs. No-one good colonized an America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Catholicism is really bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:
We agree on this count, friend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Catholicism is great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:WASPs a few hundred years ago killed basically everyone they met and so did WRCs. No-one good colonized an America. I thought this was the unpopular opinion thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Catholicism is really bad. Revise that to (American) Christianity and I agree with you. Americans never follow the Bible, ever. Christianity in it's purest form is an okay religion, but Americans rarely follow it that way. Which is why so many Christians voted for Trump lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
You literally can't be a christian and not be some sort of socialist incensed at the poverty and inequality in society. Calvinism is a satanic cult.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
You can't be a Christian literalist and be a good person. Its a garbage philosophy with some good ideas sprinkled in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
like, even that new-ish pope most folks seems to find generally pleasant, the one who preaches tolerance, humility and charity and seems to actually live by his own examples and thus frequently butts heads with the self-described religious right for their failures to do the same with policy? you're a bit of a give no quarter type of guy aren't you
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Yes. Because hes still the figure head of a massive evil organization and refuses to admit to and compensate for the child abuse scandals. They still stand in the way of abortion rights for many people and consider women second class citizenship. He says nice things about climate change but refuses to see gay people as equal. Maybe if the new pope embraced science and reason instead of superstition as the height of humanity we'd get somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
what's the pope's stance on abortion? condom use? women priests? gay rights?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
What's the pope's stance on beans in chili? Pineapple on pizza? Are hot dogs sandwiches?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
yeah that's what i meant in the give no quarter part; lead figures usually deal with a huge amount of inertia whenever they push for organizational reform in a system needing it (see the last us presidency) and usually can't act upon all things at all times, using his tenure to restore at least the original tenants of charity and tolerance seems like a worthwhile goal for one man to focus his time in charge on considering the amount of positive change that could accomplish if he succeeds
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
I assume that, upon Jesus' return, he would probably get himself beat up by Christians .
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
hard counter posted:yeah that's what i meant in the give no quarter part; lead figures usually deal with a huge amount of inertia whenever they push for organizational reform in a system needing it (see the last us presidency) and usually can't act upon all things at all times, using his tenure to restore at least the original tenants of charity and tolerance seems like a worthwhile goal for one man to focus his time in charge on considering the amount of positive change that could accomplish if he succeeds "His organization is so lovely that we should give it a pass" nah. Hes not a president for 4 years, hes a literal head of state with absolute authority on most things. Even if he wanted to do good he could easily come out for contraception, divorce, gay rights etc. Instead he waxes poetic about justice while maintaining the same old bullshit policies. A pretty face on an unchanging church. No thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
i'm not catholic but even i know that's not how their church hierarchy is currently organized since there are administrative, legal, spiritual and dogmatic limits on the pope's personal primacy among bishops, but i guess that doesn't matter anyway because apparently the only way for someone to keep their good character intact is to avoid getting involved in anything untoward, even in trying to improve a situation, and doing things like trying to reform an influential organization are not enough to remain a decent person in your own right
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
earth is flat, dudes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
hard counter posted:i'm not catholic but even i know that's not how their church hierarchy is currently organized since there are administrative, legal, spiritual and dogmatic limits on the pope's personal primacy among bishops, but i guess that doesn't matter anyway because apparently the only way for someone to keep their good character intact is to avoid getting involved in anything untoward, even in trying to improve a situation, and doing things like trying to reform an influential organization are not enough to remain a decent person in your own right Thats another point. The entire thing is based on arcane rules and superstition. Its flawed from the bottom up. The value of the organization is measured in how far away from the dogma it goes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
i think we're probably going to argue in circles again because the rcc is an organization like any other that has undergone change over time as their scholars produce new arguments from re-examining canons and developing new theological writings to better their perceived understanding of what the original dogma was and what its application to the current world is, they wouldn't see themselves as moving away from their original principles but rather moving closer to them when calls for reform/change arise; the extent to which real church reforms can still be called 'flawed from the bottom up' and better the further it gets from the original dogma is probably a matter of perspective that i don't think we're going to find common grounds on
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
jastiger going too far? whoda thunk
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Anyway, my latest unpopular opinion is I think countries should have more power to restrict tourism when it threatens the very thing the place is a popular tourist destination for. If people don't respect the ancient sites or natural wonders and litter and defile them, they should not let people in until they learn to respect them. There should be government subsidies for this kind of thing so they don't just tolerate it because otherwise the people there wouldn't make any money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Thats another point. The entire thing is based on arcane rules and superstition. Its flawed from the bottom up. The value of the organization is measured in how far away from the dogma it goes. Do you feel the same way about Islam or would that be racist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Teaching and promoting abstinence is fine, it just shouldn't involve misinformation and trying to scare or shame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:10
|
|
