Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation

Geez I don't want to belabor this, but when you're talking about the alleged hypocrisy of cml because of a Christian belief, you're talking about a lot of other people too. Should I take the implication that you think my wife, who also puts her hope in the second coming of Jesus, cannot think objectively about the political issues of the day or that she's only come to the beliefs she holds because of some Christian echo chamber she's put in? Because that's how I'm reading it, and I think you're making the whole thing needlessly personal.

 

From the looks of the ongoing trainwreck of a derailment in non-Mueller related responses it looks like somebody is up to thier old tricks of destroying a thread with insufferable neverending greatisms.

 

This is a QAnon wish fulfillment fantasy.

 

I don't need to make cml's argument for him. But he is welcome to explain why the two aren't related, or why his belief is actually objective in its reasoning. etc. This is debate and discussion. All he has to do is respond with a reasoned response. Christians argue about that with each other all the time. Many don't believe in the rapture as Nook described it in reference to cml's beliefs and many do. If one Christian said that the other wasn't objective and that his reasoning was faulty and not to be taken seriously, it wouldn't be an attack on the religion. It would be one on the logic.

 

My entire point is that religion is not based on objectivity.

So perhaps CML should consider that he isn’t objective.

No it isn’t a shot against Christians anymore than Islam or any other doctrine that is based purely on faith.

First, you really are not the poster to be providing guidance on making the D&D less toxic. I like you as a poster but you are a high toxic level poster.

Second of all, you don’t really understand hate speech. I or anyone else has the absolute right to disagree with someone else’s values or beliefs, even those that are religious based. That isn’t really what I did though.

 

One of my favorite moments in American history is The Great Disapointment, when thousands of Millerites gave away all their s**t and waited on top of mountains for the sunrise on October 22, 1844, because that's when Jesus was returning (he'd already missed Miller's first few suggested dates). After it passed they retconned some elaborate story explaining how they'd been right all along, even though they all very clearly fell on their faces.

I think they'd have been better off if someone had poked their assumptions with a stick, even though it would have made them uncomfortable and irate.

 

No problems here. I'm going to listen to King Cheetah on the chance he is our new mod on the down-low.

 

I disagree, I'm EXACTLY the poster to be providing guidance on making the D&D less toxic because I know exactly what could make it toxic due to my experience choosing to do so in the past.

In America, there's no such thing as "hate speech" so there's nothing to understand when it comes to those who live in the US. That said, in other countries with backwards speech laws, "hate speech" can be a criminal act, and insulting a person due to their protected status is what would be considered "hate speech" in some scenarios.

Of course, none of that matters, what matters is that insulting someone based on their religious beliefs or any other protected status is a serious dick move, especially when you are choosing to do so in lieu of arguing a point they were trying to make.

It's honestly not that big of a deal, you could have just said "Yeah I probably shouldn't have done that" and then gone on to disagree with what he said on a rational basis instead of going the personal attack route. When you resort to ad hominem attacks rather than discussing the issue, you are essentially admitting defeat in any serious discussion anyway.

 

Gosh I wonder if that apology was really sincere.

 

The weirdest thing is how SDAs and Jehova's Witnesses (which had their own prophesies for an 1900s doomsday) still carry on, and like Mormons, are some of the most respectful and spiritual Christian offshoots.

I guess with post-fact, it really is about the faith and a living culture they feel preserving.

 

I think my actions have shown that both of them were. Working towards a less toxic D&D is completely consistent with that, and I want to work towards that goal even if it means speaking to posters I personally enjoy when they do things that I believe will lead to a more toxic D&D. Change in the D&D is needed if it is to continue and I'd prefer it continue.

 

I hear you here, JuanValdez.

Let me share something with you.

You know my mother. Figuratively, I mean.

She's a Christian. Devoutly so. I may have even mentioned it once or twice here, in between my own self-serving ramblings.

Never really understood her beliefs, even as a little boy she made sure went to church on Sundays for Sunday School. It's only become less conscionable to me in recent years, for many reasons that have almost nothing, now, to do with the idiosyncrasies of the religion itself, as with many of those who follow and profess to live by its tenets.

I think, ultimately, because she showed such deference to objective learning and reason in regards to my own upbringing, I have never felt it necessary or appropriate to upbraid her or disparage her because I think that what she believes is (at the very least) a very long, enduring and elaborately cannibalized fiction.

I think that's because as often as I was able to observe it, what she believed about Christianity almost always mirrored what she said and (more significantly, to me) what she did.

I used to believe, as a younger man, that there was no equating ardent belief with objective truth. And in all honesty, at the end of most examinations, I still do believe that.

I would say, in any analysis I'd be inclined to make about this particular tangent of the discussion (aside from the aforementioned ulterior purpose of moving this thread away from its subject matter…and I have to acknowledge that I’m not helping avoid that right now either), that the PERSON ultimately says more about what s/he believes and believes in than the belief itself does.

My mother would say that "...life ain't about what you find, boy...it's about what you lookin' for..."

I would offer to any Christian believer that the mortal advent of their titular "god", in perhaps the most simple of terms, defines and manifests the quandary human beings face and must ultimately reconcile.

It is not what we choose or do not choose to believe or disbelieve that liberates or condemns any of us.

It is, quite simply, in those moments where thought encounters deed…where concept meets execution (and the consequences thereof)…where our level of “faith” in anything we pronounce is revealed.

A Christian’s own “god” tells and shows them in mortal guise that what you will not sacrifice yourself for, you do not truly love…and what you truly love is yourself.

I’m sure your wife, JuanValdez, is familiar with the teachings of Jesus. And I’d believe that what she would probably tell you about something like this, is that all of these differences of opinion, at the end, are personal.

They do not exist in any other fashion.

When I say, for example, that I’m going to side with giving a woman every possible option to control birth rates (especially when society is going to, on average, vilify her and exonerate me), I have to accept that whatever opposing faction will call me a “baby-killer” or a “murderer”. I can’t straddle fences and play both ends against the middle in some vacuous attempt to appear above the fray I’m, willingly or not, immersed in.

My mother would also say that “…whatever it is inside you, boy, is comin’ out sure enough...you don’t know who you are, the rest of the world gonna let you know for sure...”

I personally expect a Christian to have better sense than what a lot of them have shown recently…and I mean long before the thought of a President Trump found its way out from under a wet rock into the light of day.

Their own Jesus routinely mocked and chided those who had become accustomed to the practiced cowardice of hiding behind ritual and dogma in order to oppose practicality and decency. That eventually got him killed as I understand it…whether it was some divine plan or not.

A Christian should know that the servant is not greater than the master. No Christian can cite scripture and say that their God (after Jesus’ advent…or even before, in some minds) intends in any way for them to do anything other than what their god mortally demonstrated for them to do.

And those that do are simply lying. Because not knowing or not knowing any better isn’t any excuse their god will hear, either.

And if a Christian has no problem lying about the “mundane” or the secular, then why should anyone believe them about anything supernatural?

What’s that Christian tenet? First natural, then spiritual…?

I don’t think that being stupid is in any way at all in line with being Christian.

Or Muslim. Or Buddhist. Or Taoist. Or Rastafarian.

And sometimes, I think the best thing a Christian might ever hear is that he’s saying or doing something stupid.

If I have faith in anything, it is in the human ability to see oneself honestly and objectively, and treat others much better than that.

“Faith is much better than belief. Belief is when someone else does the thinking.” — R. Buckminster Fuller

 

Can anyone here provide a definition of "hate speech" (or at least a solid explanation) that is not biased for or against anyone based on their "race," sex (male or female), religion or political beliefs (including ideology or political party)?

Thanks.

 

It's a very subjective definition. You know that.

 

In other words, no you cannot provide an evenhanded defition of hate speech that is as applicable to your political adversaries as it is to you and your political comrades.

Gotcha.

 

What? I'm sorry dude? What comrades? When did I say anything about hate speeh recently?

Me personally, I don't believe hate speech should be a crime unless there is a clear violent threat.

 

Why do you want a definition of hate speech? I don’t hate anyone’s religion and everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs.

However, if you are going to lecture others for not being objective and being in an echo chamber, your decision to have fundamental believes that are not rooted in objectivity are fair game. Especially when they influence the very subject that you are claiming other lack objectivity in reaching opinions.

 

I think @Nook and @fchowd0311 are replying to someone I have on ignore maybe? I honestly think this is such a silly tangent. There was nothing wrong with Nook's post.