Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Post by clakclak » Tue, 14. Aug 18, 12:56

Masterbagger wrote:[...]Attacking Pence for being religious is not okay. [...]
Saying someone is a bible basher is hardly attacking him for being religious at least if Urban Dictionary can be trusted with the definition.
Urban Dictionary wrote:[...]A Bible Basher is someone who constantly goes around forcing the word of the bible on everyone else, and claims that everything BUT the Bible is evil.[...]
Let us not forget the Pence constantly tries to push his religious views onto everyone else, for example he wants gays to undergo therapy to make them hetero.
Masterbagger wrote:[...]Dude. Stop. [...]You are biased. [...]You are consuming biased content to fuel this. Step back from your feelings already. Man up and just go on about your life.[...]
This makes for a great copy paste the next time someone posts a Breitbart article or a Stefan Molyneux video. :)
Masterbagger wrote:[...] Your perception of reality is going to get so skewed by Trump derangement syndrome that you'll end up marching down the street in a vagina suit. No one wants that.
I see Cologne's carneval has spreat even to the US. :lol:
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Tue, 14. Aug 18, 13:55

Masterbagger wrote:Attacking Pence for being religious is not okay.
ermm why not? Firstly freedom of speach etc, secondly he avowedly believes in an unprovable fiction (you might say fantasy), and he's the US Vice President who will step up should Trump succumb to too many McDonalds or impeachment. Though I suspect the former is more likely.....

I would think that challenging his views is required.

EDIT: Silly spelling mistake :oops: .
Last edited by RegisterMe on Tue, 14. Aug 18, 15:35, edited 1 time in total.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Post by BugMeister » Tue, 14. Aug 18, 14:22

Manafort flogging off government offices to anyone with the the cash:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RqOuihm8gI

- what a bunch of sleazebags..!!

the Beverly Hillbillies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlq-wJU3PII


:lol:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Antilogic
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed, 6. Apr 05, 20:33
x3tc

Post by Antilogic » Tue, 14. Aug 18, 16:55

Masterbagger wrote:Attacking Pence for being religious is not okay.
Challenging peoples views is important when they are looking to take public office. Even more so for religious people and religious views. Their belief may be a harmless or dangerous delusion, which ever one it is it should be carefully examined to ensure they doesn't prompt the person to make decisions while in office which could be harmful.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Tue, 14. Aug 18, 23:34

Antilogic wrote:
Masterbagger wrote:Attacking Pence for being religious is not okay.
Challenging peoples views is important when they are looking to take public office. Even more so for religious people and religious views.
(Emphasis Mine)

Even moreso? Why is it more important to examine their religious views?

How about their ethical or moral ones? What about their sexuality? That's evern moreso important, since if they're really into animals they might make laws that force people to eat broccoli or something...

The point being that as long as they do not act in a manner contrary to "the Greater Good," act within the Law, and always respond to "the Will of the People," they are free to have whatever personal beliefs they like.
Their belief may be a harmless or dangerous delusion, which ever one it is it should be carefully examined to ensure they doesn't prompt the person to make decisions while in office which could be harmful.
So, if a religious person is elected to office, one must be doubly sure that their decisions aren't harmful?

What about their race? Maybe they're a closet reptilian? Better check their decisions because of their cold-blooded nature! What if they like cats? I mean, actually like the fuzzy little murder balls.. Better check their decisions, twice!

Examine what they do, what they propose, the evidence for what they value as it is applied to governance and legislation. If you agree with those things then maybe they're a good candidate choice for you, no matter if they're religious, a reptilian, or an animal "lover."

I am fully convinced that there are too many politicians out there who proclaim their religious dedication much too loudly and too broadly, especially during election season. Keep that in mind when you decide whether or not a candidate is "religious" or truly holds to the dictates of a particular religious faith.

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 00:25

Morkonan wrote:I am fully convinced that there are too many politicians out there who proclaim their religious dedication much too loudly and too broadly, especially during election season. Keep that in mind when you decide whether or not a candidate is "religious" or truly holds to the dictates of a particular religious faith.
Or educate the electorate. But we're in danger of veering off topic for off-topic, or at least making life more difficult for the mods than it already is.

Take my saltiness away from my point a post or two above and my point was:-

If you are standing for office I should be able to challenge you on any of your positions and about anything you believe.

(Subtext - that includes your religious views, but I accept that mileage varies there, and in some places a lot).
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

Skism
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon, 22. Mar 10, 21:36
x3tc

Post by Skism » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 01:33

Masterbagger wrote:
BugMeister wrote:this is bloody outrageous..
Trump will stop at nothing - the swine..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHv214_Xrx4

- an honourable member of the security forces is maligned..
- Trump, you are an absolute sh*t..!! :evil:

as for bible-basher Pence, he's sooner buy guns that provide healthcare for his own people..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pZeu6ZuBew

Mike pence, you too are an absolute sh*t..

- what self-serving pigs these people are..!!
Dude. Stop. Strzok is not a man to idolize. Attacking Pence for being religious is not okay. Get your hate under control. You are biased. You are actively looking for things to be outraged about. You are consuming biased content to fuel this. Step back from your feelings already. Man up and just go on about your life. Your perception of reality is going to get so skewed by Trump derangement syndrome that you'll end up marching down the street in a vagina suit. No one wants that.
Well said but you are likely wasting your breath with this lot, this thread is the best example of Trump derangement syndrome i have seen in a while and I think its getting worse.
Antilogic wrote:
Masterbagger wrote:Attacking Pence for being religious is not okay.
Challenging peoples views is important when they are looking to take public office. Even more so for religious people and religious views. Their belief may be a harmless or dangerous delusion, which ever one it is it should be carefully examined to ensure they doesn't prompt the person to make decisions while in office which could be harmful.
Prime example of bias likely against Christans

Just so you know that was fashionable nearly 10 years ago. ;)

But seriously I doubt you apply this bias to Muslims Jews or Hindus or Sikh's nope

Its just Christians....

why is it then that religious views should get more scrutiny?
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest."

-Thomas Paine-

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 02:04

RegisterMe wrote:Or educate the electorate. But we're in danger of veering off topic for off-topic, or at least making life more difficult for the mods than it already is.
Pence has used his religious beliefs as a campaign issue and has referred to them when it comes down to social and political issues, so it is relevant, IMO. (Obviously, I'm not in favor of mixing politics and religion. But, I'm also not opposed to a religious person being a politician. I just think that some are often a bit too vocal about it.)
If you are standing for office I should be able to challenge you on any of your positions and about anything you believe.

(Subtext - that includes your religious views, but I accept that mileage varies there, and in some places a lot).
I agree. I just don't want us to start judging people based on things that may not have anything to do with their actual job performance. It is right that we question someone's beliefs, but we don't have to make assumptions that those beliefs are somehow going to affect their performance IF they also hold to the same basic political principles dictated by our laws.

If a sea-monster is running for President and he obviously believes fervently in doing the best job possible, for the Greater Good, with tyranny towards none and after weighing as much evidence as possible regarding a potential decision that conforms to our stated ideals embodied in our founding doctrines... I'd vote for the sea-monster. :)

Hey, he may have eaten a few ships in his dark past, but he's obviously been reformed for hundreds of years! Haven't heard of any sea-monsters sinking ships lately, have you? Proof enough for me of his good intentions! ;)

User avatar
Antilogic
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed, 6. Apr 05, 20:33
x3tc

Post by Antilogic » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 02:55

Skism wrote:
Prime example of bias likely against Christans

Just so you know that was fashionable nearly 10 years ago. ;)
Yeah. 10 years ago I was a religious cultist. How time flies...
why is it then that religious views should get more scrutiny?
Alright, serious answer.

When you take public office, I believe that your number one responsibility should be to the people you represent. It doesn't matter if they voted for you, didn't vote for you, are prisoners, are arseholes, believe in a sun god or are furry fetishists. You need to be able to set aside your personal beliefs and opinions and ensure that the law is upheld, the rights of your citizens is upheld and that you conduct yourself in office in a statesperson like manner.

I believe that a lot of religious people will have a conflict of interest in doing this. Now, don't get me wrong, lots of non-religious beliefs and opinions have the same problem, but religious beliefs are both a public, easily reviewable issue and one that is often considered to be "untouchable" and should be respected. This attitude by society often allows for abuses to be hidden under the guise of respecting religious views and I think that means that a greater amount of scrutiny should be applied.

With regards to the conflict of interest, many devout religious people have devoted themselves to putting their lives in the service of a god. This is in direct opposition to the need to put the requirements of their citizens first. If a devout religious person is in office and the legal requirements of a citizen directly conflicts with the religious views of the person in office, they will often go with their religious viewpoint against the needs of the citizen. This happens a lot and is a major sticking point in any review of a person I wish to vote for - how far will this person let their religious views dictate their choices and how they vote? A recent example is a leader of the Liberal Democrats stepping down from leadership when he was unable to fully reconcile his religious views with the views and requirements that were demanded by his party.

Anyone who has religious views, regardless of religion, requires the scrutiny of how those views will impact them in office. Will a Christian politician close his local abortion clinic? Will a Muslim campaign for Islamic children to only be taught in Islamic schools? Will Jehovah's Witnesses insist on easier access to pre-teen children?

Anyone who publicly expressed the delusion of religion and seeks public office should expect and welcome the scrutiny of how they practice their religion. If it is deemed that this delusion affects them in a way which will have a negative impact on their citizens I would hope, but am often disappointed, that voters would not allow them to be in office.

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 03:22

You know @Skism, when the time comes (which I hope it doesn't), should you need to line up people, or pin people, or crucify people, or simply chuck people in a pit, or a kiln, or a furnace.

Come for me please.

First.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 04:30

Skism wrote:Prime example of bias likely against Christans

Just so you know that was fashionable nearly 10 years ago. ;)

But seriously I doubt you apply this bias to Muslims Jews or Hindus or Sikh's nope

Its just Christians....

why is it then that religious views should get more scrutiny?
hmmm lol?
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Post by pjknibbs » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 08:30

Antilogic wrote: With regards to the conflict of interest, many devout religious people have devoted themselves to putting their lives in the service of a god.
I don't think that applies to people who are just very religious. The ones who actually devote their lives in service to their god generally become priests, or monks, or whatever is appropriate for their beliefs--I doubt they become politicians.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 09:20

Antilogic wrote: When you take public office, I believe that your number one responsibility should be to the people you represent. It doesn't matter if they voted for you, didn't vote for you, are prisoners, are arseholes, believe in a sun god or are furry fetishists.
Ideally, but that doesn't seem to be the case on just about ... anything though, not just race. For example, the idea that after someone becomes a president, the should be the President of the U.S.A first, and the leader of their respective party a distant second - ideally. In this sense, the only good president will have to be one that has no party affiliation.
pjknibbs wrote: I don't think that applies to people who are just very religious. The ones who actually devote their lives in service to their god generally become priests, or monks, or whatever is appropriate for their beliefs--I doubt they become politicians.
I hope this become a quote in a book one day. :thumb_up:

Although it's not completely right though, there are religions in which there is no god, or religion in which the teaching basically tell you to go out there and do stuff because gods needs no serving.

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Post by Bishop149 » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 12:02

pjknibbs wrote:
Antilogic wrote: With regards to the conflict of interest, many devout religious people have devoted themselves to putting their lives in the service of a god.
I don't think that applies to people who are just very religious. The ones who actually devote their lives in service to their god generally become priests, or monks, or whatever is appropriate for their beliefs--I doubt they become politicians.
If they weren't a hypocrite that is. Yes if you were truly to devote your life to God then you'd become a member of a religious order, which themselves have varying degrees of devotion.

If you asked a religious politician what his priorities top priority was they'd probably say "God", but they are lying (possibly to themselves as well as you) the real answer is "Myself" as explained by their lack of membership in a religious order.
The issue here is that "The people I was elected to serve" wouldn't be their answer in either their claims or reality.

Its also worth mentioning that there are religious orders that explicitly either encourage their members to become public officials to further the orders goals or focus recruitment efforts upon those already in office.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Post by BugMeister » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 14:20

oh yes, Drumpf is very religious... he worships at the altar of Mammon - via the Chapel of St Monsanto..
- his "followers" are legion..

if you dismiss religious belief outright as entirely pointless, you put yourself at the mercy of devils..
by your own definition, you will be roasted by those who have spent their existence serving their blinkered beliefs..
ignorance is NOT an option, when you seek to challenge "bad" religious views..
you should study your subject carefully, otherwise you operate in the dark - it's NOT magic, my friend..
- and neither is it a means to push people around, or to trick them..

- it's up to you..
- fools rush in, where angels fear to tread..

John Brennan, delineates political matters clearly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81kawAPCJrM

- it's high time that the essential differences between signing a personal or corporate NDA and exercising a willingness to sign an Official Secrets Act were clarified:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aceqtEQ89OY

Drumpf's entire political technique is based on hiding behind NDA's, it's how he exerts his bullying power over those he employs - he uses it as a means of extortion..
in a world where the poor cannot even afford to defend themselves, people like Drumpf are monsters of self-interest..

- he's basically a coward, in constant fear for his political existence - plain and simple..
- and that makes him a very dangerous animal - a cornered rat..

- the stables need cleaning..
:roll: :roll:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Post by clakclak » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 15:41

Skism wrote:[...]

Prime example of bias likely against Christans

Just so you know that was fashionable nearly 10 years ago. ;)

But seriously I doubt you apply this bias to Muslims Jews or Hindus or Sikh's nope

Its just Christians....

why is it then that religious views should get more scrutiny?
Because if you allow people to work to end secularism in favour of their religion, you end up with oppressiv governments run by garbage human people like you find them for example in Saudi-Arabia, who use relgion to justify every injustice you can think of.

EDTI: While we are at it, maybe I can use this moment to go of on a little rant.

F**k Muslim extremists.

F**k Christian extremists.

F**k Buddhist extremists.

F**k Jewish extremists.

F**k Hindu extremists.

F**k Sikh extremists.

F**k Atheist extremists.

F**k everyone who thinks that their religious views, or lack thereof, gives them the right to oppress or force change upon someone else for basic features of their identity, be it their religion, sexuality, gender, skin colour or "caste". (And just to make that clear, I don't see forbidding a Muslim from forcing his daughter to wear a hijab or a Christian from refusing service to a gay couple as them being supressed in their religious freedom, but as forbidding them from supressing someone else.)
"The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn't have the weight of gender expectations." - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Post by BugMeister » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 16:23

- a clarion call for freedom of expression..!!

:lol:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Ezarkal
Posts: 1610
Joined: Wed, 22. Apr 15, 02:27
x4

Post by Ezarkal » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 16:42

-Random quote seen somewhere on facebook, real source unknown-

"Having a religion is like having a dick. It's okay to have one, and you have every right to be proud of it. But if you insist on showing it to me every 5 minutes, we will have a problem."
Humans are deuterostomes, which means that when they develop in the womb the first opening they develop is the anus.
This means that at one point you were nothing but an asshole.

Some people never develop beyond this stage.

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Post by BugMeister » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 17:00

- history on Drumpf's grift.. this is from 18 months ago..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX8dgbr5EI8

- step into this innocuous phone box, and take a trip back to the ancient past:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNX5OuKpWqA

- Replicant mischief is not a new phenomenon..
- they've been at it since the word go..
- they talk of "trickle-down", as though it were a magic charm..

- gotta get rid of this crud..
- it's blocking the swamp..
- smells awful..

:lol:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Post by Observe » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 19:06

Forget about religious preference. Most world religions and societies in general, have a common code of conduct, regardless of whether the person believes in God or not. Morality and ethics if you will.

There is nothing wrong with expecting our leaders to be adherents of integrity and decency. Ideally, our leaders would represent the best in us and be an inspiration for the people.

Meanwhile, back on Earth....

Locked

Return to “Off Topic English”