SIR_Sergeant

Something cannot exist if it can't be tested for. Everything we know exists, we can prove. Unless you get incredibly meta, it can be proven that my keyboard is real. Barack Obama is real. The Milky Way Galaxy is real. All of these things can in some capacity be observed and proven to exist. How do you propose we test for a god to see if it exists? The Bible is is rife with impossibilities. It has also been compiled, translated, and edited countless times by people with countless motives and uses for it. If you can find a way to actually back up some of the miraculous claims the Bible makes, I'd love to hear them. I wouldn't really have a choice then, would I? But since such a thing won't happen because it is impossible, it isn't a situation that concerns me.

*see comment two posts down* Mod may delete this if they read it.

I would not be surprised if the North Korean state collapses within our lifetime. They can only carry on the way they do for so long, and China can only act in a limited capacity to aid them because of international pressure. A reunified Korea would be a great thing, especially for the citizens of the North.

While we may not be able to with 100% certainty disprove the notion of divine entities, there is zero proof that such beings do exist. The burden of proof lies with theists, not atheists/agnostics. I have never heard a compelling argument backed up with substantive evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

What bothers me is that they force it on their kids. It absolutely kills me that children are forced to believe this nonsense. If you want to stay in the past, go ahead, but don't drag your kids down with you.

It isn't worth it to keep going with this. Some people are so far up their own asses with their delusions that nothing will ever make them change. It is sad, really.

Violence instigated by law enforcement. Had cooler heads prevailed on the part of Ferguson and St. Louis County law enforcement officers in command, a confrontation would not have occurred and they would not have unnecessarily moved in to break things up. As I said before, look at the results the State Police achieved versus the local police and compare their methods. I don't want to derail this thread any further, I'd like to return to discussion of the incident in New Mexico.

In the time period I'm referring to, this kind of activity was kept to a minimum. Nothing that should have been concerning. As I said before, things were largely peaceful. Why would law enforcement show up in full riot gear, set up very close to the protests, and then move in and break them up? The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Law enforcement moved in and unnecessarily broke up peacefully assembled people. When people started looting and starting fires after Wilson was not indicted, then yes, an active law enforcement response would be warranted. But if the assembly was still peaceful, like at the time I'm referring to, then I would say that the First Amendment rights of the protesters were violated.

Stop and frisk. Low level drug offense arrests. Breaking up largely peaceful protests. I'll use the Ferguson case an example. On the first day or two of the protest (I know things went to shit later, I'm not referring to the looting and arson following Wilson's not being charged) things were peaceful. The crowds were large and vocal but there were no problems otherwise. Local law enforcement responds like this and dramatically escalates the situation. While these weapons were not actually used (tear gas, etc.. was) there is certainly an intimidation and fear factor associated with a response like this. Heavily armed and aggressive police escalated a situation that didn't call for it. Days later, the State Police captain (Johnson?) took over. Sights like the one above disappeared and officers were instead in standard uniform, even mingling with the crowd in some instances. The situation was drastically deescalated and the protests were able to peacefully continue.

It bothers me because militarizing law enforcement makes it that much easier for them to trample people's rights. The war on drugs and terrorism have become the "think of the children" for law enforcement.

It's ad hominem. You got me. However, to use the Bible as a basis for an opinion, to me, is an incredibly weak basis. The amount of things in the Bible that are either completely untrue or impossible, to me, discredits it as any kind of source. Especially in a matter of biology, psychology, and the related fields that are necessary for this discussion. My post was intended to be sarcastic to mock the person that made the comment. I don't follow what you're trying to say.

The equipment is completely relevant. If cops want to parade around like soldiers with guns like these. they should join the army. Dealing with a homeless man illegally camping does not warrant the use of weapons like these. Just because you have access to the weapon does not warrant its use in every situation. The Charlie Hebdo attacks, the 1997 Bank of America robbery, and similar incidents warrant the use of such weaponry. Not a homeless man camping in the woods.

What would you like me to say to this? I don't see the relevance.

Today I learned that I have a birth defect...

Did you read any of the thread? I think it has been beaten to death this "natural vs. unnatural" nonsense. Oral sex doesn't produce a child. Is that also "unnatural?" I'm also tired of this "homosexuals can't reproduce so it isn't natural" bullshit. Some people are infertile. If they have sex, that must also be unnatural then as no child can be produced. How many infants do you know that come out of the womb and tell the world their sexual preferences and desires? A lot of people know they're gay in the same way I'm sure you know you're straight. You didn't make a conscious decision to one day like women, did you?

I don't really think the "born vs. choice" thing even matters. I think it is likely that people, like element2586 said, are born with certain predispositions. I think there is an issue with the idea that people are one specific sexuality or another. While the labels of hetero and homosexual are convenient, I think something like the Kinsey Scale is a more accurate reflection of human sexuality. Like I said in an earlier post, sexuality isn't binary. You are not option A or option B. You are whatever it is that you are.

I hope they're charged and convicted. This was cold blooded murder. Also shows what kind of use the police are putting their military grade toys to. Can someone tell me why they need an assault rifle with a silencer and advanced optics to deal with an illegally camping homeless man?

Surely you didn't expect everyone on this forum to either ignore the subject or agree with you. It should be expected that if you post something debatable, the debate will likely be had, "Traditional American values" is such a politician answer. Absolutely devoid of substance. "Man + woman = child" is definitely what this country was founded upon. Not the principles of classical liberalism, which have absolutely nothing to do with the Christian reproductive view. What does "don't have a good feeling about it" mean? Just because the idea of being sexually involved with another man doesn't appeal to you doesn't make it wrong for everyone. I don't like metal music. That doesn't mean I don't think it is wrong for people to listen to it.

That's on you for not discussing them. How could we have been expected respond any differently if you give nothing to go on. Please, lets hear what your beliefs are and what makes them valid. Explain them.

Ignorance can also be the intentional disregarding of valid of information. We've presented you with well reasoned and logical arguments, and we get circularity in return. "Homosexuality is wrong." "Why do you think that way? Here is a counterargument to your position:....." "Its wrong because I think its wrong." That is what this thread has been. You haven't given an actual explanation for your position besides "muh beliefs." Perhaps because there are no good arguments against homosexual behavior? I didn't think it would be necessary to mention but it seems like it might be at this point. I'm bisexual. I've had sex with both men and women. I cannot possibly fathom how anything I've done is wrong in any way whatsoever.

Then why host the discussion in the first place? If nothing anyone can say, regardless of how well reasoned or supported by scientific fact it is, why even participate in the discussion. You mentioned ignorance earlier, your above comment is prime example of it.

I'm not saying we should because they do, I'm saying we're not the only ones. That it does exist outside of humanity, without conscious decision making.

That's an absurd analogy to make. Human sexuality is incredibly fluid, not binary like in your example. Am I correct that you're making the claim that because two men or two women cannot produce a child, they shouldn't have sex? A penis and a vagina together can be the only body parts involved in sex? While at the most basic level, sex is about procreation, it serves many more functions. Sex is important for mental health and is considered by many as a basic personal need (Maslow's hierarchy of needs). In regards to homosexuality being "unnatural," it has been documented in hundreds of animal species. Species that don't make a conscious decision to have sex like we do.