Danioover9000

@Yimpa Censorship is a drug?

@Nemra Every/all groups borrow something from another group. Religions borrow and hide the fact they borrow. Therefore, religions are better at borrowing and hiding than atheists? This is a weak conclusion to your logic here, also adding a presupposition not there to religions yet not to Atheists as if religions are only hiding the fact they borrow when Atheists extensively borrow from other groups. If true that you didn't mean they didn't care about what they did, but instead don't care about discovering reality because they believe they already have it, would this logically apply to Atheists as well? After all, Atheists behave and don't care about discovering reality because they think they discovered that God doesn't exist, and believe most religious folks are deluded, and exempt themselves off of sharing that same delusion. How am I falsely equating religions and atheism? How am I making it inferior? Religious folk are the masters of aping. But we all ape and is a necessary part of life. Therefore, Atheism is exempt? I don't understand this weak conclusion and premise you're making here. If we all ape and aping is a necessary part of life, then does that equally exempt both religions and atheism? Also this shares the same illogical premises and conclusion with the following: Black lives matter. But all lives equally matter and whites also have lives. Therefore white lives matter. = Religions lives matter. But all groups matter and Atheism also have lives. Therefore Atheism matters. If true you don't care about atheists and religious people, then why argue/debate me? Why be contrarian and oppose me? It's as if you do care.

@Leo Gura I'm not making a comparison, I'm pointing out that this: Is a bold and biased claims you're making for Journalists who like Trump are 'not serious Journalists and hack entertainers', and also claiming that Journalism has a core value of truth. If it's true, then what about Journalists who like say Joe Biden? Are they also hack entertainers and not serious Journalists? I'm just pointing out your language is very loaded in terms and presuppositions yet defined, when a more neutral and objective language is more accurate and solid, like for example you could've stated instead that 'Of course Journalists hate Trump because all Journalists have their own ideological biases, even though the tenet of Journalism is core to Truth instead of lies each person has their own biases and preferences and worldviews, and those in the news business are biased and partial to left-center-right wing political biases and ideologies, so when you see some Journalists who strongly like whichever politician or scammer pretending to be a politician, do note such Journalists are too biased, too serious and are hack entertainer instead of for the truth,

@Leo Gura Because a core value of journalism is true, and Trump lies 24/7, and each person has their bias, confirmation bias and preference, and ideological agendas, that doesn't make some Journalists biased and fallible? Those in the news who like Trump are not serious Journalists and hack entertainers, instead of being biased in favor of Trump because of their right wing ideologies and worldview? Would you say the same thing if it's a left wing journalist who likes Joe Biden, that they are also not serious Journalists and are hack entertainers like CNN, BBC, Majority Report, TYT for example?

@Yimpa Why would Fox News claim and give examples of why Donald Trump is a good president?

@Nilsi No, you're exact claim is that postmodernism was running the show starting from 100 years ago, and that you're mistaking post modernism for modernism, capitalism and conservatives running the show for the last 100 years. You also over look that Neoliberals are now running the show for the last 50 years and they and corporates have a more profound impact on society than post modernists. Also, you haven't provided that much evidence and examples to even illustrate your position. All you've done is weasel, dodge and deflect, red herring here and there.

@royce Another Israel/Palestine thread? This is approaching low quality posting and duplicate threads. Please engage in the already existing threads about this issue. @Nivsch and @Vrubel behave yourselves. @Leo Gura, @Thought Art, @Carl-Richard, @Infinite, @NoSelfSelf are watching you guys for low quality posts and instigating heated exchanges. Keep your violent event denial, right wing and conspiracy thinking tendencies to yourselves please.

@Nemra No, I'm pointing out your performative contradiction here. You claimed religious folks don't care, yet they care a lot about the religion they follow, for places of worships to holy scriptures and books, to sermons, yet most atheists copy what religious folks do and app their behaviors and ways of life. Also atheists and atheism itself mostly borrows it's moral foundations from religion, science and other fields, and has the gale to accuse religious folks for not caring when they don't care about their own lives or their own reality causing more negative states and depression even in most atheist followers?

@Nilsi You claim that post modernism is the state of the world for 100 years. Do you have proof that Post modernism ruled the world 100 years? How does the statement of post modernism being merely 'aesthetic and philosophical movements' have anything to do with you claiming that it's like me stating that 'classicism is merely an aesthetic and philosophical movement starting in the renaissance.'? Why did you red herring and straw man in this way? Also Trump isn't a post modernist, he's a con artist, scammer, fraudster, swindler, grifter, and hustler, lying to everyone including the conservatives to gain more power.

Dully noted.

@hoodrow trillson I do feel similarly that it was a decent yet biased interview, a little bit of trying to get a gotcha moment on Elon, but Don Lemon really should've nailed him on some points there. He had a good opportunity when Elon brought up legality, and Don bringing up those hate tropes and racist tweets, pinned him on the issue of time and how long tweets were there from when a user reported the post, to the process of moderation team reviewing the post, to deliberating, and finally the decision to take down the tweet or not, and grill him on why it took too long. He really should've nailed him on that CP examples of tweets, plus drug sourcing or suicidal types of tweets, as Elon Musk's bigger portion of viewers are right wing and conservative and this'll actually pressure Elon into a corner. Instead he hesitated and didn't pursue that more. This guy is just flat out wrong, appeals to logic, and cherry picking sequences that made Don look bad. Also appealing to logic yet shoe horning his biases and anti left wing views with the appearance of being logical and analytical. To know and spot these fallacies compare it with another video that is mostly opposite biased and opposite ideology: Each perspective and bias in these two videos, with their confirmation biases, cognitive dissonance, fallacies and appeals, and other developmental factors involved shows that the first video is clearly siding with Elon Musk while pretending to be an authority due to the logic and analysis bias. Even I as a body language analyst, also of tonality, verbal, discourse, and state analysis am careful when my own biases and ideology creeps in. These guys are mostly either unaware or know and being bad faith in their distortion of what is the truth.

@Nilsi Here's what post modernism is: So according you this postmodernism has taken over the west for 100s of years? And is presumably ruining modernity? And you scared of this arbitrary thing? The central myth of Modernity of western Enlightenment, liberation of mankind through scientific discovery, has been declining?

@Nilsi Postmodernism is the future. It's in the word mate, post. Post, as in one step forward. Just like Ken Wilbur's pre rational, rational, and post-rational stages. Post.

Now IMO I don't like either, I do hate one more than the over, and this guy did a good job breaking down their logic and arguing in simpler terms: He's a good Christian.

I don't like Ben Shapiro and I can get petty, but he definitely was challenging Alex O'Connor, fake AF philosopher grifter. Like this guy was arguing t destroy the monarchy, yet overlooks the hyper inflation it'll cause if you destroy and liquidate all that juicy wealth and riches from the royalty. Oh, and he also doesn't mind all of Ireland getting conquered by GB because he hates religion that much, good job cornball:

@Schizophonia Fine. I choose Onission.

@Schizophonia No.

@aurum If I had to guess, I think he's talking about cryptocurrency maybe, and how post modern perspectival madness it is to think digits, NFTs, and bit coin is the future utopia of a free peoples.

@Nemra So how does claiming it's a belief of a different kind support your assertion here: If true that religious people don't care about proof, suck up what they have been told of reality and don't care care about evidence more than atheists, why do churches, monasteries, synagogues, temples, contain holy books, holy scriptures, Sanskrit for the Hinduisms and Buddhists to read? Why do Muslims have proof and evidence recorded in the Quran and care about it? Why do Christians have the Holy Bible, the gospels and churches for mass worship and care about these practices? Why do the Jews and Kabbalists also use the Torah and care about the passages? Is this not contradictory to your original assertion that religious folks don't care at all about proof? Also, why is there a huge lack in evidence, in scripture, in gospels of atheism? Where is the atheist's scriptures, temples and bibles about a non-god and no afterlife? Where is their place of worship of a non god and nothing after you die? It's almost as if atheists don't care even about their atheism and just suck up whatever nonsense atheists tell them...and sometimes in life and death situations atheists pray to something, as if they believe in something...🤔

@Nemra No, the main issue is that atheists claim there's no god, no divinity, yet that claim is largely not backed up by proof, or facts to corroborate such claims of a metaphysical reality minus god. Saying, writing, thinking there's no god is still a belief in a lack of god and that there's no god, which is still a belief. Just because there's a lack of god /=/ no god. Lack of evidence /=/ evidence of lack, it's instead lack of evidence = lack of evidence. Also, it's a categorical error to assume that atheism is a religion, when it's just an ideology that assumes too much of reality with very little to no evidence. And if atheists are so open minded and honest, where are the open minded and honest atheists when they're around other religious followers? Most atheists are close minded and dogmatic against other religious ideas and even political ideas.

Good example of a person with critical thinking and logic bias: While true that in argumentation logical framing is important, and minimizing performative contradictions and contrary beliefs within arguments is important, that isn't necessarily going to translate and convert over into the real world and in reality where it's a multiplex of moving parts and paradox and circularity. This is what ignorance of fallacies and appeals, and ignorance of one's biased worldviews leads to, that this man, the arguer/debater, assumes logic, arguing and debating can stand alone, that there's object permanence, that objectivity and science isn't biased. Yet those are deeply flawed assumptions onto reality, and ignorance of experiences and knowledge about Spiral Dynamics stages of development, cognitive and moral development, developmental psychology and personality traits, 9 stages of ego development, Architypes and shadow aspects, ideology and dogma, ideological beliefs indoctrinated by the metanarrative, metaprogramming, cultural/societal programming, information ecology, narrative warfare, information warfare, propaganda and misinformation, and ignorance of hidden assumptions, leads into falsely believing that logic is incorruptible, 'stands alone', that rationality and objectivity are supreme, which leads into appeals to reasoning and logic which is itself an appeal and fallacy! Be careful of critical thinking and blind belief in logic!

@Nemra The main issues are your presuppositions here that if atheism is a religion, then it's way more honest and open minded than others. If put in standard form: Atheism is a religion. Religion is more open minded and honest than 'others'(undefined term to other ideologies) Therefore, Atheism is more open minded and honest. Several problems with the premises and conclusion, first is assuming each premise is valid and strong. It's not because when both religion and atheism are defined, there are clear differences in practices and followers, and almost opposite beliefs in a god, one beliefs in god's existence, the other believes in a non-god existence. Another problem is the undefined qualifiers of honest and open minded to religion, and even to atheism. What does it mean for an atheist or theist to be honest and open minded, and what if you encounter a scammer, con artist, hustler, swindler, grifter, fraudster who pretends to be atheist or theist and lies? The next problem is your question: So what if they don't talk in spiritual language? Again, you project a premise in there that's not previously present in argument that both atheists or theists have, this 'spiritual language' you're asserting here. Then this leads into the biggest assumption you've made: claiming atheists are correct in their position when they say god doesn't exist. We then move into the next area of problems your post leads into: ethical and moral frameworks for a societal custom and practice. Who get's to decide the standards of livelihood? How do we know which morality and belief system we live by? This is covered pretty well in this videos below:

@sholomar This is why arguably speaking a mixed economy, or a hybrid system of some right wing and some left wing ideas is needed, especially when nature doesn't care if conservativism or liberalism survives. We all are in this giant titanic ship, we all must learn to interact and survive together, somehow coexist moving forwards.

@Bobby_2021 True, and making the bold claim that all of traditionalism and conservativism is equal to human brutal nature is a gross false conflation, especially when we look at modern day conservatives to majority of human history with older social customs and practices. The suspicious emphasis on just conservatives as brutal humans, but no mention of Liberals who are more sexually liberated and open to say polyamorous relations or OnlyFans or other kinds of porn, is a good example.

@zazen In most cases, atheists when talking about religion refer to the straw man versions like it's a cult ideology, fundamentalist religious nut cases, dogmatic bible thumpers. Most will go into those straw man fields first, and some to a few atheists will honestly go into the traditional and social cultural customs or practices as it's referred to properly. I only have a specific gripe with Alex O'Connor's philosophizing of religion. If true that we can skip over religion, one implication is the total conquest of Ireland because in history the majority of conflict between the 2 cultures were religious, what allowed this divide between south and north Ireland in the first place. Without the Protestantism and Catholicism religious denomination, most of Ireland would be assimilated into GB.