Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - J70

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 627
1
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: Today at 11:52:33 AM »
Van Dijk is a good defender but 50m.
Seriously?

Far too much for him - half that would be enough

Half that won't buy him and he's pretty good IMO, Southampton will get 50M for him alright, the market will decide the price ala John Stones.

Stones was completely inflated because he is English.

30m would be plenty for Van Dijk

With Chelsea and Manu expressing interest in him, he'll go for a lot more than that.

Liverpool could sit tight with a bid of 30M, but he won't be going to Melwood at the end of it. The market will decide and he's in big demand.

Yep. We are not talking about buying a car, where you can go to another dealer and get the same car if you have to. He's a proven Premier League defender and if Liverpool don't pay what Southampton think they can get, someone else will. So it's either pay or have a serious alternative lined up, where you may run into the same problem.

2
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: April 25, 2017, 10:31:00 PM »
Some people in America talk about freedom being a product of guns, but the truth is freedom is a product of democracy and the rule of law.

I agree that giving people too much of a say can be a problem, like they do in California where voters get to micromanage everything. But I think that the kind of parliamentary democracy that's popular in Europe is a much better compromise.


What is freedom tho Eammon? Ive been asking what it is and no one seems to able to give me a definite answer so I've concluded it must be subjective rather than objective. A state of mind, Which means you could have it anywhere... including an autocracy.

As you say (almost) rule of law, obedience to that law, which requires a carrot (usually some sort of ideal) and a stick (police, justice) comes first, long before democracy.And I dont believe any civilisation has existed in history without either being completely isolated or having some sort of defence

Europe has many different styles of government but they are all subject to the same problem of going with the consensus of an uninformed and manipulated electorate. Or to put it more simply putting power in the hands of the popular instead of the qualified.

What's your favoured system of government Joe?

3
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: April 25, 2017, 05:21:59 PM »
Sturridge wasn't on the bench at the weekend,is he injured again ? Does anyone care?!

You can't count on him being available for any stretch of games.

He's finished at Liverpool.

Its a shame.

4
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: April 25, 2017, 04:50:27 PM »
Trolling.........brilliant term.

If you dont agree with me or conform to the 'in crowd' then it is trolling

No, its when you post vague, ill-supported nonsense to grab attention and provoke a reaction that its trolling.

The Iceman, for example, goes against the grain of many here when it comes to religious and cultural stuff. But he posts genuinely felt/thought out opinions and usually engages when someone calls him on one of those opinions. Ergo, no one accuses him of trolling, despite many of us often disagreeing strongly with his views.

5

That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.

Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.

Haha! You think I have nothing better to do than try to set out to offend people? My choice of words is an accurate picture of how I interpret these ancient texts. I could refer to the invisible man in the sky as "almighty holy and merciful God" but it wouldn't be an accurate description of how I view that character. If you choose to be offended by it than that's your business.

I see this nonsense phrase bouncing around a lot. I was always taught that God is within us and all around us. But I suppose its easier to try and and make believers sound stupid from within your own paradigm that actually trying to understand theirs.

That's not what I was taught. The big man up there creating and watching and seeing and judging everything is what it was for us. Maybe there was more than just an arbitrarily drawn border in the 40 miles between our home places! :)

6
I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.

I agree they are two separate things.

But you haven't given any reason why you don't see a scientific justification.

Anatomy, gender identity, sexuality... are they NOT all controlled by our development, whether that is influenced by genetics, hormones, environment etc?

You said earlier science "comes to a screeching halt" when it comes to transgenderism. How?

So, when the paedophile claims that he has not committed a crime because his/her development was not under his control and his/her behaviour is as natural as gender dysmorphia, homosexuality, etc that are now accepted as such and he/she is just on a spectrum, what will be your view?

Same as it is now: follow the laws that protect the young and vulnerable and wider society, just like the rest of us. Some lads are too ugly or idiotic to find someone to get laid with - that doesn't mean they should be allowed to force themselves on some unconsenting woman because they have an urge to satisfy.

7
a dude is a dude. whether he chops it off or not.

there was an episode of Special Victims Unit (SVU) one of those Law and Order shows from years ago.  This woman in her 30s identified as a 16 year old girl and continued to date 16 year old boys. Back then the show was exploring how belief  = reality in society...back then it was taboo - but now I'm not so sure....
I haven't seen any scientific evidence that a man can be changed in to a woman. He might have different parts from plastic surgery and mutilation but he's still a man?

What are your thoughts (if we keep this going) on a woman identifying as a little girl? A man identifying as a little boy? Or whatever they want to be (let's stick to the human spectrum)?

How do you know if a "dude is a dude" just because of the equipment? Is the possession of a penis ALL that there is to being male? Is there no psychological aspect to it? Hormonal, developmental aspects?

Where does the previously mentioned hermaphrodite fit in if it is all defined by genitalia and everyone fits into one box or the other? What about the effeminate lad you knew growing up with the high pitched voice and limp-wristed mannerisms? Was he a fraud, choosing to bring the bullying and ostracism onto himself in school? Or is there variation in what constitutes a male or female in terms of behaviour? And if so, why does the anatomical prevail completely over the psychological when it comes to the categorization?

I still don't see any scientific argument against the existence of genuine transgenderism in what you are saying. And I'm not saying I have all (or any) of the answers, but I'm not the one making the definitive claim about the scientific legitimacy of it all.

As for the woman identifying as a little girl or man as a little boy, what exactly does that mean? That they're choosing to do so for whatever reason? That they are adults who legitimately feel that way? That they are developmentally stunted intellectually and emotionally? That they're a fetishist who likes to wear nappies and a pacifier on the weekend?

And what does it have to do with transgender people? I get the whole free-for-all, be-what-you-want-or-choose argument you are hinting at, but so what? They're separate issues. If someone chooses to identify as a fifteen year old so he can get himself a nice young naive piece of ass, they're still subject to the laws of the land, just like anyone who has sexual relations with a minor.

8
I don't see the scientific justification for it.
And I'm concerned about the implications of it.

I agree they are two separate things.

But you haven't given any reason why you don't see a scientific justification.

Anatomy, gender identity, sexuality... are they NOT all controlled by our development, whether that is influenced by genetics, hormones, environment etc?

You said earlier science "comes to a screeching halt" when it comes to transgenderism. How?

9
a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?

you still believe its the same as the talking burning bush?
I'm simply asking where Science disappears to when we look at these things today...

And J70 if we allow people to be whoever or whatever they want to be because they think they are then where do we draw the line?
I realize this is probably a whole other thread and apologize for hijacking this one or steering it so far off course

I don't know (and its something that would require a lot of thought and discussion).

But like I said, the implications of something and the scientific basis or justification for its existence are two separate issues.


10
a dude with a dick is on the front of Time magazine championed as woman of the year...where is the biological science, reasoning and fact there?
the responsibility of proof is on the side that says he is a woman..
2-5 year old children who think they are boys or girls are being held up as trophy kids
male athletes are competing in female MMA and beating the shit out of women
male powerlifters are competing in female competition and breaking records
where's the science? wheres the biology?

You're mixing up separate arguments and using the implications of one to falsely invalidate the other.

1. Whether or not there is a biological basis to transgenderism.
2. What the implications of transgenderism are or should be with respect to sports and athletics (or bathrooms etc.).

On the biological basis, true, anatomy is obviously a biological issue, but so is psychology, behaviour, hormones etc. And when it comes to anatomy, even something as straightforward as genitalia isn't always unambiguous and or subject to simple pigeonholing. Unless you're claiming that hermaphroditism doesn't exist or isn't subject to scientific study? That's before we even begin to touch on sexuality or gender identity. If one, like many biological traits, is subject to variation and resistant to simple either/or categorization, why would we be shocked when the other is too?

Again, I don't see the conflict with biology or science.




11
If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.
what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....

"Your" science??

In what way is trangenderism at odds with science?
I just find it funny that logic and reason and science are used so much in the case against religion....but biology is forgotten when it comes to Bruce Jenner or anyone else in his heels...

I'm not seeing how "biology is forgotten"?

12
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: April 24, 2017, 03:11:52 PM »
Look at who they've left to play, or even the players they've still to face. Troy f**king Deeney openly boasted about physically bullying the Liverpool defence last year. Andy Carroll and the likes of James Collins will probably wreak havoc on set pieces when they play West Ham. They've played Southampton three times this season and are yet to score a goal. Would anyone be shocked to see Liverpool take six points from these last four matches?

Fact is, win all four and it will probably be enough given the fixtures the others have. But who really believes they will?

13
If someone said to you tomorrow that Cinderella was in fact real and created the world I think you'd laugh in their face rather than partake in a discussion on the topic.
what if someone told you today that a male olympian who was married with kids was actually a woman?
biologically forever a man but actually a woman and would be named woman of the year and you would call him a woman and encourage little kids to choose whatever gender they wanted to be......
your science comes to a screeching halt when the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ agenda waves their checkered flag....

"Your" science??

In what way is trangenderism at odds with science?


14

I think the gnostic gospels (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, etc.) are interesting. The story behind why they didn't make the "final cut" of the Bible is a great story in itself.

What I take from the Bible is that there probably was a Jesus-type character who was a "prophet" in the sense of being a philosopher and public speaker, since that was a common thing in Palestine at the time. The re-telling of some of the stories has lost some accuracy along the way, which is a pity because some of the intended lessons were lost. Case in point; the feeding of the 5000. It's told today as him performing a miracle by converting small amounts of fish and bread into large amounts. What really happened was people in those days carried food around with them because there wasn't exactly a grocery store or cafe on every corner. Some of his followers had run out of food, so he got everyone to put a bit of their food into a pile that could be evenly redistributed among the crowd. It was a lesson about collective effort to help everyone.

Did the crucifixion happen? Sounds about right since the Roman state felt a bit threatened by civil unrest he was stirring up with his newfangled ideas. The Romans wanted stability.

Did the resurrection happen? Obviously not, but if he somehow survived the crucifixion and was seen alive afterwards then that would explain how that little story got out to a small number of people. People being misdiagnosed as dead is not unheard of. If an earthquake coincided with his apparent "death" then the superstitious nature in everyone would have pounced on that as a meaningful event.

As for the old testament, some interesting creation myths in there. I heard once that there is evidence of a big ancient flood in the Black Sea region, so that would have fueled the Noah story.

So my personal take on the Bible a scripture in general is that there's probably a kernel of truth in a lot of it, but I don't accept supernatural explanations. I mean, what do you think is more likely? Mary was impregnated by an alien or was she fooling around with someone and decided to stick to her story? That said, there are some good lessons and messages in there. You can agree with the teachings of Ghandi without being Hindu, and you can agree with a lot of the teachings of Jesus without being a Christian.

That's a very deliberate and offensive choice of words.
Adding a question mark is a cowardly way to try to escape that.

Your explanations are based on current theory applied to a 2000 year old event. Your explanations are at least equally open to dismissal on those grounds.
I agree with you that the bible is not an accurate historic account but there is no way I'd try to offend Christians for their faith. Nor would I argue with an atheists with deliberate attempts to offend.

His explanations are based on run of the mill, every day, plausible interpretations e.g. pooling of food. Or they're based on scientific theories for which there is actual evidence e.g. flood myths being based on the flooding of the Black Sea through the Bosphorus. That's a lot more than can be said for a literal interpretation of the actual biblical stories.

As for your offense at the Mary bit, are you really that sensitive and delicate?

15
Every bit of it?????
Pontius Pilate didn't exist??
Historical fiction

Ever read any story books on ancient Rome or the mongols? Or Napoleonic wars...
Some it is founded on fact - like the era the story is set

And there I was thinking The Life of Brian was a true story.

I mean, its set in the Jerusalem of Jesus, Pontius Pilate and Biggus Dickus!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 627