One of the most fair minded individuals operating a forum on the internet, despite my personal attacks over a particular point of contention I still appreciate that immensely. There's very few people I've never met personally I would trust as much as him.Originally Posted by splitthis
"I used to be fat" - PFA member popularity contest winner Sloppy Joe
“All of us – who might of probed space, or cured cancer, or built mighty industries – were – instead victims of the Pakiha social system’
– Rangi T (Northland) FB
pakeha - Te Aka Māori Dictionary
1. (verb) (-tia) to become Pākehā - see 3 below. 2. (modifier) English, foreign, European, exotic - introduced from or originating in a foreign country. 3. (noun) New Zealander of European descent - probably originally applied to English-speaking Europeans living in Aotearoa/New Zealand
Right after you wrangle the correct spelling of 6 letter words, bro.
Settlers arrive: Stone age culture engaged in inter-tribal warfare and cannibalism, Life expectancy, 30. Sign Treaty with British.
Today: Billions in land and assets to 'Iwi' and every handout and opportunity for anyone with a drop of blood. Life expectancy at birth was 73.4 years for Māori males in 2017–2019 (up 3.1 years from 2005–2007), and 77.1 years for Māori females (up 2.0 years from 2005–2007)
Narrative: White's are racist, gimme dat, gimme dis. Hey shut up about our wildly disproportionate domestic violence, rape, assault, murder, theft, drug and alcohol abuse, it's all your fault bro.
"I used to be fat" - PFA member popularity contest winner Sloppy Joe
Repeat felon who cooked a neighbor’s heart and murdered family members while on parole won’t ever get out now
A paroled multi-time convicted felon in Oklahoma who murdered a neighbor, cooked her heart, and attempted to feed the organ to relatives he later killed has received a sentence ensuring he will never get out of prison.
Probably a Karen anyways.
The amount of B o W crime the MSM covers up is astonishing, total silence on the most grizzly murders.
They don't want to stir up any resistance as they multiculturalize America.
Villianizing whitey is part of the plan. Create chaos to claim control. Get ready to fight for your freedom in more ways than 1.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan
everyone so mad that white people are better than POC's at rock and roll a half century later
with a black guy drumming of course @1:08
bernard purdie
makes me wanna rip my eyeballs oiut
so fucking in the pocket
They did this song in one take. They tried another one, but John was too spent. John didn’t like it, and wanted a “do over”. Lol, his lead vocal is amazing.
"I used to be fat" - PFA member popularity contest winner Sloppy Joe
I don't know that I specifically disagree with anything Walsh said in that instance, but he does believe in God, so we can immediately note that something being taken as incontrovertibly true by virtue of one's personal declaration is, selectively, perfectly fine with him.
Also, some of the other stuff he has said has been outlandish enough that the Catholic church...who shuffled priests around for diddling the kiddies only a few short decades ago...has basically disavowed the guy.
Here's an interview with Walsh discussing his religious perspective:
In which he stipulates, almost immediately, that the framework of his political views stem from his religious learnings and the greater goal of getting to Heaven. It's an immediate betrayal of everything that he has ever said because, not only does he admit to not being objective, but that failure in objectivity stems from something that he cannot prove to be true in the first place.
Everything else he says in the video linked above is really more in line with an Evangelical view towards things. Catholics, at least not anytime recently, generally don't teach that it's incumbent upon individuals to prevent individuals other than them from sinning.
It's just amazing to hear him talk about the physical proof of gender being there hundreds of years after people have died, then goes on in the video I linked to discuss faith. He's a total fucking fraud, as far as I am concerned. You can't care about the physical evidence from something in one instance, then not care about it at all, as it suits you...it's academically inconsistent and hypocritical. He can't prove there's a God, ergo, he can't prove his religious beliefs are valid, ergo, he can't prove the morality stemming from those beliefs is valid, thus, he is using something he cannot prove to be valid as the entire framework for deciding his positions and then arguing for/against the validity of other positions.
Also, to the extent that it's a social question amongst people who are very much alive now, I can't imagine that any transexuals particularly give a shit about what archaeologists are going to uncover in hundreds of years.
Look, this guy is interested only in his own star and making money. He's basically a single issue commentator almost to the point of total obsession. He also doesn't seem that big on the old, "WWJD," like, do you really think his approach is going to reach anyone who's on the fence of being transgendered, or not, and change their minds about what they want to do? I don't. It's a bit sanctimonious for him to even loosely imply that's his goal.
If you listen to the last minute, that's just textbook Evangelical religious philosophy. I think he's only a Catholic because he's always been a Catholic. This whole trying to basically force your neighbor into adherence to religious values as an expression of, 'Love,' is extremely Southern Baptist (and similar), in terms of Christian philosophy.
Can anyone 100% prove that God doesn't exist?
WOKE /wok/informal * US (adj) A state of awareness only achieved by those dumb enough to find injustice in everything but their own behavior.
Different day, same counter.
Of course not, but I'm not the one making a claim that needs to be defended. My argument is not that God DOES NOT exist; my argument is that they cannot PROVE God does exist. How would I know if he exists or not?
Cool signature, by the way. I mostly agree.
I should also add that my tendency to think (not know) that God does not exist really doesn't inform much of my politics, interactions (outside of religious discussions specifically) or anything else, for that matter. Again, I don't know, but far from not being central to my being...the fact that I don't believe in God is probably the least important thing about me, at least, from my perspective.
I don't look at a political question and say, "Okay, the Bible would suggest x, so my position must be y," or anything like that. My position can just as easily be x, otherwise, I would be swearing just as much fealty to my lack of belief as some people swear to God by virtue of their belief in him...which would just be sad. I simply think a position is either a good and defensible one, on its own merits, or it is not. Either side of most positions can be defended reasonably well.
The fossil records argument, for example, good position to take...perhaps not a terribly relevant position from a social aspect, but a scientifically relevant one. It's an unassailable argument. Walsh has the right of that argument. One thing that might be argued is that social and physical contexts of, 'Woman,' could perhaps be permitted to mean different things, or perhaps, the social context should simply create new words to describe what it wants to describe. I don't know about that. I don't think I am of the opinion that trans women are, in fact, physically women...can they be woman-like or be a woman in every other sense? I don't see why not, but to unequivocally declare them to be women means you have to change what the word, 'Woman,' means, which some people seem to have a huge problem with, but I don't really care.
The opposite of this was kind of the case in Christianity's general opposition to legal gay marriage, sort of. What Christianity didn't recognize, or pretended not to, is the marriage sanctioned by the Government and that sanctioned by the church are two totally different concepts. In the eyes of God, if a religion wanted to allow for multiple spouses, it could, the guy (or gal) just couldn't legally be married to multiple people. If a religion, in the context of the church only (not for employment benefit purposes) wanted to look at a legally married gay couple and say, "In the eyes of the church, you are not actually married," then there is no reason the church couldn't do that I can think of.
So, perhaps the Government should have changed the word, "Marriage," to something else in its context, though it would have to apply that word to everyone. That whole middle ground of, "Civil Union," was being bandied about, for example, and I would have had no objection to the legal institution just always being called a, "Civil Union," provided everyone has equal access to that and it doesn't change the pragmatics of what the institution legally accomplishes.
"I used to be fat" - PFA member popularity contest winner Sloppy Joe
Specious argument; you can't prove anything doesn't exist, try it.
PokerFraudAlert...will never censor your claims, even if they're against one of our sponsors. In addition to providing you an open forum report fraud within the poker community, we will also analyze your claims with a clear head an unbiased point of view. And, of course, the accused will always have the floor to defend themselves.-Dan Druff
This might be the ultimate fuck white people guy:
https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1638606910717829135
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote