This sounds like a great idea!

[Ashock]

What guy when around other guys does not at least sometime in their life talk like that?

Men who think it's normal - even jokingly - to talk about sexually assaulting women disgust me. Some of us are not cavemen.

edit: it's like, a million times worse when the man is in a position of authority. I've been around enough women to know that talk like that - EVEN JOKINGLY - from a man in a position of authority, is genuinely scary.

This was many years ago and Trump was just a guy, albeit a rich guy. So what? Besides, you seem to be mistaking banter with actions. Look at his actions and compare to those of Kennedy and Clinton. See, actions are more important than words. If you think his words are so terrible, then according to that mindframe, Kennedy and Clinton should have been executed, because the way they treated and acted towards women was significantly worse than what Trump said. Instead they are liberal icons. But that's just your 0.00001% addition to the hypocrisy of the left. Relax, you've done your duty for the day.

[Lissa]

What guy when around other guys does not at least sometime in their life talk like that?

Men who think it's normal - even jokingly - to talk about sexually assaulting women disgust me. Some of us are not cavemen.

edit: it's like, a million times worse when the man is in a position of authority. I've been around enough women to know that talk like that - EVEN JOKINGLY - from a man in a position of authority, is genuinely scary.

This was many years ago and Trump was just a guy, albeit a rich guy. So what? Besides, you seem to be mistaking banter with actions. Look at his actions and compare to those of Kennedy and Clinton. See, actions are more important than words. If you think his words are so terrible, then according to that mindframe, Kennedy and Clinton should have been executed, because the way they treated and acted towards women was significantly worse than what Trump said. Instead they are liberal icons. But that's just your 0.00001% addition to the hypocrisy of the left. Relax, you've done your duty for the day.

Wait, wha? Actions between consenting adults, even if one is married (I'm not condoning trysts while married), is *WORSE* than taking an action against someone that has not given consent? Are you truly serious? If you are, you're very, very sick (and before you go Trump was bragging about what he could have done, there's been too many reports of him actually *DOING* what he was bragging about against unwilling women).

[Archon_Wing]

Why do far-righters always talk about hypocrisy and hurt feelings, and PCness while dwelling in an air of oppression when that's the PC thing to do?

And that's what I gather from the constant tl;dr of past ills. It's so easy to get triggered.

You have become what you hate. And it's just as annoying.

I mean that's how I really see this shit as. The righters have just found the same tactics as the liberals and it works. lol.

[FireIceTalon]

For as much as the right hates "political correctness", they sure do have their own (obnoxious) form of it. If you are an atheist, unpatriotic, care about the lives of minorities, support womens rights, etc....you are the anti-christ.

Bourgeois liberal "political correctness" pisses me off too though. It's ok to be an SJW and be against racism, sexism, homo/transgenderphobia, ablism, ageism, excess corporate power, etc. But its NOT ok to be against the "free market", a system which perpetuates and necessitates all those evils, and much more. Identity politics has been a very big problem and barrier for putting discussions about class back on the table - it's the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. And in the rare occasions it is discussed, only "income inequality" is addressed, treated as a cause rather than as the symptom it is.

Anyways, its an absolute fucking joke that Ashock can run rampant around here spamming the forum with countless threads on his platform of hate, bigotry, ignorance, hypocrisy and trolling....but i get temp banned for making 1 thread (with the thread locked to boot) about a white nationalist terrorist who murdered two people. Just goes to show that liberals are every bit as racist as fascies are, if not entirely sympathetic towards many of their reactionary ideals. At the very least, its certainly a more tolerated viewpoint here, however much the powers that be may claim to abhor it, than a revolutionary left-wing perspective.

[Ashock]

What guy when around other guys does not at least sometime in their life talk like that?

Men who think it's normal - even jokingly - to talk about sexually assaulting women disgust me. Some of us are not cavemen.

edit: it's like, a million times worse when the man is in a position of authority. I've been around enough women to know that talk like that - EVEN JOKINGLY - from a man in a position of authority, is genuinely scary.

This was many years ago and Trump was just a guy, albeit a rich guy. So what? Besides, you seem to be mistaking banter with actions. Look at his actions and compare to those of Kennedy and Clinton. See, actions are more important than words. If you think his words are so terrible, then according to that mindframe, Kennedy and Clinton should have been executed, because the way they treated and acted towards women was significantly worse than what Trump said. Instead they are liberal icons. But that's just your 0.00001% addition to the hypocrisy of the left. Relax, you've done your duty for the day.

Wait, wha? Actions between consenting adults, even if one is married (I'm not condoning trysts while married), is *WORSE* than taking an action against someone that has not given consent? Are you truly serious? If you are, you're very, very sick (and before you go Trump was bragging about what he could have done, there's been too many reports of him actually *DOING* what he was bragging about against unwilling women).

When a husband sleeps with different women while married, he is treating his WIFE like crap. When that husband happens to be President, it also puts undo pressure on those he sleeps with to actually agree. When one (that we know of) of them happens to be a young intern, it is abuse of power. When that said President lies about having sex with her under OATH, that is what again?

You are equating this behavior with some offhand comments made what, 30 years ago? In fact you are saying that makeng those comments is worse?

Yeah, you're full of crap alright. Don't worry though, you have plenty more where that came from.

[Lissa]

What guy when around other guys does not at least sometime in their life talk like that?

Men who think it's normal - even jokingly - to talk about sexually assaulting women disgust me. Some of us are not cavemen.

edit: it's like, a million times worse when the man is in a position of authority. I've been around enough women to know that talk like that - EVEN JOKINGLY - from a man in a position of authority, is genuinely scary.

This was many years ago and Trump was just a guy, albeit a rich guy. So what? Besides, you seem to be mistaking banter with actions. Look at his actions and compare to those of Kennedy and Clinton. See, actions are more important than words. If you think his words are so terrible, then according to that mindframe, Kennedy and Clinton should have been executed, because the way they treated and acted towards women was significantly worse than what Trump said. Instead they are liberal icons. But that's just your 0.00001% addition to the hypocrisy of the left. Relax, you've done your duty for the day.

Wait, wha? Actions between consenting adults, even if one is married (I'm not condoning trysts while married), is *WORSE* than taking an action against someone that has not given consent? Are you truly serious? If you are, you're very, very sick (and before you go Trump was bragging about what he could have done, there's been too many reports of him actually *DOING* what he was bragging about against unwilling women).

When a husband sleeps with different women while married, he is treating his WIFE like crap. When that husband happens to be President, it also puts undo pressure on those he sleeps with to actually agree. When one (that we know of) of them happens to be a young intern, it is abuse of power. When that said President lies about having sex with her under OATH, that is what again?

You are equating this behavior with some offhand comments made what, 30 years ago? In fact you are saying that makeng those comments is worse?

Yeah, you're full of crap alright. Don't worry though, you have plenty more where that came from.

Nice bit of deflection. You seem to think that lying under oath about having sex with someone (yes, it's perjury) is worse than molestation and possibly rape? Also, you think if someone didn''t consent they wouldn't end up going after the person in power afterward?

Let me ask you another question, do you like Newt Gingrinch or John McCain?

[kandrathe]

I prefer humanist or so, or scientist.

Science is not the antithesis of faith. You propose a false dichotomy. Science is a process for discerning the observable truth. Everything else we believe which is unproven or unobservable requires faith.

Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.
{The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not.}
— Albert Einstein

The more I study quantum mechanics, and deep math, the more I understand the nature of our reality and it's awesomeness.

[eppie]

This was many years ago and Trump was just a guy, albeit a rich guy. So what? Besides, you seem to be mistaking banter with actions. Look at his actions and compare to those of Kennedy and Clinton. See, actions are more important than words. If you think his words are so terrible, then according to that mindframe, Kennedy and Clinton should have been executed, because the way they treated and acted towards women was significantly worse than what Trump said. Instead they are liberal icons. But that's just your 0.00001% addition to the hypocrisy of the left. Relax, you've done your duty for the day.

Ashock, the difference is that this action of Trump was known before he was elected.....so during the election campaign.
(of course in a completely different time where anything you see is on the internet 3 seconds later).

Kennedy or Clinton could have been a worse person than Trump, but this is about image. People vote for Trump even though they know what kind of person he is. Clinton and Kennedy were a lot more respectable (at least what was known by the public).

So the issue is not with what kind of person Trump is, but with the fact that people actually vote for him while fully understanding that Trump is such a person.

---

I prefer humanist or so, or scientist.

Science is not the antithesis of faith. You propose a false dichotomy. Science is a process for discerning the observable truth. Everything else we believe which is unproven or unobservable requires faith.

No,
I believe that given time, everything can be explained using science.

[kandrathe]

No, I believe that given time, everything can be explained using science.

Yes, I believe you do think that. Just as a creationist only views the world from one side. This polarity denies the possibility of middle ground and thus becomes conflict. Many atheists are not merely atheists, but also actively anti-theists. You are not content to allow others equal treatment in discourse because you adamantly believe you are right and they are wrong.

Science cannot help us with the ethical application of science, as in the chemical application of mustard gas in WWI. Or, the proper use of nuclear weapons in WWII. Science, as proposed by Popper, is a narrow part of our philosophy. But, a very useful one in finding truth through experiments and observing the results. It does little for us in for example the aforementioned ethical decisions, or in subjective judgment in aesthetics. You can choose to deny the metaphysical, but it is an unprovable position. I claim all the body of philosophy, including that which through the pursuit of truth requires belief without proof.

[Archon_Wing]

I am the view that the question is a pointless one to ask, but people are fools for going at each other's throats about it.

That makes me an agnostic I guess?

If there is a God, I would have to answer to him and not his fans, anyways.

[kandrathe]

I am the view that the question is a pointless one to ask, but people are fools for going at each other's throats about it.

That makes me an agnostic I guess?

If there is a God, I would have to answer to him and not his fans, anyways.

I think you have a reasonable position. It is insane for us to fight and kill each other for an unprovable proposition.

[eppie]

No, I believe that given time, everything can be explained using science.

Yes, I believe you do think that. Just as a creationist only views the world from one side. This polarity denies the possibility of middle ground and thus becomes conflict. Many atheists are not merely atheists, but also actively anti-theists. You are not content to allow others equal treatment in discourse because you adamantly believe you are right and they are wrong.

Science cannot help us with the ethical application of science, as in the chemical application of mustard gas in WWI. Or, the proper use of nuclear weapons in WWII. Science, as proposed by Popper, is a narrow part of our philosophy. But, a very useful one in finding truth through experiments and observing the results. It does little for us in for example the aforementioned ethical decisions, or in subjective judgment in aesthetics. You can choose to deny the metaphysical, but it is an unprovable position. I claim all the body of philosophy, including that which through the pursuit of truth requires belief without proof.

In most countries in the world atheist are (heavily) discriminated against.
I am fine with people believing in God but I am not fine with my government subsidizing religious elementary and high schools. (for example)
Everybody should be treated the same, but sadly atheists are discriminated almost everywhere, christians are discriminated in Muslim countries and muslims are discriminated in Christian countries.
Religious people usually do the discrimination....not the atheists.

Even though I am right (because God does not exist) how would I discriminate people based on that? If you want to pray, you don't hurt me so I don't care.

I really would prefer more people becoming atheists so that they can start helping saving the world. Loose there emphasis on weaponry (which for some reason religious people often have). Behave not as earth was Gods gift and so you could do anything you want with it......after you earthly life you will have your eternal life anyway......
So yes I would always try to change people's mind and letting them stop being religious but that only means equal treatment for everyone.
Atheism doesn't have a certain set of rules that can be used for unequal treatment.

---

If there is a God, I would have to answer to him and not his fans, anyways.

I like that statement.

[FireIceTalon]

I'm going to take it a step further than Archon here.

EVEN IF there was a God, I wouldn't answer to him or her regardless. Even iff God's existence was proven, why the hell should we follow it? I don't want to follow anyone, I want MY OWN SELF DETERMIMATION, free from someone else's will. And I think this is how everyone should think. Why would you submit yourself to the will of someone else, especially if they force you to? Last I checked, that was called SLAVERY.

Besides, if there is a God, it has SHIT TON of splainin' to do, with how fucked up the world is. If it existed and was truly this knower-of-all things and as great as its believers claim - it wouldn't allow people to be starving in the world, people killin each other, wars, disease, and everything else. I would say if there is indeed a God, its one evil, sadistic motherfucker that NO ONE should be following. Fuck god. I would not answer to it, for all those reasons. I follow my own conscience, and no one elses. I don't need a higher diety to know right from wrong.

Honestly, proving the existence of God is the least of the theists problems. The Problem of Evil is an equally critical if not larger obstacle for theists.

[kandrathe]

I am fine with people believing in God but I am not fine with my government subsidizing religious elementary and high schools. (for example)

We can agree that the majority of schools in the US are publicly run, and entirely government subsidized? What if any non-government run school, uniform in curricular outcome wanted some government subsidies? Is not the same rationale for funding public government run schools the same as for subsidizing any school?

The only difference is that some non-government run schools teach additional things, like STEM emphasis, or performing arts, or religious studies. But, they are highly scrutinized to ensure the same or better curricular outcomes.

I don't understand why so many independence minded in the US are willing to tolerate the near complete government monopoly on education.

Everybody should be treated the same, but sadly atheists are discriminated almost everywhere, christians are discriminated in Muslim countries and muslims are discriminated in Christian countries.

Craig Hicks claimed he wanted "equality" as well, but I believe his actions were also biased against religious people.

[eppie]

I am fine with people believing in God but I am not fine with my government subsidizing religious elementary and high schools. (for example)

We can agree that the majority of schools in the US are publicly run, and entirely government subsidized? What if any non-government run school, uniform in curricular outcome wanted some government subsidies? Is not the same rationale for funding public government run schools the same as for subsidizing any school?

The only difference is that some non-government run schools teach additional things, like STEM emphasis, or performing arts, or religious studies. But, they are highly scrutinized to ensure the same or better curricular outcomes.

I don't understand why so many independence minded in the US are willing to tolerate the near complete government monopoly on education.

Everybody should be treated the same, but sadly atheists are discriminated almost everywhere, christians are discriminated in Muslim countries and muslims are discriminated in Christian countries.

Craig Hicks claimed he wanted "equality" as well, but I believe his actions were also biased against religious people.

I was thinking more about the situation in the Netherlands. In the beginning of the 20th century we got public schools with religious grounds.

Funny story....the socialists wanted to have voting rights for women and they could finally trade it off with teh christians.......the christians only would allow voting rights for women if they could have their christian schools subsidized by the state just like the neutral schools.
(this tory actually says it all to me)

[kandrathe]

I am fine with people believing in God but I am not fine with my government subsidizing religious elementary and high schools. (for example)

We can agree that the majority of schools in the US are publicly run, and entirely government subsidized? What if any non-government run school, uniform in curricular outcome wanted some government subsidies? Is not the same rationale for funding public government run schools the same as for subsidizing any school?

The only difference is that some non-government run schools teach additional things, like STEM emphasis, or performing arts, or religious studies. But, they are highly scrutinized to ensure the same or better curricular outcomes.

I don't understand why so many independence minded in the US are willing to tolerate the near complete government monopoly on education.

Everybody should be treated the same, but sadly atheists are discriminated almost everywhere, christians are discriminated in Muslim countries and muslims are discriminated in Christian countries.

Craig Hicks claimed he wanted "equality" as well, but I believe his actions were also biased against religious people.

I was thinking more about the situation in the Netherlands. In the beginning of the 20th century we got public schools with religious grounds.

Funny story....the socialists wanted to have voting rights for women and they could finally trade it off with teh christians.......the christians only would allow voting rights for women if they could have their christian schools subsidized by the state just like the neutral schools.
(this tory actually says it all to me)

It says much about the Netherlands in 1919. Verzuiling was and is a horrible idea. As much as I dislike the US party system, it at least forces one to compromise between bad and worse.

[eppie]

It says much about the Netherlands in 1919. Verzuiling was and is a horrible idea. As much as I dislike the US party system, it at least forces one to compromise between bad and worse.

Well verzuiling and the current multi-party system in dutch politics are two very different things. But that is something for another discussion.

Eventhough we often have a very long period after election untill a few parties made a coalition I vastly prefer our system over the quasi two party systems such as in the USA and UK.

[FireIceTalon]

It says much about the Netherlands in 1919. Verzuiling was and is a horrible idea. As much as I dislike the US party system, it at least forces one to compromise between bad and worse.

Well verzuiling and the current multi-party system in dutch politics are two very different things. But that is something for another discussion.

Eventhough we often have a very long period after election untill a few parties made a coalition I vastly prefer our system over the quasi two party systems such as in the USA and UK.

Americans love the illusion of choice.

[Ashock]

This was many years ago and Trump was just a guy, albeit a rich guy. So what? Besides, you seem to be mistaking banter with actions. Look at his actions and compare to those of Kennedy and Clinton. See, actions are more important than words. If you think his words are so terrible, then according to that mindframe, Kennedy and Clinton should have been executed, because the way they treated and acted towards women was significantly worse than what Trump said. Instead they are liberal icons. But that's just your 0.00001% addition to the hypocrisy of the left. Relax, you've done your duty for the day.

Ashock, the difference is that this action of Trump was known before he was elected.....so during the election campaign.
(of course in a completely different time where anything you see is on the internet 3 seconds later).

Kennedy or Clinton could have been a worse person than Trump, but this is about image. People vote for Trump even though they know what kind of person he is. Clinton and Kennedy were a lot more respectable (at least what was known by the public).

So the issue is not with what kind of person Trump is, but with the fact that people actually vote for him while fully understanding that Trump is such a person.

By appointing Kellyanne Conway and Nikki Haley Trump has more than made up for whatever verbal indiscretion he might have committed against a woman. Actions speak louder than words.

Also, and you probably don't know this, but Bill Clinton was a widely known womanizer and cheater when he was just a governor of Arkansas, years before he ran for Pres.

---

I am fine with people believing in God but I am not fine with my government subsidizing religious elementary and high schools. (for example)

We can agree that the majority of schools in the US are publicly run, and entirely government subsidized? What if any non-government run school, uniform in curricular outcome wanted some government subsidies? Is not the same rationale for funding public government run schools the same as for subsidizing any school?

The only difference is that some non-government run schools teach additional things, like STEM emphasis, or performing arts, or religious studies. But, they are highly scrutinized to ensure the same or better curricular outcomes.

I don't understand why so many independence minded in the US are willing to tolerate the near complete government monopoly on education.

Everybody should be treated the same, but sadly atheists are discriminated almost everywhere, christians are discriminated in Muslim countries and muslims are discriminated in Christian countries.

Craig Hicks claimed he wanted "equality" as well, but I believe his actions were also biased against religious people.

I was thinking more about the situation in the Netherlands. In the beginning of the 20th century we got public schools with religious grounds.

Funny story....the socialists wanted to have voting rights for women and they could finally trade it off with teh christians.......the christians only would allow voting rights for women if they could have their christian schools subsidized by the state just like the neutral schools.
(this tory actually says it all to me)

Chew on this:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vaster...-forskolan

Hit translate, if you need to.

I see where this is going. Do you?

[kandrathe]

Americans love the illusion delusion of choice.

Fixed that for you.

... " typically a symptom of mental disorder."