But as far as I can tell, my assessment of the above would only push people further away from actually hearing what I think. It would cause an emotional frenzy. — Fire Ologist
Seems to me that that I’m not hitting the target because I’m using logic, and that doesn’t seem to register. — Fire Ologist
I think I’ve made quite a few specific points, and provided support. I am primarily interested in you showing me some point you think I am making and how such point is being framed too broadly.
One example would be great, but it sounds like you have a few. — Fire Ologist
Why do we need to change the topic? How are you going to make any significant point about woke and how does it refute what I said about woke being contradictory for you to ask the above?? — Fire Ologist
But that isn’t woke. Woke is liberalism turned into something else. — Fire Ologist
I haven’t even suggest that “there is nothing to what Fire is saying but dishonest Maga talking points.” Why are you being dishonest about this? — praxis
If this interests you so much just read the damn thread. :roll: — praxis
I've said that his views regarding what woke is are "inaccurate" and "skewed" by MAGA rhetoric. — praxis
Still in denial — praxis
You're one of the only posters here, aside from Tom Storm whose online moniker or "screen name" I read aloud with ferocious excitement. Like, it just seems required. Sorry just had to mention that. Probably some latent movie-originated programming that has overtaken my sen — Outlander
Anyhow, to your point. The people who favor "wokeness" simply deem it, according to them, as your basic cookie-cutter "speaking truth to power." Something like: "Yeah, I'm not white, and you are, but as it so happens to be, the majority of this geographic or otherwise socio-policital region or sphere is, and so that means, I'm calling you out! (as one who holds power)" Basically saying, it doesn't matter whose in charge or why, all that matters is that you're in charge and I'm not, and per old adage, Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown.
Which is interesting, because, in theory, hypothetically, being "woke" in a place where such is the opposite, say, Africa, talking about unfairness and inequity targeted towards that given majority and power structure (which yes, happens to be Black), should basically be similar. — Outlander
Could the analogy be to a prohibition era bootlegger who goes around touting the benefits of alcohol, says a certain number of alcohol-related deaths are "worth it" so we can freely drink, and then gets nailed by a drunk driver? — RogueAI
In the case of cars, we're willing to accept a certain amount of deaths to drive at speeds that make cars economically viable. Nobody would drive a car at 5mph on the freeway. We sacrifice safety for efficiency.
How is that the same with guns? — RogueAI
Oh, suppose I say, "There is a genocide in Gaza", then the response -- not from you but due to media -- would be "Israel has a right to defend itself"
But that's not what they're doing. They're committing a genocide.
Yet if they succeed, as the United States did, they'll win. If they eliminate everyone then they'll get to keep the land. We passed on the genocide stick to them.
How do you vote to influence that? — Moliere
Again, because cars are essential for many people in this society. Driving is inherently dangerous and we accept the risks because cars are so necessary for so many. That's not analogous to guns.
4m — RogueAI
Sure.
I'm still disgusted with the means of politics. I've often found that raising this disgust about other such scenarios results in excuses so I'm a bit skeptical.
I want to point to the genocide in Gaza at the moment more than this sensationalist plot in asking the question, though. I am looking for a wider perspective than this one event. — Moliere
Are you sure it wasn't one of them? — RogueAI
Really? You think so? You think if an angel came down and said, "Charlie, I can make this assassin miss you be a hair, or you can be gunned down and leave your wife and kids behind and you can become a martyr for the 2nd amendment. What shall it be?" Charlie would have picked martyr? — RogueAI
Again, cars have important uses outside of killing things. — RogueAI
"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." — RogueAI
It just seems so...karmic. — RogueAI
Are you a 'meaning seeking' type of person such as you have described? Where do you sit on this? — Tom Storm
I don’t disagree with this. All I mean is that some people are 'turned on' by theism and some are not, just as some are attracted to boys and not girls. I meant preference in that sense, that it is essentially an orientation rather than a reasoned choice. But I think “need” works fine too in a broader sense. And I would include the need 'not to believe' in God along with the 'need to believe'. Both atheism and theism could be understood as sources of affective satisfaction. — Tom Storm
It has sometimes interested me how many atheists actually believe in supernatural claims. It’s only God they don’t accept. Some atheists I’ve known believe in astrology, ghosts, clairvoyance, and other occult phenomena. So I’m not sure what the connection between God, religion, and the occult actually is for some folk. It’s more the Dawkins-style atheists who are galvanised by empiricism who seem to find any supernatural thesis anathema. — Tom Storm
Even many theists, especially the apophatics, argue that nothing sensible can really be said about God. It’s all mystery. I just take their move one step further: if that’s the case, why not forget about it and piss the God idea off altogether? — Tom Storm
In the end, I think theism (as I’ve often said) is a matter of preference, much like sexual orientation: you can’t help what you’re attracted to. It’s shaped by culture, upbringing, aesthetics, and a person’s preferences for how they construe meaning.
7h — Tom Storm
s there any way we can demonstrate either way for certain? — Tom Storm
The fact that so much evil has been done in the name of Christianity has no bearing on whether there's a god or not. — Tom Storm
I’m not sure the behaviour of believers has much bearing upon the existence of a god. Can you say more? — Tom Storm
I wouldn’t think so. If you believe in divine command then killing apostates is good. — Tom Storm
I think that’s right. And given this is a philosophy site I’d expect less focus on this type of god and more on philosophical arguments. — Tom Storm
I’m an atheist, Paula. But I prefer to have an informed view of religions than the simple cartoon accounts of many atheists. I was brought up in the Baptist tradition but found the notion of a god incoherent from an early age. I was never a believer. — Tom Storm
ife is eternal suffering. — kirillov
