tuvarkz

Except that 6 years ago we didn't have relatively constant islamic terrorist attacks on the West and we didn't have PC culture pervading everywhere to the point that it reached in these last few years. Clinton is a career politician, while Trump has been mostly a businessman, who other than dropping out of primaries for a third party candidacy in the 2000s hasn't done much else in actual politcs. While Trump didn't entirely self-fund during the primaries, he largely relied on loans he took onto himself. Clinton has received donations from multiple large companies, including media-involved ones. There's only two alternatives between what drives Trump, and that is either actual willingness to help his country or an ego trip/marketing plan that inflated beyond possible speculation due to the rhetorical incapability of the other GOP candidates. Either way, the only person driving the Trump train is Trump himself, and that makes him far more honest than Clinton is.

Pro-Lifer here. The only two cases where I approve of abortion are 1) Risk to the mother's life, 2) The child has extreme mental degradation/will not survive birth/will need to be hooked up to life support for the entirety of a likely very short lifetime. Regarding pregnancy from rape, I think it a vital part of justice that a child should never have to pay for its parent(s)' misdeeds. However, I do agree with Rommel that there needs to be a functional adoption system for this. Since a child is its own organism from the very moment it is conceived with its own unique diploid DNA, it is of my opinions that it is a human and that it has human rights, and due to not yet having its own agency, it cannot be accused of any misdeed at all.

I think the point is meant to be that, given that the presidency is a high stress job, a person that appears to be in a frail state of health could easily fail to keep up with the work due to illness that the very same stress of job may cause or worsen. While the whole Hillary's health issue is largely confirmation bias, even the just the appearance of being frail should be taken into account. While yes, Trump is old too, he hasn't shown anything that would signal that his age is affecting his capability to govern. At most there's the possibility that he may be using hearing aids (There are rumors of his hair being fake, but a lack of real hair is hardly an issue even if the rumor's true).

https://twitter.com/RickLeventhal/status/774965031943438336 Hillary seems to have had a medical episode. Despite the official statement from her campaign being overheating, the weather for today in NY seems hardly that hot (most weather sites have placed it at around 80 ºF/26 ºC. Also, video footage from different angles of Hillary being taken to her van, half collapsing as she enters. https://twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200 https://twitter.com/USA1stAlways/status/775007154101161984

@Tryhard: Except that Kasich appears to be a very much sore loser, particularly given how long he stayed in a race he had no chance at winning. Iirc, even RNC rules required that when delegates were unbound, the choices had to be amongst candidates with at least 8 won states, and Kasich barely won Ohio.

Regarding smoke, I cannot explicitly say I don't like smoking as I've never considered trying it, but it's mostly due to a very impressionable younger me finding out about the multiple negative effects of constant smoking, including the risks of second-hand smoke. However, regardless of it, my stance on smoking is in a very low priority regarding the rest of my political stances. The 'balanced out' argument can't really be applied to drugs due to the severity of quite a few of their side effects, including damage to nervous cells, which cannot be repaired in most cases. My point about the ban on fast foods and soda is that it's not going stop people from eating unhealthily as there will be a myriad of other ways that they can do it. On the other hand, it's significatively more possible to shut down drug distribution, as the specific chemicals in them aren't quite as replicable. And additionally, establishing overly tight restrictions on what people can do will lead to a net hindrance to society, which makes banning fast food and soda not a net positive. I've never said I was a libertarian.

Morally? I believe that there are crimes heinous enough that send a person beyond the point of reformation into a functioning member of society. While yes, I have a significantly less harsh stance on weed, if it was to be legally allowed, outside of prescripted medical reasons, I'd have it (and tobacco) taxed beyond the point of profitability as anything other than a very much luxury good. I'd also add something akin of what Italy does regarding tobacco. I'll admit I have a strong personal bias against smoking, though. I specifically mentioned against human society and human progress as conditions that make drug sellers deserving of the death penalty. Fast Food and Soda are not directly detrimental to either, and while obesity and related health issues are something that needs to be adressed, the fact that most of the nocive compounds that come from eating those in an occasional to semi-regular manner can be balanced out with a healthy enough lifestyle (And then, banning fast food would also logically proceed to banning ultra-high-calory concentration products and other stuff that is otherwise necessary for human consumption). OTOH with most drugs, the lead chemicals are significatively easier to point out and determine as cause of the nocive effects, and I see products that actively damage the brain as incommesurably worse than products that are minimally detrimental to a healthy lifestyle. I've already talked about tobacco and weed in my reply to Rapier. I'll have to add Perú to the list of corrupt countries there too. It's gotten to the point where rooting out corruption in the Peruvian parliament (and probably the rest of the government) would likely lead to its shutdown from so many members being involved in one or another thing.

I see no issue with death penalty for drug dealers, as I find the direct corruption of healthy people into addicts for profit completely unacceptable and injustifiable, and directly against human society and human progress. It does cross the line regarding addicts, though.

The issue isn't answering against cyber attacks, the issue is responding with military threats against attacks that may or may not be confirmedly caused by Russia or another country, particularly regarding those with a significant nuclear stockpile.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/1/clinton-us-will-treat-cyberattacks-just-any-other-/ Oh, boy, this could get crazy.

Trump has already said before that the payment for the wall is going to be through increase in import taxes and through increases in the prices of visas for mexicans amongst other stuff. It might not be direct payment, but they are still paying for that wall.

...Not entirely true, as there is sin in thought as well. Immediate rejection of a sinful thought isn't troubling, but entertaining it can be a sin, if only venial in most cases. Taking the assumption (which may change from Church to church) that homosexuality is sinful, then not outright rejecting and ignoring such thoughts and feelings can be a source of sin.

Aye, my issue is with the fact that Christian teachings in the New Testament are strongly against defending oneself, to the point of repaying evil with good. Luke 6:27, Mathew 26:52, 1 Peter 3:9 are significant examples of this (Further examples here). Even the sell your cloak and buy a sword part has a different meaning that is not about defending oneself. And as someone who advocates for personal defense and retributive justice, this is largely incompatible with my own worldview. To note, the New Testament doesn't make any major remarks on how the state should wage wars, although further christian theologists do often bring up the concept of a fair war, but that is another thing.

Indeed it was law at one point, and at least for Roman Catholics, it's more about not treating the day frivolously. Indeed, it is a valid criticism of Christianity that the only really used parts of the Old Testament are the tale of Abraham and his people, plus the Psalms and a few select passages. Was one of the reasons I ended up renouncing the religion (Although it was primarily the nonviolence doctrine that is highly prevalent in the New Testament). I'm not sure on whether it still applies to Jews, but that's not the side I'm taking in this talk.

I'm not defending the Old Testament, just bringing up that it's largely superseded in most of its cruent parts by the New Testament. Colossians 2:16 abolishes the necessity of celebrating the Sabbath. Further Explanation. Christian doctrine is significantly less strict on the ritual aspect of the religion, but places more significance on the intent in one's actions (Theology remains dogmatic, though).

Father and God are not the exact same thing for Christians, and this is a very bloody fucking important theological point (I may not be a Christian anymore, but I did go through a considerably large amount of christian texts while making my decision to abandon the religion). God is the Trinity of Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, and this has been part of Christian canon as early as Nikaea. Then it wouldn't be sinful to abide by the law. For further explanation For the same reason that pig meat and other stuff was made sinful in the old testament. In the climate of the region where Judaism originally popped up, such kind of foods spoiled quite easily and were damaging to eat-it was quite understandable that in absence of germ theory or any sort of scientific method to explain things, the best way to convince people to not eat what could possibly even kill them was 'God forbids you to eat that'. Catholicism was adapted to the times of the Roman Empire, particularly due to the technological advancements in the millenia between Abraham and Jesus and a far larger geographical reach due to the Roman Empire's expansion. Yes indeed. And that why it's an important point that many Christians do argue that New Testament content supercedes the Old Testament content. Christianity is not an entirely static religion. The Old Testament is kept there as a reference of what was in the past and for things that may still apply currently.

On a technicality though, the greek origins of the word for tyrant meant the non-pejorative meaning of Monarch, or ruler of a city. However, the pejorative meaning was added by Plato and Aristotle, and given how significant their philosophies and ways of thought have been, using the non-pejorative meaning when the pejorative one was the dominant meaning far before the inception of any of the modern languages is a very long stretch.

Except that tyranny is by definition unfair and unbending. Punishing evil acts is not tyrannical unless the punishment is disproportionate to the crime.

Not exactly. Theologically, the concept of the Trinity is very darnedly important-this was what got Arianism declared as heresy. Jesus is the Son made flesh and is God as well, and neither created by the Father nor surbordinate to it. Muslims and Jews may worship the Father, but neither worships the God that is Trinity, which is what Christians worship. Regarding rape and other crimes, Romans 13 says in no unclear terms that Christians must follow the law of where they live. Also, Jesus directly made all foods clean, as per Mark 7, which explicitly says "(Thus he declared all foods clean.)" EDIT: In addition, there is plenty of debate regarding whether old testament rules still apply to christians, and if so, which.

Took christianity two major schisms plus a considerable amount of heresies/minor splits from catholicism, couple major councils plus likely many other discussions of theology, and many many battles fought over religion (eg Thirty years war) for the religion to reach its current day state. And for these kind of things to happen, there needs to be widespread unrest from the population against the current state of the faith, which seems to not be there at all.

Reposting because the post got moved over to the other thread. While it is true that having one's body be searched for evidence and a likely thorough interrogation is almost certainly a very bad experience to have, specially if it's immediately after the rape, it is the most effective way to end with the culprit being caught. DNA evidence, when fresh, is for most purposes foolproof. Yes, rape is played for comedy sometimes, but in almost every single case it's a) black comedy and/or b) a male being raped (or c) a piece of erotic media, but that's another argument altogether). There is a definite line between reality and fiction, and rape is never treated lightly when it happens in real life for a reason. The argument against rape/sexual aggression ever being treated lightly or comedically in fiction of different genres has as little footing as the argument against violence in media-There is a very significant difference between the two, and I believe it's far more important that people aknowledge that there is a very wide difference between fiction and reality, regardless of suspense of disbelief.

No, wasn't arguing that point. Just wanted to clarify that saying that the three religions worship the same god is an innaccurate statement. All religions are based on faith. Also, @eggclipse, should I edit my reply to Res's post out of this thread and repost it in the White House thread, as it's relevant to that thread but not this one?

While yes, all three religions are abrahamic and admit that they worship the same god, there is a noticeably distinct characterization (Probably some word fits better, but it doesn't come to my mind) of Yahweh/God/Allah in the Old Testament/Torah, New Testament, and the Koran, respectively. And the Trinity is a very significant divergence that Christianity has in terms of theology.

Pro-Lifer here. I believe that saving the mother's life is one of the two scenarios where abortion is justified (As it's taking one life that may not survive to ensure the survival of another), the other one being a condition (whether it be genetic, caused by illness, or any other sort) in the fetus bad enough to cause either extreme mental defficiency or to cause the future child to have to life its whole life hooked to machines (EDIT: as in needing a machine to help the child breathe-tier of bad; stuff like needing a permanent insulin dispenser shouldn't be justified cause)/not be able to live at all after birth. If the adoption system is bad, then the adoption system is due for a reform and a much-needed upgrade.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37187531 To add context to this: Right Wing Nut Job has already talked about the minimal/lack of improvement of conditions in black communities under Democrats. The claim does skip a few steps in terms of reasoning, but it has some degree of basis.