BaldProphet @ BaldProphet @kbin.social

2 Kings 2:23-24: A story about what happens when you make fun of bald dudes

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

413

Joined

2 yr. ago

Go further back, even. The UN Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 would have given Palestine its own territory, splitting it with Israel 45/55. The Arab League and Arab Higher Committee of Palestine both rejected it.

It's not like compromises have never been offered. The Arabs have simply never been willing to accept anything less than the expulsion of the Jews from the territory.

Not sure there's such a thing as "good guys" anymore.

It's pretty common for marginalized groups to attempt to reclaim derogatory epithets that target them. For example, American revolutionaries took over the term "Yankee", which was derogatory, and LGBT folks have reclaimed the term "queer". Unfortunately, such attempts are not always successful, and it's obvious that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' attempt to reclaim "Mormon" is an example.

Regardless, the history of the derogatory epithet "Mormon" is well-known. It is founded in attempts to dehumanize and marginalize Latter-day Saints, and its use can be traced back to acts of genocide in the 1830s.

I understand that leaving the Church is an emotional experience and leaves most people very bitter, but do try to moderate your hatred.

The formal name of the Church has always been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its name is part of Latter-day Saint doctrine, and it is no secret that the reason we are turning away from the derogatory epithet "Mormon" is because it downplays our central belief in Jesus Christ. The attempt by the Church in the early-to-mid 2000s to reclaim the term was meant to educate the public on its actual beliefs, but that effort clearly failed. The Church is less interested in its public image now than it was back then.

(Comment by squaresinger removed by mod: “reason: Part of a white nationalist cult, defending said cult”. Comment summary: A Mormon clarifies that excommunication doesn’t ban attending church activities, but tensions arise when ex-members aggressively try to convert others away from the faith, citing their ex-Mormon returned missionary best friend as an example of someone who isnʼt hostile towards Mormon Church members.)

Wow, these mods really hate members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Our church is anything but white nationalistic. Most members of the Church live outside the United States and its leaders have repeatedly preached against racism and nationalism in recent years. I hope the mods educate themselves on this topic before further spreading their bigotry.

Every time I mention that I have a very modest ability to write code, people instantly think I'm a genius and can make a computer do anything.

Maybe it's blocked in your country. I had no trouble accessing the article.

EDIT: Looks like the website got deleted after I linked it. Weird.

From Merriam-Webster:

Bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Synonyms include dogmatist, partisan, and sectarian.

Here's an article that may help you to understand why you are a bigot a bit better: https://www.existbetter.co/single-post/2019/04/15/Bigotry-is-a-SymptomHow-to-Handle-a-Bigot

Hopefully we can eliminate hate of all kinds from this world.

As a religious person in one of the top three most hated organized religions in the United States, I've found most of the anti-theist commentary about my religion to be highly ignorant. In the Fediverse, it's cool to hate on religions and religious people (especially members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), but nobody seems to be interested in doing any due diligence before spewing their hate. I couldn't number how many times I've been told what I believe (like, what?), usually something weird and outlandish or a century out of date.

Tl;dr anti-theist rhetoric in the Fediverse tends to be highly ignorant and hateful bigotry, not the enlightened discussion one would expect from people so, well, "enlightened".

But when you're paying striking workers to strike, you're incentivizing them to never compromise as long as the benefits last, which would be up to 26 weeks. Besides being unable to afford it, the state would start to see longer strikes and businesses moving out. I feel dirty for saying it, but this time Newsom was right.

My point is that it's coercive and will drive businesses out of the state.

Unemployment is paid for by employers. Paying unemployment to striking workers is in effect forcing employers to keep paying their employees even though they're not working.

Keep in mind that California is an at-will employment state.

Makes sense, because Kbin is made by a Polish developer and its first instance was Polish.

You really need to study history some more.

Explain, how is an individual right necessary by implication to achieve that purpose, when the actual language describing regimented, uniformed state militia or guard, adequately achieves the purpose by itself?

You are describing a standing army, not a militia. The Second Amendment does not mention a standing army.

You said yourself the prefatory clause deliniates the subsequent clauses. Yet you read “the people” as being “every person” and not "the people [who are securing the state as militia regulars].

"Regulars" are members of a standing army. Members of a militia would never be described as "regulars".

Even more curious again because the text says what right the militamen have: to keep and bear arms. You have to go to pretty recent writings to find examples of the words “bear arms” used to refer to a right of all individuals to have whatever guns they want.

Wow, buddy. Are you even trying? Let's reread the text of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Ah yes, as it says in the actual amendment, it is the right of the people whose right shall not be infringed. Not the right of members of the militia.

I would concede that there is a general right of a militia age persons to keep arms. As they were then, serialized, registered, after training, not habitually openly carried, not stockpiled machine guns with thousands of rounds. You know, regimented like, with muskets.

Please cite your sources. Guns were usually owned by individuals and not serialized in the late 18th century. And please, the whole "it only applies to weapons available at the time" fallacy is ridiculous because that would mean that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to electronic communication systems.

I would even concede [unlike originalists and textualists] that the right of such persons to keep guns refers to common weapons of self defense such as shot guns and semi auto pistols with maybe a six round capacity; as the Breuen court speaks of this right to traditional weapons of personal defense.

Judge Roger Benitez has repeatedly explained that the reason police officers use weapons with larger magazine capacities is the same reason why everyone should be able to use guns with larger magazine capacities. It's irrelevant anyway, because the Second Amendment doesn't give any leeway to such infringements.

Every gun law has to be unconstitutional. Every weapon has to be available. Any restriction is an infringement.

The only three sentences you've said that have any truth and logic to them. I'll agree with you on those three sentences.

All gun control laws are unconstitutional and illegal and should be repealed.

Yeah, there's no reasoning with these people. Unfortunately, people like them only realize the importance of self-defense and an armed populace when they're victimized by the authorities or by random hooligans.

Gun control advocates? More like pro-victimization advocates.

From 1917 to today, over 37 million people have been killed by fascist and Marxist dictators. Disarmament of the public is a favored preemptive tactic that they employ. I intend to be on the side of history that isn't so victimized.

The link you shared is great evidence that our police forces, local, state, and federal, need to be disarmed. An armed police officer is significantly more dangerous than an armed civilian.

I can tell you're disagreeing with me, but your argument is incomprehensible. The "express language of the actual amendment" is easily broken down as follows:

"A well regulated Militia(1), being necessary to the security of a free State(2), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms(3), shall not be infringed.(4)"

1. A well-regulated (or "well regulated") militia is one that is properly equipped and trained. The kind of training that would have been expected at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment was fairly minimal, nowhere near what would have been expected of the training for members of the regular army. In this way, the National Guard is not a proxy for the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment, because it receives the more in-depth training of the regular Army. The type of militia training that citizens received in the late 18th century is either illegal or highly suspect today, with members of militias that still perform such training commonly labeled as domestic terrorists. The rest of us train at the range and find other ways to receive useful training. For example, I am a member of ARES and receive some of the same training from FEMA that all emergency services personnel receive regarding the National Incident Management System and Incident Command System.
2. I don't think anyone disagrees that civil defense and emergency preparedness skills increase the security of a free state.

(1) and (2) together comprise the prefatory clause, which does not define a specific law, but rather explains why a law is necessary.

1. Here we have the actual enumerated right that the Second Amendment restricts the government from regulating, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, but the people. Clear as day to any honest native English speaker. If the intent had been to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to the militia, the authors of this amendment could have easily said so. Instead, they wrote that the right is for the people.
2. "Shall not be infringed." This is really clear and direct: Any law that encroaches upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is illegal. Any such law.

Even if you wanted to argue that only the militia should be able to keep and bear arms, and that military weapons should only be carried by the police and the military, and that the National Guard is the militia, you run into the problem where every able-bodied male 17-45 is a member of militia. That means that any law preventing a man in that age range from keeping and bearing arms (of any kind!) would still be illegal even if your twisted semantic acrobatics made any sense from a linguistic perspective.

I'll make a final note here: This is not something that I or millions of my fellow Americans are willing to compromise any further on. This is 100% an issue that a civil war would be waged over, and a permanent rift of the Union.

Yes, I believe any law that is meant to prevent people from exercising their right to vote is bad. And why the obsession with murder? The vast majority of gun owners are peaceful, wonderful people. Your bigotry is exhausting.

To infringe is to encroach upon. Any restrictions that come close to preventing the people (everywhere in the Bill of Rights referring to the general population of the United States) from keeping and bearing arms encroach upon that right, and therefore infringe upon it.

What right does the Second Amendment prevent from being infringed upon? Not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the military to keep and bear arms. It is the right of the people. I am a people. You are a people. Let's look at everywhere else a right is protected from government interference:

1st Amendment: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Are you saying that this is not an individual right?

4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". Is due process not an individual right?

9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This one is conveniently forgotten by authoritarians and statists who don't realize that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people, rather than granting them.

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Again, one of the most important amendments that is conveniently forgotten or ignored by those wishing to deprive the people of their rights.

It is nonsensical to think that "the people" in the Second Amendment would be a generalized right (whatever that means) and that it would refer to individuals everywhere else. What a ridiculous and indefensible position to take.

My guy can't even quote the Second Amendment correctly.