Funny events in anti-woke world

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,147
3,890
118
No idea why is so difficult for certain American self-described atheists to not indulge in racism, though have some observational guesses swirling about for now. Wasn't till recently learnt the ol' "intellectual dark web" group of naval-gazing dog-whistling twats just named themselves that, which is such a behemoth red flag am surprised nobody appeared to call it out at the time: self-labeled "intellectuals" are more interested in brand building, selling and ego self-soothing than educating themselves from an honest point of curiosity, Is super easy to not believe in religions or spirituality while not being racist, effortless even.
Oh yeah, unfortunately it's a massive thing. Though, it's a massive thing outside atheist circles, so maybe it's not an atheism thing, it's a society thing, ad atheism just change the aesthetic slightly.

I'm saying it right, you're just not understanding it right, or being intentionally obtuse.

Saying "I do not believe in the existence of God" does not mean "I don't know if God exists." There's nothing open to interpretation.

I'm saying 1+1=2, and you're upset that I'm not saying that 2=1+1.
Eh, this is an old argument that crops up every now and then. I don't see either interpretation of the phrase "I don't believe in X" to necessarily be invalid, despite being rather differen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,657
831
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
...because you're only willing to use a definition which automatically excludes anyone who doesn't get food. It's prime circular logic.
I said I wasn't interested in debating the definition of needy from the start...

Any kid who can't afford food is a needy kid.
That's a horrible definition of what needy is as all kids can't afford food because they don't work and that also allows parents to totally use income for other things and say they can't afford food. Hence why I didn't want to debate that with anyone here because you're definitions would be ridiculous.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
I said I wasn't interested in debating the definition of needy from the start...
...and then used a specific, circular definition that automatically excludes anyone who doesn't already get food.

You can refuse to debate it all you like. That doesn't mean your metric makes any sense. It doesn't.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,215
969
118
Country
USA
Do you understand that etymology is not the same as definition?
You specifically argued that "religion has always been about belief". I showed you etymology stating it is not where that word comes from. You might have half a leg to stand on if you hadn't said always, but as is tradition, you make sure to exaggerate all claims just enough to be explicitly wrong.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,215
969
118
Country
USA
Didn't know of this old interview, basically admitting the entire strategy of gop rhetoric and policy for all their pre-trump era in 1981, am amazed no-one learnt from it or seemingly even remember it. This is crazy level of generational/political amnesia, more than the usual.

is just there, in plain sight all these years. and ppl still try taking them seriously at their word. Wtf.
It's not political amnesia, it's an unreliable source of information. Lee Atwater was born in 1951, he was at most 30 when giving that interview. He was still in primary school when Nixon was running for president. His argument in that interview was that southern politics was all about racism before he was involved, but not him. If you read that interview, you read him saying they were the first generation of southerners that wasn't racist.

Lee Atwater was a shameless political sleaze who was trying to buoy his own reputation by throwing his predecessors under the bus. He had no personal knowledge of the things he was speaking of, it would be like Lauren Boebert today talking about the Bush's being warmongers, it's not an inside scoop, she was barely in high school when the second Bush was elected.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,609
3,140
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
That's a horrible definition of what needy is as all kids can't afford food because they don't work and that also allows parents to totally use income for other things and say they can't afford food. Hence why I didn't want to debate that with anyone here because you're definitions would be ridiculous.
Wow, you're so close to getting it, that it's kind of amazing that you don't get it at all.

Yes, kids don't work, they don't have their own money, they do not manage their family's finances. It's not a child's fault if they don't have money for food. For some reason you are intent that the child should be punished by being forced to go without food, when their inability to purchase food is not their fault nor their responsibility.

As far as I am concerned, any child who cannot afford food is needy, regardless of their parents' financial situation. If they aren't getting food then they are IN NEED of food.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,609
3,140
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
It can mean that, it doesn't have to mean that. Both "I don't know if God exists" and "I know God doesn't exist" are subsets of "I do not believe in God".
No one "knows" if god exists, as there is no evidence for the existence of god. All belief in a god is just that, belief, based on faith.

If you say that you "know" that god exists, it just means that you strongly believe that god exists. Faith is the entire basis of religion. Anyone who says that they "know" that god exists is either stupid or a grifter.

Similarly I'm not arrogant enough to say that I "know" god doesn't exist. But saying that I don't believe in god's existence isn't some cop out where I'm intentionally leaving the door open to believing in god. I don't need to do that. I very explicitly don't believe in that.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
You specifically argued that "religion has always been about belief". I showed you etymology stating it is not where that word comes from.
Yes: you showed etymology of a word. Which isn't definition.

You realise that religion as we understand it predates the word "religion", right? And that how a word was originally applied centuries ago doesn't define its current usage?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,657
831
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
...and then used a specific, circular definition that automatically excludes anyone who doesn't already get food.

You can refuse to debate it all you like. That doesn't mean your metric makes any sense. It doesn't.
Just using what the government refers to as needy, I don't care if the government technically doesn't define it as it's defined the qualifications of the NSLP.. Funny how ya'll make such a big deal out of ending this pandemic era policy but totally wouldn't speak out about the closure of schools for 18 months that massively harmed students. It's as if you only get outraged when it agrees with your narrative vs the actual benefit/harm of real people.
 
Last edited:

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,609
3,140
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Funny how ya'll make such a big deal out of ending this pandemic era policy but totally wouldn't speak out about the closure of schools for 18 months that massively harmed students. It's as if you only get outraged when it agrees with your narrative vs the actual benefit/harm of actual people.
It's funny how big of a deal you make about whole milk, but don't care about children not getting actual food.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,657
831
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
It's funny how big of a deal you make about whole milk, but don't care about children not getting actual food.
I don't find reverting to pre-pandemic policy some massive issue. I don't think kids not getting food was some massive issue in 2019 for example (not that it can't be improved). You only upset about it because it's something republicans are doing vs when democrats massively harmed kids that still going to be a lasting effect for their whole lives but since that's your team, you're mum on that issue.

That's a microcosm for a much much bigger issue. The quality of school lunches is really fucking bad, I wouldn't call most of the food actual food.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,132
6,399
118
Country
United Kingdom
Just using what the government refers to as needy, I don't care if the government technically doesn't define it as it's defined the qualifications of the NSLP..
Do you genuinely not see how this is circular reasoning? If we follow your approach here, then nothing is an issue in society so long as a law exists to address it. Nobody is in need of medicine, or food, or shelter; discrimination, inequality and crime do not impact anyone... because laws exist that address them, and those laws determine who needs them!
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,215
969
118
Country
USA
Similarly I'm not arrogant enough to say that I "know" god doesn't exist.
Many people are that arrogant, and they want you to think they are like you.
You realise that religion as we understand it predates the word "religion", right? And that how a word was originally applied centuries ago doesn't define its current usage?
There's a real philosophical question about whether a man-made entity can predate the word to describe it, but more important than that, you're systematically rationalizing away any avenue of criticism. I can't tell you what the word means, cause that's just what some people now want you to think. I can't show you the word has always meant that, because it doesn't matter what it used to mean. Shall I go down every definition google presents?

- the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
- a particular system of faith and worship.
- a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
- the service and worship of God or the supernatural
- a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements
- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

How many definitions will it take to convince you that religion is defined by practice as much as belief?
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,609
3,140
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I don't find reverting to pre-pandemic policy some massive issue. I don't think kids not getting food was some massive issue in 2019 for example (not that it can't be improved). You only upset about it because it's something republicans are doing vs when democrats massively harmed kids that still going to be a lasting effect for their whole lives but since that's your team, you're mum on that issue.

That's a microcosm for a much much bigger issue. The quality of school lunches is really fucking bad, I wouldn't call most of the food actual food.
1. You keep insisting that these are just reversals of pre-pandemic policies. They aren't. I've posted examples of changes the Republicans are making to policies that have been around since the 60s.

2. Even for policies being rolled back to pre-pandemic levels, there's a massive difference in people's finances between 2019 and currently. Food prices have gone up between 20% and 100% basically across the board. There isn't any food that currently costs the same in 2024 as it did in 2019. Given that, rolling back policies to 2019 levels is clearly going to impact food insecure lower income families who have been depending on the pandemic expansion of some of these policies.

3. There definitely were issues with kids getting food pre-pandemic. Just because you weren't personally affected and aware doesn't mean there were no issues.

4. Yes, school closures harmed kids. The global pandemic harmed society as a whole. Millions of people dying, supply lines going to hell, strain on an over-run healthcare system, etc. What would probably have been more harmful to kids is if their parents and grandparents got sick and died because of a disease their kids brought home from school. In my point of view a year of staying home from school for kids was probably worth it if it meant potentially hundreds of thousands of additional people got to survive covid. Lesser of 2 evils and all that.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,609
3,140
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Many people are that arrogant, and they want you to think they are like you.
Well now that just sounds like projecting.

You're the one who keeps saying that we should be taking everything at face value and not assuming people's intentions.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,215
969
118
Country
USA
Well now that just sounds like projecting.

You're the one who keeps saying that we should be taking everything at face value and not assuming people's intentions.
I'm not assuming anything, I can read the way Agema responded to this topic.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,057
3,042
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
It's not political amnesia, it's an unreliable source of information. Lee Atwater was born in 1951, he was at most 30 when giving that interview. He was still in primary school when Nixon was running for president. His argument in that interview was that southern politics was all about racism before he was involved, but not him. If you read that interview, you read him saying they were the first generation of southerners that wasn't racist.

Lee Atwater was a shameless political sleaze who was trying to buoy his own reputation by throwing his predecessors under the bus. He had no personal knowledge of the things he was speaking of, it would be like Lauren Boebert today talking about the Bush's being warmongers, it's not an inside scoop, she was barely in high school when the second Bush was elected.
1. He was 30 when he gave that interview
2. He was chair for all South Carolina College Republican in 74
3. He has started a business of political consulting in 75
4. He RAN the Thurmond re-election campaign before this interview
5. He was coordinator of the Reagan-Bush campaign before this interview
6. He was Deputy Political Director of the Reagan administration before this interview

Lee was an integral part of Reagan's administration. Boebert is a click baiter that has achieved very little and has been part of any administration. They are nowhere near the same thing. He might not have know anything but he was far closer to getting a scoop than Boebert ever will. Maybe a better analogy would be Stephen Miller (or someone similar) talking about the Bush administration