Oh Jesus he is cooked
-
It was more “moral are beyond human comprehension, so follow sky daddy” kind of argument.
Not saying it’s a good argument, but a possible one from a religious standpoint
So basically, morality is very tricky, so it kind of depends on the situation, so in general try to behave in accordance with X and avoid Y, but there will always be grey areas which must be judged on a case by case basis.
Kind of like how our laws work.
-
It teaches them the thought stopping cliches and mantras that they can use to “own” libs in drive by Facebook comments.
I think about the classic creationist “if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” It’s not intended to be an actual question - you can try to explain that no, we didn’t “come from monkeys,” that we shared a common ancestor, etc… but they don’t care. It’s just supposed to be a quick catch phrase that lets you not think about the question anymore.
That’s the whole point of all of these right wing “debaters.”
“I am convinced by this argument, so if I present the argument to you, I have made a convincing argument. QED.”
-
Glad that fascist is dead haha.
“I disagree with what you say, but will contend to the death your right to say it.” / Voltaire
-
This whole thing was already played out on the TV series “The West Wing”, and I’m fairly sure that Aaron Sorkin got it from somewhere else.
https://www.tv-quotes.com/shows/the-west-wing/quote_13962.html
Edit: It appears that the original author is Kent Ashcraft:
Source: https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/joke/laura.htm#author
I may be the only person alive to find that scene top cringe writing. It’s such a “shower retort” moment and then everybody clapped.
-
“I disagree with what you say, but will contend to the death your right to say it.” / Voltaire
no one questioned his RIGHT to say anything.
you can’t question someone’s feelings over what he said. so your quote is less then meaningless here
-
watched the video here:
Youtube VideoKirk actually has a good point in that those lines are from the old testament, which Christians believe doesn’t apply, and only believe in the new testament. Assuming Kirk is right that it isn’t in the new testament ( the Cambridge speaker doesn’t contest it either, for whatever that is worth). From the the student then pivots to talking about a new testament description along the lines of: Man shall not sleep with man, which he says can be interpreted differently than man and man and could be man and prostitute. Kirk contends that the traditions and interpretations were created during the time that the writings were created, and so there is no loss of translation then, and those understandings have been passed down until down consistently. I will say, i’ve summised this, but it is a lot more of a meandering argument afterwards that is not very interesting to watch.
I feel like the cambridge student shouldn’t have even brought up the lines in videos above because it doesn’t completely apply to Kirk’s religious beliefs. The student studied the bible decently enough to make his point, but it seemed he needed additional context of Kirk’s beliefs to make a strong point against Kirk.
he actually didn’t dodge anything, nor did he make a good point.
he stated that morals and right and wrong are immutable/unchanging.
so Charlie is now trapped to make a choice,
A. he’s wrong and morality is dependent on the situation, and so his whole platform regarding how he treats minorities has no justification.
B. he’s wrong and his god purposely demanded atrocities, and was wrong in the past, and is fallible, in which case his whole platform can’t be considered moral based on the teachings of his god.
so his answer is he still didn’t like it, which is him admitting defeat but refusing to decide in which way he believes his god is wrong
-
That “if a man sleeps with another man and they shall be stoned” (not a native English) verse is wrongly translated iirc. In old Hebrew there is a word that specifically means “man who is not yet an adult” - and back then you were an adult with 14 I think.
It was never about being gay is sinful, it was about molesting children being a sin.
It was never about being gay is sinful, it was about molesting children being a sin.
Yeah, but no republican wants to hear that their favorite activity is a sin.
-
Is this Oxford Union?
-
Is there a specific drug or is it fucker’s choice?
Not asking for myself, just trying to understand.
No specific drug. Caffeine, alcohol, even deep erotic breaths of oxygen will do.
-
No specific drug. Caffeine, alcohol, even deep erotic breaths of oxygen will do.
I’d argue it means dopamine, suggesting it’s only permissable with the desire (and consent) of both parties.
-
That “if a man sleeps with another man and they shall be stoned” (not a native English) verse is wrongly translated iirc. In old Hebrew there is a word that specifically means “man who is not yet an adult” - and back then you were an adult with 14 I think.
It was never about being gay is sinful, it was about molesting children being a sin.
Similarly a lot of the stuff about sodomy was about rape. Regardless I don’t think we should use religious texts as the basis for morals.
-
It’s not really a good point, it’s just classic cherrypicking. Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” so clearly the old testament law should still apply. Christians are just faced with the reality that they could not live their life in accordance with old testament law in todays age, and have therefore chosen to ignore laws from the old testament.
Im not a Bible scholar. I have always taken the distinction between abolish and fulfill here to be, I’m not here to say the old law was wrong and so let’s get rid of it, I’m here to say we have completed the period of time for which the old law was right, and we have a new way going forward for this new time.
-
No, it was actually a piano stealthily hung from a nearby rooftop, which the perpetrator cut down with some comically oversized scissors.
you know i saw the video he did go EVERYWHERE
-
Pretty obvious Kirk has no education since high school. He flunked out of Harper after one semester.
-
“Everyone! I just heard from sky daddy. He said you should all give me all your money. New moral imperative.”
That’s organised religion in a nutshell
-
Pretty obvious Kirk has no education since high school. He flunked out of Harper after one semester.
Had no education…*
-
editing videos like that is the equivalent to winning arguments in the shower
Except all the mouth breathers on the right just lap that shit up.
-
He sets the correct rules for that moment
So morals are not objective and unchanging, rather they change depending on how God feels at any particular moment. You can’t actually ground any sort of moral worldview with that belief because you can justify literally anything as long as you say God said so.
This is literally the first instruction God gives Adam and Eve. Do not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do not develop an independent sense of morality. What God says is the right thing at that time, and don’t you dare contradict him.
-
That “if a man sleeps with another man and they shall be stoned” (not a native English) verse is wrongly translated iirc. In old Hebrew there is a word that specifically means “man who is not yet an adult” - and back then you were an adult with 14 I think.
It was never about being gay is sinful, it was about molesting children being a sin.
It’s not that it’s a bad translation, they CHANGED it in the 40s to remove the pedophilia and make it homosexuality. There is actually a book in the Bible that celebrates two gay men living a happy life.
-
It was never about being gay is sinful, it was about molesting children being a sin.
Yeah, but no republican wants to hear that their favorite activity is a sin.
That’s crazy though, because a large portion of them are also gay
