The Insane "Social Justice" Thread pt IV

[jamil]

That's a weak argument. Interpretation in no way affects the underlying truth

Now do five scientists 'unpacking' what space time is or the quantum hall effect or frame dragging. They 'unpack' one idea (verse) and wind up saying 5 diffrent things, but that variance in no way affects the validity of the underlying idea

The variance on, say, free will vs Calvinism implies completely different things. It’s a pretty basic divisional split which resulted in a very foundational split in denominations.

With the metaphysical realm we’re talking about a different kind of underlying truth. I doubt you think of it that way though. But indeed it is an unknowable truth that you believe by faith. What we discover through science is more like peeling layers of an onion to get to the underlying truth. Of course as the depth and breadth of knowledge on a given topic increases, the things “unpacked” between different scientists become less varied.

 

[MCgrease08]

Back to the topic at hand.

More of the insane left eating its own. This time the target is some actress I've never heard of who had the audacity to not put her pronouns in her Twitter bio on trans awareness day or some such silliness.

Twitter Mob Attacks Sarah Paulson For Not Declaring Her Pronouns On ‘Trans Visibility Day’ | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

 

[JettaKnight]

Back to the topic at hand.

More of the insane left eating its own. This time the target is some actress I've never heard of who had the audacity to not put her pronouns in her Twitter bio on trans awareness day or some such silliness.

Twitter Mob Attacks Sarah Paulson For Not Declaring Her Pronouns On ‘Trans Visibility Day’ | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Haven't heard of Sarah Paulson? That's a shame.
And leftist attacking one of their own for not explicitly pointing out the obvious? That's a shame, too.

 

[jamil]

Meh. Most of those denomination difference are over the color of carpet.

I think it would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that there are some very important differences between some denominations. I mentioned a big one above. Another is dunking vs sprinkling. Even the nature of God expressed in the Trinity. Or even salvation. The way many major denominations seem to deal with it is they’re quick to call the others cults. The point here is that interpretation is more subjective than Christians are willing to admit. I’m not knocking it. I’m just saying what it looks like from the outside having been on the inside for many years.

 

[jamil]

Back to the topic at hand.

More of the insane left eating its own. This time the target is some actress I've never heard of who had the audacity to not put her pronouns in her Twitter bio on trans awareness day or some such silliness.

Twitter Mob Attacks Sarah Paulson For Not Declaring Her Pronouns On ‘Trans Visibility Day’ | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

I’ve never heard of her either. But this is the way it goes. If you’re in the woke cult you don’t get a pass. Your conformity is still expected. It’s why they got onto Gina Corano. Not having her pronouns in her bio.

 

[2A_Tom]

What? A grown man in the 50's,60's,70's,80's,90's,00's,20's should know better than to paint their face unless they're doing something that requires them to be camouflaged. You want a ballon animal too?

So, in your opinion a man has no right to use makeup as he pleases, because you think it is wrong, but a man has the right to dress as a woman, or not, and use the ladies room?

 

[Doug]

 

[kickbacked]

So, in your opinion a man has no right to use makeup as he pleases, because you think it is wrong, but a man has the right to dress as a woman, or not, and use the ladies room?

amazing how you deciphered all of that out of "a grown man shouldnt paint his face at a sporting event".

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think it would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that there are some very important differences between some denominations. I mentioned a big one above. Another is dunking vs sprinkling. Even the nature of God expressed in the Trinity. Or even salvation. The way many major denominations seem to deal with it is they’re quick to call the others cults. The point here is that interpretation is more subjective than Christians are willing to admit. I’m not knocking it. I’m just saying what it looks like from the outside having been on the inside for many years.

Maybe I take an unusually liberal approach to managing my conservative system of belief. While I may not be a "pretty" example, my beliefs are pretty conservative. While some points of interpretation are pretty subjective, many are not. I obviously consider those i accept to be the best understanding otherwisr I would believe something ekse, but I also do not see it as something like a spelling bee or a math contest. I will also agree with JK that many of the more contentious problem issues are of relatively minor importance.

 

[BugI02]

The variance on, say, free will vs Calvinism implies completely different things. It’s a pretty basic divisional split which resulted in a very foundational split in denominations.

Now do the gospel according to SUSY vs String Theory

With the metaphysical realm we’re talking about a different kind of underlying truth. I doubt you think of it that way though. But indeed it is an unknowable truth that you believe by faith. What we discover through science is more like peeling layers of an onion to get to the underlying truth. Of course as the depth and breadth of knowledge on a given topic increases, the things “unpacked” between different scientists become less varied.

It is not an unknowable truth, I know it already. But in the sense you mean, I shall 'know' the truth in 30 yrs +- 10

 

[BugI02]

I think it would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that there are some very important differences between some denominations. I mentioned a big one above. Another is dunking vs sprinkling. Even the nature of God expressed in the Trinity. Or even salvation. The way many major denominations seem to deal with it is they’re quick to call the others cults. The point here is that interpretation is more subjective than Christians are willing to admit. I’m not knocking it. I’m just saying what it looks like from the outside having been on the inside for many years.

And I'm just pointing out, having been inside it for many years, that science at the edges looks a lot like any other faith when viewed from the outside

 

[BugI02]

amazing how you deciphered all of that out of "a grown man shouldnt paint his face at a sporting event".

Now do whether a grown man should play pretend soldier on a computer in his basement

 

[2A_Tom]

amazing how you deciphered all of that out of "a grown man shouldnt paint his face at a sporting event".

OK, explain why please.

 

[kickbacked]

OK, explain why please.

because i said absolutely nothing about men dressing as women, or what bathrooms anyone should use. Literally nothing.

 

[IndyDave1776]

because i said absolutely nothing about men dressing as women, or what bathrooms anyone should use. Literally nothing.

You can't see how short a step it is from what one wears on his face to what he wears on his back, especially when your introduction to the subject included political correctness?

 

[jsx1043]

amazing how you deciphered all of that out of "a grown man shouldnt paint his face at a sporting event".

Hey kick-

At first I was perturbed at your response to this, but I had some time to think k about it (and a little whiskey to blur it a little...)

So... part of me is verklempt (sp?) at your staunch “shouldn’t paint their face anyway” comment, but I think I know where you’re going with it: Real, strong men shouldn’t resort to painting their face for a sportsball game as it’s a childish way to express yourself. (My interpretation at least, and I somewhat agree that true masculinity and stoicism is a lost art.)

However, allow me to counter a little bit on two fronts:

1. Freedom - They have the ability to do so and without consternation on our end as it falls under the “if it doesn’t affect/hurt us, then why do we care” spectrum;

2. Warrior ethos - This is one that just came to me: One thing to consider now that many folks use sports as their “tribe” and don war paint as their “going into battle” moment. While I ultimately realize that this is weak in grand comparison, this is where we’re at as a society. So many men haven’t had to fight for something that sportsball has replaced battle in some cases.

Ultimately, I think it’s one of those things that is a fun tradition in sports and that it allows people to let go a little bit and have a blast. It may not be “mature,” but it’s part of the party atmosphere surrounding professional sports these days.

 

[kickbacked]

You can't see how short a step it is from what one wears on his face to what he wears on his back, especially when your introduction to the subject included political correctness?

I spoke about the Cleveland Indians and only that. I think it is disrespectful to wear something you yourself have not earned. I think what you're talking about is a pretty big step. edit: (talking about head dresses)
Explain this to me:
You speak for me, then attack the position you spoke for me. How does that make any sense?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Headdresses aren’t a costume item to me. It’s like stolen valor or wearing a mason ring you didn’t earn. Face paint is whatever but a grown man, probably brought his mitt to the game is just sad.

This is the first of your posts that I noticed. I don't see a huge leap to a bit of laughter at different but not terribly dissimilar examples brought up.

 

[2A_Tom]

My only point is freedom. You are free to put on a uniform with s CMH and the Supremes say it is freedom of speech and not stolen valor.

The liberals have no problem with the freedom of a man to dress as a woman, and I do not see your differentiation between cross dressing and identifying as a female.

The dispute I have with you is you pontificate that it is wrong for a man to paint his face.

Do I like it, would I do it? No, but if someone has the inclination to do it who am I or you to disparage it.

 

[kickbacked]

This is the first of your posts that I noticed. I don't see a huge leap to a bit of laughter at different but not terribly dissimilar examples brought up.

Can you see what im getting at? Im not trying to be argumentative. A head dress has serious meaning to Native Americans. So i try to put myself in their shoes. How would I feel if my grandfather earned that right to wear it and some guy at a baseball game with zero idea of its meaning and zero respect of how it was earned used it as a prop.