shirgall

Sorry, I couldn't help posting that. I had no choice.

These threads are too predictable, but I guess we're fated to reopen them from time to time.

I put it a little differently. They *coldly* planned the repeated mass murder of innocents. The intent is to bring about political changes. Their vision for these changes is diametrically opposed to a free society, reinforced by religious teachings who baseline understanding of consent is incompatible with Western common law. The only possible merging with Western culture they see requires one-sided reform of Western culture. The answer is, "no."

I've never encountered a religious person that didn't cherry-pick their practices, primarily because of mutually-exclusive restrictions and countervailing "teachings". What I respect is values and people that follow them.

I'm saying people pick and choose what parts of religions they follow. You have to judge people by their actions. It doesn't help that there are contradictions in all the established religions on top of it, otherwise there wouldn't be sects. I can be skeptical of someone that claims to be a member of a religion, but I don't generally discount them until I hear what they think about it. There *are* situations where membership in a group can be initiation of force, for example staying in a demonstration that turns violent rather than leaving even if not directly being violent, like antifa hiding the violent members in their generally anonymous ranks. That's voluntary association with a group that's being violent right then and there. i can even extend this to a group that is deliberately intimidating, threatening or inciting violence. Membership in a religion is so ephemeral and distant in comparison that I cannot damn 90%+ of the world for vague association.

But since people pick and choose whatever practices any religion they espouse professes, they don't necessarily initiate force.

One could argue that one usually does not have a religion without being indoctrinated before before a mature sense of consent, too, just the same as being a signatory to a social contract before being able to consent.

All universals are universal. Association is not the initiation of force, however, or even the endorsement of force, so your test case isn't saying much unless the person voluntarily practicing Islam is initiating force. For example, people that don't leave Democracies are living in a state that endorses the initiation of force on the results of a vote to initiate that force. Does that mean they themselves are initiating or endorsing the initiation of force?

Plenty of reasons a discussion can visit any topic. Good friends have curiosity about the choices their friends make or are considering.

There are a variety of reasons the board upgrade may have the chat room disabled. There's not much point in speculating. But, ask yourself if you donated more or less because of its presence and ask yourself if how much work it takes to enable and monitor it. Compare that to the value a relatively small number of people gained from it to other features of the board.

When you run into contrary opinions, narratives, or experiences, be curious. When your curiosity is satisfied or there are no more arguments to be evaluated there's no need to continue.

Sorry. It is, however, something we've had to do in this forum a lot. Often we discover that the differences in position come down to differences in the meaning of words we use, and the argument would escalate when someone would say something that someone else would interpret differently.

Insist on establishing definitions in an honest debate.

The cynical person in me says that you influence and ultimately control low intelligence and low information people (both populations overlap with the set of irrational people) by inventing a big lie and investing heavily in ephemeral good consequences for believing it and imply immeasurably bad consequences for not believing it, reinforcing it with well-paid authorities and celebrities that endlessly repeat the lie, and by instilling social benefits and costs (community and ostracism). Invent a disease. Sell the cure. Just because it works doesn't make it right, though.

I don't know, but I also haven't played around with what you can do with https://board.freedomainradio.com/followed/

The "unread content" link goes here https://board.freedomainradio.com/discover/unread/ It can be sorted in date order...

Since this appears to have become the bug report thread... Moderated postings cannot be "read": Error code: 2F173/O

The big thing to notice is that login is by email address only now.

I've been pushing back since the 1980s. Ross Perot was a push back. Reagan was a push back. The Libertarian Party was a push back. The NRA/ILA was a push back. But the fundamental problem is that people that just want to be left alone aren't really great at coalition building.

I give "evidence" a stricter tone than "experience" but if evidence is contrary to a rational conclusion, the rational conclusion requires recalculation.

No, the joke was we always talk about "reason and evidence" that I bet if Stefan said "reason" and paused on a podcast we'd all say "and evidence" to fill in the blank. Reason is not enough on its own, or all of answers about everything would spring unbidden from thinking about them. We have to go out and experience the world, systematically, identifying and correcting sources of error. By the way, "phishing" is putting out something that looks official in an attempt to steal critical personal information. "Fishing" is the process of asking a leading question to elicit a desired response.

It's the (more formal) definition of an axiom.

Any evidence?

And... Syria is reportedly flying strike fighters out of that base already.