Also what do you mean by convince a altruist

Well presumably if you want your ideology to be dominant you would have to convince those who disagree, no?

@Beemann I wouldn't say it is perfect. In some respects Greek and Nordic Pagamism are better at answering some tought questions. "Why do natural disasters happen?" "Because the gods are dicks and when they fight we get fucked over."

Sure I guess

By painting altruism as sacrificial axiomatically you bar yourself from progress

I mostly debate just to pass time

Im not gonna be dishonest and hide the logical extremes of the ideology

@Khanclansith and yet when the actual answer comes out, people are unprepared

@Existence is identity shouldn't you be pursuing your highest ideals?

Yes but im forced to go to school and when I finish my work I go pass the time

Im still in highschool

Ah

Its not like I dont enjoy talking also

@Khanclansith when it turns out that natural phenomena cause natural disasters and not a God, what solace do people take?

The excuse-making must begin or the whole narrative begins to fall apart

In what way?

Religious texts give specific explanations when they describe natural phenomena and people operate based on trust. The more the holy book is disproven on various claims, the less credible it will look overall, and the more aggressive the denials must be for those determined to accept it as a complete work. When this is also the basis for morality and community, what do you do?

@Beemann If you believe that the whole world is on a turtle and when the turtle gets a cramp it shakes and that causes earthquakes... saying that that is insane is ignoring what little we really know about the center of the earth and many lessons are inherently taught in parable fashion anyways

You are evidently not a literalist. They still exist

Further the number of people who accept God-as-parable is still not that high. We've ultimately got a gradient somewhere between, to use Christianity; Jesus was a real cool dude and God's son, and everything was real

I have meet literalists and non literalist religious people. I dealt with a lass that prayed to the Earth Turtle herself, not so much because she thought it was real but it gave her guidance on a spiritual level.

Literalist as in takes the ideas to their logical extremes?

Which all ideas should be seen

Literalist as in believes the whole bible is accurate 100% and really happened

Oh

Religion is atleast better than post modern philosophy

It gives integration and has been tamed by Saint Aquinas

Alright folks I have to bow out.

Mount st Helen's is about to blow up and it's gonna be a fine swell day everything's gonna fall down and turn grey

I was 30 miles away from her when she blew on May 18, 1980

To the SW fortunately. Fun times.

That’s good.

I think.

It was an amazing thing to watch happen with my own eyes

@Timcast Sorry to bug you tim, its regarding your video "CNN Suing Donald Trump Over Jim Acosta Ban, Can They Win?"
I heard from a lawyer who went over the case, that the case that person you had on was citing was regarding journalists located in D.C..
So in a legal sense, since acosta is not located in D.C., this means this would not be a precedent applicable to his particular case, according to said lawyer.
And also, "the press" =/= CNN.
The only reason why "the press" today is seen as groups like CNN is because historically people simply didnt have their own printing press in their backyard.
Today is a different time, you are an example of that.
The WH isnt preventing CNN from printing their nonsense, nor are they preventing them from sending someone else to the WH instead.
IF CNN manages to win this case, which i think is impossible because it would make the job of the secret service impossible in return, then that would mean that every person suddenly has a constitutional right to be in that press room AND this would be dictated by the judiciary.

This very much reminds me of an argument being made a few years ago regarding a case from an immigrant wanting a visa to stay in my country.
This was overruled due to the same reasoning.
The authority regarding immigration policies AND the execution of said policies is in the hands of "the people" aka the elected politicians, NOT the appointed judiciary.
If they had won their case, this wouldve meant that every person on this planet couldve demanded a visa from my country under penalty of my country having to pay them 5500$ for each day they deny to give it to them.
For anyone with working braincells that is lunacy, it would quite literally mean that you have no country at all.

Sorry to ping your ass, just felt like saying something about this.

Fox news has filed an amicus in support of CNN

I know, but i think theyre gonna run straight into a brick wall

Likewise if CNN wins this case, that would mean the secret service no longer has the ability to block anyone from demanding access to the WH press room as that would be dictated by the judiciary.

In essence, they wouldnt be able to perform their job

Perhaps. But I this case the issue isn't someone presenting a threat

Nor were these immigrants