ThatRobGuy said:

So, if we were to summarize the main views that got him in trouble:
-Natural immunity is durable, and negates the need to rush out and get vaccinated
-Healthy people under 40 probably don't need the vaccine
-The vaccine can be linked to certain heart issues (especially in younger males)
-Hydroxychloroquine/Ivermectin combination therapy is effective as a covid prophylactic

Seems like the last one is the only one that stands out as having ended up being flat-out wrong.

The professional consensus regarding the first 3 items seems to have evolved to more closely match the things he said that got him in trouble back in 2021


https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/16/health/covid-19-infection-immunity (2023)

FDA vaccine adviser says healthy under-75s don't need Covid booster (2023)

Click to expand...

Don’t care.

Desk trauma said:

Destroy the territory to save it.

Click to expand...

No difference with what the US and allies did in Germany and Japan during WWII.

Root problem:

• Science has extended human life.
• Elder humans require more health care than other demographics.
• The declining birth rates in the West has dramatically shifted the number of "contributors" to the number of "takers".
• Compounding the demand and supply shifts in funding health care, preventable risks like smoking, obesity, poor diet, and substance abuse place further demands funding on our health care system.

So, how much we are taxed or pay for the health care of all will not change the eventual outcome. But lifestyle changes and increasing birth rates would.

ThatRobGuy said:

Ultimately, public opinion ended up organically changing on that, in part, due to the fact that the "ask" was much smaller.

"Let us get married, don't assault us, and no housing and employment discrimination"

That's a much less intrusive ask than what the modern Trans activists are asking for...

And it drifts into the concept of "positive vs. negative rights" that's been discussed on here before.

Negative rights oblige inaction and deal in concepts that are non-rivalrous and non-excludable (for example, it's not as if there are only a finite amount of marriage licenses, and a gay couple getting one is removing a license from the pool that a straight couple now can't get). Speech is probably the most basic example of the concept, as you having free speech doesn't limit my ability to have free speech.


Whereas positive rights deal in the zero-sum game realm, and oblige action or require someone else to give something up.

Click to expand...

What are you required to give up? The right to have all children sexualized as binary whether they are or not?

Desk trauma said:

As many times as it has been explained here saying it’s feigned is the kindest interpretation.

Click to expand...

Oh, that I agree with. lol

zippy2006 said:

So one should not give an opinion which is held by 90% of the population a millimeter more respect than an opinion which is held by 1% of the population? Should scientific consensus be given no more respect than conspiracy theories? Put away your emotional knee-jerk reactions for a moment and let your reason guide.

Click to expand...

If youre not disposed to the effort of reasoning or empathy, then, yeah its best to go with the flow. As for scientific consensus, its backstopped by demonstrable evidence.

zippy2006 said:

You don't seem to appreciate what we are discussing. Instead you are aiming to wildly contradict whatever you can, like a boxer with no plan.

Click to expand...

Well you have a few different problems going on here. But to the heart of the post you linked to, your main error, imo, is that the mainstream Overton window should be some privileged position, a refuge from murder more so that say a 5% or 1% position.

zippy2006 said:

Take the question yourself that Klein and I have attempted to answer: What did Tyler Robinson do wrong, at the most fundamental level? Try to answer that question instead of just randomly contradicting your interlocutor. Try to think through the issue at stake instead of reducing everything I say to the most ridiculous interpretation possible.

Click to expand...

His main violation was murdering a peaceful person.

Bob Crowley said:

If it weren't for the Decalogue we wouldn't know what right and wrong were.

Christ fulfilled the law in the sense of taking the penalty for transgressions - but those basic moral commandments still stand.

Click to expand...

Yes! They still stand, while now knowing that we can only do them to the extent that we’re in Christ, and remain in Him.

“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:13

Thats a lotta dough.

Xeno.of.athens said:

What can possibly motivate you to want to be under the Law as were the Jews of Jesus' time? Surely it was not possible for them to obey the LAW so how do you think that you will obey it?

Click to expand...

Yes, we must to want and strive to obey them while acknowledging that this can only be done by the power of God as we enter communion with Him, and remain in Him.

childeye 2 said:

I think you meant DOESN'T, not DOES.

Click to expand...

My goodness, you are right. Thanks for pointing that out--though it again makes me wonder why Conservatves think it DOES.

Desk trauma said:

What I find acceptable or unacceptable does not change that hamas has no opposition in its territory that’s capable of removing them from power currently.

Click to expand...

That is exactly why IDF is in Gaza. To remove Hamas from power.

But the world would rather have a terrorist governor Gaza then Israel free Gaza from terrorist organization.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

It is the Spirit of God who is our internal moral compass. He directly influences us away from the lusts of the flesh by expressing to us His desires for what we should think and do (Gal 5:17). Walking as He infuences us to walk is the only way to avoid fulfilling the lusts of the flesh (Gal 5:16).

When we received God's Spirit by faith, His entry into our hearts created a new being (a spiriual being) that did not exist before. That new creature is truly righteous and holy (Eph 4:24) because it is joined to the Lord and is one spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17). It is because of His presence and our oneness with Him that we love God with all our hearts and love our neighbors as ourselves. His presence and our oneness with Him is the reason that all the law's requirements for righteousness are fulfilled (Rom 8:4).

Now that we have become new creatures in Christ with new hearts, and now that we have Him as our internal leader and guide, we do not look to the law the same way we did when we were lost. When we were lost, the law condemed us to hell. It taught us that everyone is a sinner (Rom 3:23) and that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). It convinced us that every sin counts against us (Gal 3:10) and that breaking one commandment makes us guilty of all (Jas 2:10). The law could only condemn us because it had no way to bring life (Gal 3:21) and it had no way to bring about righteousness (Ga 2:21).

Thankfully, God did the thing for us that the law could not do. He sent His Son to die for our sins, and through our faith in Him we gained life (His life) and righteousness (His righteousness) through union with Him...

3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Ro 8:3–4)​

Click to expand...

Yes, the law’s requirements are right and still must be fulfilled (Rom 8:4), as the law is right, holy, and good (Rom 7) but, under the new covenant, this can finally be accomplished, the right way, God’s way, by the love poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5) by and with whom we can “put to death the deeds of the flesh” (Rom 8:12-14). This is how God puts His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts as we become His people (Jer 31:33). And we become His people, now grafted into the Vine (John 15:5), by faith.

IOW, “Apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5) is the basis of the new covenant. That need, for union with God, is what we’re here to learn of so we’re free from and no longer make Adam’s unjust and destructive mistake, of thinking we don’t need Him.

Pommer said:

Not only that, but by funding Israel’s war, (since money is fungible), the Israelis can have government provided healthcare!
That’s because Americans are “willing” to make the sacrifice to help save Israel, for some reasons, (I'm sure).

Click to expand...

I'm unsure whether some Americans genuinely don't understand international politics and US foreign policy, or if they're being deliberately provocative when they make comments like, "Not sure why the US supports Israel, Ukraine, or defends Europe."

The United States’ support for Israel is guided primarily by the alignment of national interests rather than solely by benevolence. As the only democracy in the Middle East whose citizens substantially favor American interests, Israel plays a strategic role in regional policy. In similar fashion, U.S. investment in Ukraine—the commitment of billions of dollars—is not purely altruistic, but rooted in the perspective that an independent Ukraine contributes to American national objectives. This rationale also underpins the presence of 38 U.S. military bases across Europe. While these bases serve as a rapid response force in the event of an attack against Europe, the primary motivation for such significant investment is not sympathy, but the strategic imperative of defending key allies. Maintaining a free and democratic Europe is deemed essential to U.S. national security. The United States maintains military bases in the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and Australia to support the defense of American allies and to advance national interests. Furthermore, the U.S. maintains military installations in the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, supporting both the defense of allied states and the advancement of broader national interests.

If the US want to implement universal healthcare, it should identify alternative funding sources rather than reducing foreign aid or military expenditures. Curtailing foreign aid and diminishing American engagement in global affairs are not considered sound strategic policies for the nation.

Desk trauma said:

Waiting for the feigned ignorance of marginal tax rates and pretending any cost estimate for universal healthcare being in addition to what’s currently paid because reasons.

Click to expand...

Don't assume it's feigned.

Aldebaran said:

As you would gather from reading my post, it was my own experience.

Click to expand...

No, in both cases, the information you had was (at best) second-hand.

In the case of the factory, you said:

"Eventually, the owners of the factory ended up selling out to a different company because they couldn't afford to do business the way things were. The union workers remained, and the next company that owned the factory didn't do so well either and ended up the same way."

Unless you were party to the discussions happening at the upper levels of management, you have no idea what truly motivated their decisions. Maybe the factory was poorly-managed and/or had outdated equipment. Maybe the purchasers only bought it to consolidate competition; or maybe they didn't do their due diligence with regards to the true profitability of the facility.

Union contracts, even the tough ones, typically have processes in place for enforcing standards and holding workers accountable. What you need in those cases are clear processes and strong, disciplined managers who follow them. If your managers are feckless and wanting to avoid conflict, then yeah, stuff will go south.

In the case of your security contract, you said:

"I've also been on the side of being an employee who try to get actions done through unionizing. We ended up losing our jobs as a result of asking too much. It was only a $0.75 raise which the company said they couldn't afford at the time, which ended up being proven soon afterwards."

However, unless you were party to the discussions happening between your company and theirs, you have no idea what your company was actually billing for your services. The differential between what a company bills for labor and what it pays is typically far, far larger than $0.75/hr. From what I've seen, labor services are often billed at 2-4x what the worker is paid. If you'd had 100 FTE guards, that would have come out to an additional $151,500/yr, which is about as much as a single middle-manager would've cost (assuming this is several years ago). Unless the company was on the verge of going under (which still would've been a management issue), somebody above you could've eaten that $0.75/hr without batting an eye.

Why does the Bible explain "you shall surely die" Genesis 2:17, "For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.” Gen. 3:19 in the book of Genesis, why does the book of Genesis explain these details in the first place? Why does Genesis explain nothing about we really don't die?

Apple Sky said:

Yes even the heaven where the sun, moon & the stars reside. There are three heavens.

King James Bible
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Click to expand...

But Jesus didn't ascend to the moon or the stars. So when John writes, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man." he is not talking about the heavens where the stars are, or the heaven where the birds fly.

Yeah, part of the problem is that there is no consequences. Back in the day you were killed, in the future when God stops prophets during his millenial reign, they're killed if they come out and prophesy. God is consistent in that.

But now, were supposed to sit and do nothing. They continue to spread MORE lies, people still follow them and they just encourage other people to crop up and do the same thing. ZERO fear of God, or any consequences. Not that God wont do something with them personally, but consequences on a human front is non existant.

Tuur said:

You may not like the legal definition of insurrection:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

That seems to be a lot broader than people seem to think.

Click to expand...

What's not to like, or dislike? It is what it is. It will be interesting to see if he uses it in Portand.

Always in His Presence said:

How long do you think the Schumer shutdown will last?

Click to expand...

Hard to say, but Trump Always Chickens Out.

Clare73 said:

Because you don't present a Biblical demonstration, you just assert what you think.

What would you like me to exegete?

Click to expand...

I'm the one asking the question. All I'm doing is objecting to your assertions. I asked for an exegesis in the OP, or a link to one. Can you give me one?

David Lamb said:

Yes, heaven, not "the heavens" where the stars, sun and moon are.

Click to expand...

Yes even the heaven where the sun, moon & the stars reside. There are three heavens.

King James Bible
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Ellesmere said:

I'm waiting for Trump to introduce an executive order withdrawing the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church in America until they impeach this liberal Pope!

Click to expand...

Trump threatened his citizenship, but was talked out of it. There also was a move early in Trump's present term to have the Catholic Church declared a domestic terrorist organization. I think it was Musk who talked them out of that--he was beginning to sour on the Trump administration as he realized that Doge was supposed to be a liberal witch hunt rather that a cost saving campaign. Just wait. Bondi has a task force of right-wing Protestant clergy trying to figure a way to prove that the 1st Amendment only applies to Christian nationalists.Then they'll be able to deal with the Catholics.

ralliann said:

Our courts are corrupt, out police defunded, criminals released, not charged, and blood is beginning to be spilled.

Click to expand...

But enough about Trump and Jan6. Hopefully Democrats will regain power and prosecute Trump and his criminal administration for their crimes.

Otherwise, it's a false claim.