West
-
Posts
5,467 -
Joined
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by West
-
-
12 minutes ago, blackbird said:
Western society was historically Judeo-Christian which has it basis in the Bible. The development into democratic countries with Parliaments and the adoption of human rights is something that is attributable to the Bible and Judeo-Christian civilization.
This did not happen in eastern civilization. There are many dictatorships and a lack of human rights in other parts of the world or non-Judeo-Christian countries. I think the connection of the west to the Bible has had an affect that other parts of the world never had.
You see this progression in the Good Book of sacrifice.
-for oneself, for one nation, for one world
Now we are called to present ourselves as a living sacrifice. True religion caring for the widow and the orphan.
-
1
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:
Edited to answer your edits:
1.Yes.
As I said, "Considering only 30% of the world is christian, the bible is just another book on the rack LOL " so the book is really insignificant.
It does not, in any way "lays the foundations for stable, productive society. " except for perhaps christians and they don't seem to abide by it anyway.
2. Correct, not important at all. Religion is not even a little bit important to me.
3. Yes.
Yes it's true that some professing the Christian faith may not adhere fully to the Good Book. It's unfortunately like a diabetic not adhering to doctors orders.
-
8 hours ago, robosmith said:
Using tax dollars to fund one religion over all others would be unConstitutional here.
"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion."
There is only one name in heaven and on earth which one can be saved: Jesus Christ.
It's like denying a cancer patient chemotherapy
-
Its the only path forward for our nation
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
Lol. Talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars Im sure anyone who’s interested in reading that work of fiction already has a copy. And having a copy doesn’t make you any more honourable or intelligent than those who don’t….often the opposite in fact
And then there’s that whole separation of church and state thing, which Republicans hate.
We need bibles in every home. It's our only hope
-
32 minutes ago, Rebound said:
You think the government should select which Bible Americans can have for free in their home? Wouldn’t that establish one religion over others? So how about if the Bible the government chooses is the Koran? Would that be ok with you? Spend US tax dollars giving out Korans to everybody?
I'm talking about the Holy Bible. The Christian book.
You can choose which version so long as you have a Bible in your home.
-
The Conservatives need to run on a free Bible for every household policy in the next election.
-
Donnie is selling Bibles but should really be running a campaign to fund a Bible for every American household. A good investment by taxpayers.
-
The incoming Trump administration should purchase a Bible using tax payer dollars for every household
-
31 minutes ago, Rebound said:
Happy Easter to all those who celebrate it! I’m sure you cannot imagine Jesus celebrating Easter by mocking transgender people.
Who's mocking trans? I want to see them come to the saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus.
-
We have a Savior who's name is Jesus Christ. Whomever puts their faith in him shall be saved. Today we celebrate that he conquered death and hades and has risen from the grave
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
Don't just hold that thought regarding power imbalances - expand on it because it's a far greater issue than people realize.
Power and wealth are effectively like space and time - one and the same thing. If you one you have the other, it's that simple.
People have been trying to redistribute power more equitably for thousands of years.
We should be encouraging students to influence our institutions with the Magna Carta. This has nothing to do with Marxism.
To an extent.
My point is that power dynamics and relationships are more complex than breaking it down to power dynamics.
-
21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Look up the Munk debate between Jordan, Peterson and Slavoj Zizek.
Zizek asks Peterson point blank to name these people that are influencing academia. There is only silence.
It's a thought system and theory that influences.
A woman bones her boss as an example and the guy loses his ability to practice law.
A pastor has a consensual affair with a woman and he ends up in prison.
Just a few example; I'm not suggesting right or wrong.
-
8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
I think so too. It forces me to face the primary question that we should all be asking ourselves: how do we know that what we think is true... is ACTUALLY true. As much as I decry your caricature of the 'woke' maniac corrupting academia... I fight with the fact that the caricatures of Trumpists and chuds are also false. The way I try to avoid falling into believing the relevance of the caricatures is by replacing them with the image of real people who are engaging in unhelpful but understandable behaviours.
So the raging Trumper, the raging pink-haired woker... these people exist but their political influence is more felt when they're used as propaganda icons by their opposition in YouTube videos, etc. This is the tribalism that is waged via social media, and the new politics of that is hard to centre policy or real ideas around.
Social media both changes the world pervasively and changes the eyeglasses we use to look at said changes. I think of television in the 1960s. There was a cultural revolution happening but the way we were looking at it was the lens that was enabling, enhancing and thereby adding to that revolution.
Social media is making the marginal into the centre and pushing everyone into each others' business regardless of these peoples' core principles or values. Indeed, even with all the fighting on here ... if you went down to the details you would find there's a remarkably strong set of core values between most posters here.
This is a very good post.
The reality is that these issues likely take up a very small percentage of thought power among most people.
Though it is driven in the media and to a certain extent our universities now where the prevailing thought is viewing the world through power imbalances. So while I don't think we are full on "Marxist", there is heavy Marxist influence in major institutions right now.
-
1
-
-
Interesting report. Living standards expected to decline. Catastrophic weather events. Misinformation causing distrust in government. Predicting civil unrest
-
42 minutes ago, robosmith said:
IF the SCOTUS renders a narrow decision then no other sites are affected.
But if they render a broad decision, it could affect every social media site.
So far the cons on this court have shown a tendency to render decisions that are much broader than necessary.
Like Dobbs and the recent Co SC decision....
Okay thank you for clarifying.
I was speaking more specifically of the big ones like Facebook and Twitter.
-
8 minutes ago, robosmith said:
I don't see anything in your OP which says it's excluded.
The lawsuit alleges 67 government agencies worked with Twitter and Facebook to kill significant stories during a previous election cycle.
I see nothing about Greg's site in the article.
-
1 hour ago, robosmith said:
It's ironic that you're saying ^this on a site over which big tech has NO CONTROL. Although, IF they were interested, they could probably buy out Greg for a song.
And they're ever more untrustworthy when you vote a pathological LIAR into the highest office like you're proposing.
You obviously care NOTHING about trust.
Is the US Supreme Court hearing a case against our beloved Greg's website?
-
6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
That's the fault of the website. The gov't should stay out of it.
That's true to an extent but when you have children accessing your site there should be some regulation to keep grooming perverts from accessing to cause harm
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:How about if people disagree with a proposed "woke" law but the algorithm decides that they don't want your post on the topic shared with too many people so it reduces the visibility of your post ?
You think you're using a platform to express your views but they're not going out in the way you think.
And this is the platform people are using to make up their minds on things.A point I've considered. Gates, Zuckerberg et al seem to have somewhat a monopoly on speech
-
5 hours ago, Hodad said:
Yep, that's a good example of a slam-dunk case for moderation. There are lots of ways for platforms to keep bots (and human creeps) off of the platform, and plenty of incentives to do so. But there are also perverse incentives not to do so. The revenue models are problematic.
I think I've recommended it here before, but Maria Ressa's work (Nobel Peace Prize)on the perverse incentives of social networks is worth a look.
I wonder if it has to do more with the logistics of policing a forum with a billion or so users over the profit. I can't imagine that allowing perverts to spam pages is good for their bottom line.
-
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:
This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the control of narratives.
The big tech firms were all part of TNI before Elon Musk snatched Twitter away from them, now the left hates him.
TNI controlled the narratives of covid and the Biden laptop for the Demis and their Big Pharma pals, and hopefully the time has come for them to pay the piper.
A big comedian from back in the day, George Carlin iirc, once quipped that Big Pharma was pissed at all the money that they lost because of the vaccine that cured polio... They sure made all that back.
I'm a skeptic of big government as much as the next guy. There's certainly some things, such as not allowing weirdos to spam your buy and sell page with sex videos, and censorship because a beurocrat doesn't like the story.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Hodad said:
There are some ways the platforms should be regulated (user age, for example and certain established content types) but generally I think content should be regulated by the platform. They should moderate content, vs regulate content. There's no reason the government shouldn't be able to share a POV with the platforms though. Misinformation and disinformation are dangerous. Hate speech can be dangerous. Users can and should be able to flag that content for moderators. And so should the government and other entities.
I joined a buy and sell group awhile ago on Facebook. It's been overrun by porn bots now.
Facebook used to be about sharing photos of the grandkids. Now it's become a pretty vile place at times
-
3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Analyst Peter Zeihan has pointed out that every new communication technology has required a new framework of legislation. This seems due.
I would say bots should be banned, as well as false claims that wouldn't be allowed on TV or security threats and hate speech already disallowed.
I didn't realize bots were actually a thing until just recently. I would agree there.
-
1
-
-
Very interesting time for tech censorship.
I'm starting to lean more toward some regulation necessary of these major platforms. However, many Americans are already deeply suspicious of any form of government.
Safety vs autonomy debate.
Justin Trudeau, please fund Bibles in every home
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Certainly living in sin is detrimental to your health.