Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EveryZig]

Backing up a bit, where does it functionally make a difference between corporations having free speech or people in corporations having free speech. I think there was some difference, but I forget what it was.

[Sheb]

Corporations have way more money to spend than people working for them.

[Nadaka]

And that the result of the idea that corporations are people and have free speech is that money is speech, so corporations should be able to make unlimited anonymous campaign donation while human people can not.

[scriver]

There's absolutely no reason a Christian should have to believe or follow every word of the Bible.

Because it is their primary holy text? For most it is their only holy text?

You kind of have to adhere to a religion's demands to be part of it. I can dance around naked throwing buckets of strawberry syrup on people and call it Hinduism, but that doesn't make it so.

Close, but no cigarre. Anyway, what you are saying is basically that no religion can ever evolve in any way, and that only people living like they were Bronze Age shepherds can be Christian. Thusly, there has been no Christians for 2000 years. Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Gnosticism, all other Christian denominations that ever exist weren't Christian, because they didn't follow ancient Hebrew customs to the letter.

Yeah, I think I'd leave it up to the people who actually believe to define what Christianity is.

[EveryZig]

Yeah, I think I'd leave it up to the people who actually believe to define what Christianity is.

Every group of Christians has at least one other group of Christians who say that they are not 'real' Christians. (Catholics vs Protestants, Mormons vs everyone else, etc)

On the note of money being free speech, what is the legal distinction (as opposed to the ethical distinction) between lobbying and bribery in the U.S.?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Close, but no cigarre.

...Well, that's quite the coincidence.

Anyway, what you are saying is basically that no religion can ever evolve in any way, and that only people living like they were Bronze Age shepherds can be Christian. Thusly, there has been no Christians for 2000 years. Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Gnosticism, all other Christian denominations that ever exist weren't Christian, because they didn't follow ancient Hebrew customs to the letter.

Nonsense, they're all Christians. Any group primarily worshiping Christ would be Christians. They're just for the most part acting partly or totally contrary to the explicit written will of their all-knowing deity, which is their horrifically massive cognitive dissonance to deal with, not mine.

Yeah, I think I'd leave it up to the people who actually believe to define what Christianity is.

Why? The definitions believers invent for their religion are no more objectively valid to it than whatever definition I choose to impose.

[scriver]

Except you are essentially committing a "target No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[Nadaka]

Lobbying vs bribing.

IIRC, the only real difference is that lobbying compensations can only legally be used for financing elections. That is the only difference.

You also missed the distinction, individuals are allowed anonymous donations up to IIRC $5000, but larger donations require disclosure in order to disclose potential influence involved, this was part of election reform to make it obvious when someone is buying an election. Corporations are allowed unlimited anonymous campaign contributions. The "free speech" of corporations in this way is greater than the free speech of humans, and exceeds the limits placed to protect the democratic process.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Except you are essentially committing a "target No True Scotsman" fallacy.

How in the world am I committing a No True Scotsman fallacy?

Look, when it comes to literature and mythology, the only thing that is at all authoritative as "the right version" is seniority. You can say anything you want about what constitutes Christianity and have it be no more objectively true than anything else ever said about what constitutes Christianity. The only possible distinction is who has established opinion, and in this instance nothing is more established than what has been written down in the Bible for centuries. Christians are completely free to ignore everything in the actual Bible and base their beliefs about Christianity on cultural exposure to it, and certainly should since the Bible demands that you kill people for a very large number of reasons, but this results in none of them following the only possible metric of true and false in this field. That doesn't make them not Christians, it makes it so there is an inherent cognitive dissonance in living in the modern world and believing in the Bible. That there is no way to "win" in my thoughts on this does not invalidate them.

[scriver]

How in the world am I committing a No True Scotsman fallacy?

Not at all, after re-consideration.

Look, when it comes to literature and mythology, the only thing that is at all authoritative as "the right version" is seniority.

And this is where you and I differ. You seem to look at religion as some kind of theologic grammar-nazi equivalent. Just like language, religion is a living being that changes constantly as the people who practice it change, because it is simply made up out of the people using it, and not by how old books say it should be. Literally everybody practising Christianity are a better authority on it than the Bible is.

[Moghjubar]

While I love the religion discussion, may want to consider moving it to the thread for it.
Please.

[penguinofhonor]

While I love the religion discussion, may want to consider moving it to the thread for it.
Please.

As the arbiter of both threads, I support this.

[GreatJustice]

So I heard Occupy Wall Street in New Hampshire tried to incorporate. http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/07/25/occupy-wall-street-discovers-virtues-of-incorporation

[Scelly9]

Also prohibited from future Occupy events are gun owners who openly carry.

The fucking fuckity fuck-fuck?

[kaijyuu]

Says who? Occupy doesn't exactly have leadership or rules.


And as for schisms, well that's to be expected of cultural movements. The hippies and black panthers didn't exactly see eye to eye on everything, either.