A coup d'état, eh?

> Thomas Aquinas

The first three arguments are really the same. Screaming that this all couldn't just exist, that there must be something which enabled it to exist. Well, modern physics kindly disagrees. The big bang theory clearly illustrates that time started to exist, together with all other things we observe in the universe today, the moment the universe started to expand.

Besides, if god created the universe outside of that very universe, who is to say the laws of physics would operate in the same manner? And wasn't it god who created those laws of physics, those natural consistencies, to begin with? Why apply those natural consistencies to the creation of all that exists within our universe, including those consistencies? How exactly would that work? Why should it be like that? What does that even mean, in scientific terms? If god used those laws of physics to create the very universe we exist in, then who created those laws of physics? Did they just already exist, together with god in the endless abyss? What would that abyss even be? There is no time, no space, supposedly, since god created time and space, right? And if not, then that must have also existed alongside god. Would a god even be necessary at that point as an explanation as to how the universe came to be?

Nothing caused the expansion of the universe to happen, since outside of the universe time, and therefore cause, does not exist.

And my point exactly is that there is no reason for the rules of the physical world to apply in the metaphysical realm where god supposedly resides.

Thomas Aquinas uses the laws existing within the universe to explain an event occurring outside the universe. This does simply not make sense.

Ey, a Dutchman.

Didn't the backup server use that colouring for the logo?

Well, more so cool, considering the colours.

Why the change though? @Deleted User

Blue is considered a more passive colour, I have read.

As opposed to red, which is deemed the colour of agression.

So I guess that makes sense.

The Official Anti-Anime Association.
Talking about obsessive hate, dear lord.

The irony is that most, including me, would not have heard of this 14 year old girl if Google hadn't censored her on one of their platforms.

Bloody hilarious if you were to ask me.

She looked pretty much like a regular human to me, so I don't get this whole identity crisis. Besides, she lives in New York, so there must be folks around also born out of mixed race couples.
Besides, I don't get this obsession over racial identity anyway. I really fail to see the big whoop there. Might just be me, I dunno.

So what?

That is what that advert is for...

You don't need magic for that.

That very advert is trying to setup a donor register...

Britain isn't a homogenous society.

Besides, you are arguing to limit people's liberty, due to the existence of a small inconvenience.

Your point being?

^^^^ when you just commit the naturalistic fallacy like it ain't a big deal

A broad claim I do not care to discuss for the sake of my own sanity.

My carelessness to debate your race realism or white nationalism or whatever fringe it is you subscribe to, does not equate to any form of concede.

Intriguing.

I believed we discussed that before though.

We talked about sub-populations and what not.

I don't recall the exact details or meat of the conversation, but I do recall that it didn't change my stance in regard to my politics, considering an appeal to the science was very much an appeal to nature.

In other words: to me it seems like one giant naturalistic fallacy.

I conceded that point to an extend if I recall correctly. But again: unclear on the details.

To me it seems silly we should enforce any racial policy solely based on the fact that apparently their are some real genetic differences between certain races/sub-populations.

And I won't contest the science of apparent genetic differences between certain races/sub-populations, for I am no genetic scientist.

Nor am I all too well informed on the subject.

It's just that I deem people's individual liberties to be of more import. Unless you could demonstrate to me that having such genetically diverse sub-populations live together in one society, would be catastrophic, I am not convinced we ought to worry all that much.

And that being catastrophic solely or mostly due to their severe genetic differences, I have to clarify.

Social cohesion was fucked before the brown people arrived, so I am not that worried.

I am not so certain about those though. Besides, there are plenty a white population filled with mentally underdeveloped folks, so yeah.

Although that is an anecdotal argument.

Still.

I see humans foremost as individuals and will judge them based on their individual character and individual abilities.

I am not following that statement, please clarify.

Ah, in that sense.

I fail to see why this should matter in a political sense though.

I hold no such believe.

But again: one way or another I fail to see how that matters politically.

I mean, policy itself is inherently consequential.

But this isn't even about policy, this is merely a scientific point.

Policy is mostly based on desire.

Science can merely inform you in regard to how reality functions.

You can consider scientific facts in regard to setting policy, but the policy is merely set to reach a desired outcome, regardless of the scientific fact per se.

I do not contest that. Not entirely at least.

Err...

You are making a slip there.

Climate change is real, yeah.

But it being problematic is a moral judgement.

And inherently human.

And really a judgment tying in with desire.

It has a certain effect on the things you list which we humans consider problematic.

It being problematic is not in itself a scientific point.

You do realize the idea of a problem existing is within the realm of human emotion, not within the realm of the natural world per se?

It is indeed normative.

Science is not normative though.

It is descriptive.

Sure they do.

I am not contesting that.

I do not precisely recall what I was contesting, but it had to do with the definition of 'policy'.

We were originally speaking about policy and consequence.

In relation to scientific fact.

Ah, that is what I sort of contested.

I made the claim that policy is based on desired outcome.

I would like to amend that however.

That I do agree with.

If I disagreed with that earlier, I don't recall why.

I am sorry, bit fuzzy in the brain.

Ah, I see where we went wrong. I made the remark that policy is based on desire, while I should have said policy is a course of action meant to reach a desired outcome.

Which sparked most of the discussion following.

Protests are in their nature democratic though.

That could happen regardless from there being a democratic system in place.

Besides, a minority is more likely to trample over the rights of the (majority of) citizens than any democratic system with regular elections is.

Interesting. It has been a while since left wing terrorism was a thing. Especially in the US of A.
Assuming his politics were indeed his motive.

Can we get a role for every single one of the 58 genders?

Sure, Zionistic groups had long before the Second World War wanted to establish a Jewish state once more, but our reaction to the horrors committed against the Jews during said war gave that desire some real traction.

Of course a Fascist would disagree.

Good point.

I have been exposed.

Oh, reposting a conspiracy theory I see.

It's not wrong, is it?

He has been accused of sex trafficking, amongst other things.

He sex trafficked children and abused children.

So yeah.

It is not as if those major publications are hiding that.

I am pretty sure they mention the fact that he, well, 'fondled kids'.

I feel like those publications are basing themselves mostly on the Associated Press.

Which spoke about 'sex-trafficking' in its article concerning his suicide.

Then I don't see the point in what you posted.

Other then to point out 'look, media copying AP', which is basic practice.

Epstein dying does not serve the investigation, more so the opposite.