Religion Debates and Discussions

This is entirely unrelated to treating white people as subhuman. You can agree or disagree with BLM protest marches, but that's really very far from trying to degrade white people. I personally think that the principle behind BLM (treat everyone equally) is a good value, but they execute their value in almost the worse possible way. It's really counter-productive, and ends up hurting more than it helps.

I don't think that that's a purely progressive idea. I'm honestly not sure why that's not an option, but I assume it's to prevent the better schools from becoming really overcrowded. Blaming the other side isn't going to help the problem, it just ignores it. Mind telling me where you heard that district-specific schooling is something that only progressive politicians are for? I'd like to have a word or two with those people, regardless of their political views.

It's important to remember, though, that schools are what teach people to be dedicated. If one person got by in a poor neighborhood without dedication or good schooling, they're going to teach their kids the same way they lived ("school doesn't matter, get a job"). It's the responsibility of the schools to instill a sense of determination and ambition into children, which is why it's sad to me that education isn't receiving as much attention in these areas as it should. I believe that education is the key to a more successful society where everyone has ambitions and can get themselves out of poverty.


Regardless, this has nothing to do with religion anymore. We should probably get back on track.

 

Wow. If all they're against is trying to get a better education for children, then I think they're insane. I guess the reasoning is that parents might not know what's best for their kid, but if that's the case, then not letting them choose a school is the wrong solution IMO.
I'm with you on that.

 

you can't always help it lol. you've never been in a ghetto, stop talking out of your ass. this is one of the points that actually hits me at home having grown up walking distance from a ghetto with plenty of friends now dead over gang violence that they couldn't help. yeah you have "crooks" like al sharpton but you also have the people who are trying to help the black community, whether its through music like kendrick lamar or through protests like MLK.

why doesnt god fix all the problems by making us obey him?

 

Changing the subject to something less toxic:
There are certain things about our universe that if changed would likely result in its destruction or inability to have life. Universal constants such as planck's constant, etc. Furthermore, certain things in our universe are unobservable for seemingly no reason, whether that be what a singularity looks like, or why certain information is hidden due to the hiesenberg uncertainty principle. Is this an act of a higher being shaping our world, just the way things are, luck, or something else?

 

NO LOL THAT IS NOT HOW PEOPLE GENERALLY THINK CHRISTIANS ARE LIKE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY CHRISTIAN. If you ask Americans "do you think Ned Flanders's approach to Christianity is representative of Christians overall" you will get maybe 5-10% say "Yes", I can nearly guarantee it. Don't conflate liberal Hollywood's views of Christianity with the entire country. America is a bible-thumping nation.

Gehenna, it's very hard for a majority in a democratic country to be "discriminated against" because if they were being treated like second class citizens, they would vote to change that... How would that even work? A 30% minority (which is made up of a bunch of unaffiliated groups) discriminating against a 70% majority? What?

If you're talking about sht like getting Christian prayer out of schools, that's not discrimination, that's just not letting the state endorse one religion over all the others. Can you provide evidence of this discrimination?

In Alabama, people can lose their jobs, their loved ones, their friends if they come out as atheist.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/24/atheists-in-the-bible-belt-a-survival-guide

Do you really think Christians are discriminated against more than atheists? Studies have shown that, at least in the south, if employers know a job applicant's religion then they're more or less likely to accept them based on it. Jews get no bias or sometimes even preferential treatment (h*ck yeah), most Christians don't experience any kind of bias, Catholics are slightly less likely to get the job (not many Catholics in the south) and Muslims and atheists experience significant biases against them.

Only 54% of Americans say they'd vote for an atheist, or did in 2012. That's lower than for a Muslim, gay, Mormon, Latino, black, Jewish, you name it.

TELL ME AGAIN HOW CHRISTIANS HAVE IT ROUGH

And on the white thing: yes American is run by white people. Every single major-party nominee for President bar one (Obamaaaa) has been white. Trump's cabinet is overwhelmingly white. White people are more likely to be well off and less likely to experience discrimination based on their skin colour.

And for the love of God, Gehenna, you're doing what so many conservatives do which is you're extrapolating what yo saw in "SJW PWNAGE" on YouTube to be all liberals or all Americans. Some nutjobs think its every white person's fault what happens in America and that they should acknowledge and pay for their "white privilege". They are not the majority of liberals, they are not the majority of Americans, they are the left's equivalent of pastors who claim gays cause natural disasters.

Can you provide sources that show that straight Christian white men are discriminated against on college campuses?
And yeah the fascism comment really just made me laugh. You sound like the moronic SJWS who think Trump is as bad as or worse than Hitler. No, most college students are not fascists. You'll probably find more communists on a college campus than fascists.

And yeah Canada does some silly things. RIP.

 

Didn't you already bring this up? I know someone did, and I responded to it then.
Yes, it's luck.
Think of it this way: we only know that the universe supports life because it can support life. If the cosmological constants like the Planck constants and the speed of light or gravity were changed so that the universe couldn't support life, there'd be nobody to say "wow, sure sucks that the universe can't support life." There are countless hypotheses out there for why the universe has the laws that it does. They're not very testable, so it's hard to say for sure.
However, saying that the universe's laws are proof for God is a textbook either/or fallacy. There are more than two options when it comes to the entire universe. Maybe there's a reason in the known laws of physics that means there's only one way the laws can be. Who knows? Not any of us, that's for sure.

I mean, not really. Well, they do, but this isn't an example. All they did was make discrimination based on gender orientation illegal, which is something everyone can agree on.

 

Hmmm well if the law is that if you call someone who thinks they're a girl/identifies as a girl "sir", you get a fine or something, then I'm not for that. I am for anti-discrimination laws.

 

It's not like that. Some people surely interpret it that way, but the law only states that it's amending it's human rights law to say "the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered."
I'm sure some Canadians are going to take that to mean "I'm not allowed to call a boy a girl," but that's not what's in the written law.

 

There's no answer to this debate. This stems back to a psychological debate of nature vs. nurture, a summary of why people act the way they do. Encompassing this, is behaviour such as rape and murder. Although most people stick to the "nurture" side of things, meaning that genetics does not play a key role in someone's behaviour, the "nature" side of the debate isn't ignored. It is still not known whether the more abstract attributes like personality, intelligence, sexual orientation, likes and dislikes are gene-coded in our DNA, too. That's why this debate has been long-standing - we just don't have enough answers to prove one side.

In my opinion however, I think people who do exceptionally good or evil things have been influenced by experiences they have had in the past. For example, if one individual came from a very broken home, they have the option to keep strong until adulthood and become an activist against such settings or even a therapist to help other people from similar experiences. However, they also have the option in following familial influence, and carrying on history of abuse to a potential new family or setting.

It all comes down to the choices people make. I genuinely think that viewpoints are taught, but emotion balance is a genetic issue. Together, the combinations can be great or dreadful.

Of course we would, because we are known to be generally selfish beings. Our evolution has been based on surviving on this planet by putting ourselves before others. We choose to eat other animals whom also have lives for our own growth and benefit. And before you ask, no, I'm not vegan or a vegetarian: I love meat! It's just that through thousands of years of history, humans have been through a lot. It's not our fault that we are tempted to do things simply because we evolved to think about ourselves first.

 

Bernie sanders 2020

This guys got it

 

The problem is exactly what you said: that the people who are taking it to mean that won't just be the opponents of the law. People might see that interpretation as a sort of "safe space shield". Furthermore, people of certain beliefs are so easily upset that they might consider it use or discriminatory to use an incorrect or non preferred pronoun. Not that it is or that the law extends that far anyways, but people have a way of blowing things way out of proportion.

 

The law still protects people who misgender. Yeah, there will be more crazy nutjobs who call misgendering discrimination, but the same "blowing things out of proportion" effect is what made people think Canada was making misgendering illegal.

 

bump so I get alerts again

 

same

 

Actually, I am so glad you brought this up! I talked about it a few pages back

 

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure.
It's clear that the ice doesn't normally move this fast (if it did, it would have had to have started accumulating on Greenland 5.2 years ago, excepting ice compression on lower layers), but it does raise a good point, that being that it's hard to tell exactly how old the Earth is, and even harder to judge the age of large events.
That being said, I can offer some explanations.

1. It's possible that a glacier could have run over the planes, thus covering them in more ice than would be expected if only snow/rain/freezing were to cover them. Glaciers typically move at around 1 meter per day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_motion), so in the 46 years between their landing and their excavation would have allowed for about ten and a half miles of glacial motion. Not extreme, but if the planes were close enough, it's a possibility. If the glacier were larger, it could move at maximum speeds of 30 meters/day (also from Wikipedia). It's improbable that it moved this fast, but it's not entirely out of the question.
2. Ice could have been moved on top of the planes by a glacier passing by, or otherwise by large movements of ice. Other glaciers could disrupt the ice near the planes, pushing it on top of them. It'd have comparable effects to a glacier running directly over them, but would probably involve a lot less ice on top of them. I don't really know how high glaciers can get, so I have no real good estimate for what kind of glacier it would have to be.
3. On the website, it mentions that pressure cannot melt ice, which is incorrect. The effect is called "regelation." Here's the link to the video that taught me (
   ). However, applying pretty basic physics/chemistry applies, and will show that as pressure increases and volume stays the same, temperature also increases. It's a similar effect to what causes the molten mantle of the Earth. However, the website is correct (as far as my guesses go) in saying that the pressure exerted by the planes wouldn't be enough to cut through the ice. This was the same conclusion I came to before reading that, although it doesn't rule out the heat of the planes at least helping them on the way down. Planes can presumably get pretty hot when flying, so I imagine that the heat of the planes could have melted or softened the ice below them to allow them to sink. It wouldn't account for the entire story, but it could be a contributing factor.

It's most likely, in my opinion, that it's a combination of all of these three things.
I don't know much about a lot of things, and geology is pretty damn high on that list. I really know very little, and thus can't give a really great explanation, but I tried.