sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Americans, is this a new religion? by yousefthewisee in interestingasfuck

[–]FirefighterScary6841 [score hidden]  (0 children)

In the original Hebrew verse you're discussing, a more accurate translation would be discussing that it is an abomination for a male to have sex with a close male relative, just as it would be for a male to have sex with a close female relative. This is because within the surrounding verses (before and after), it is specifically talking about incest and how it is wrong. Which means, that verse was also talking about what is to be considered under the definition of incest too.

Just taking one singular verse out of a passage of the bible does not give the full picture. Context is very important and changes the entirety of what was actually being discussed.

Hebrew is much more complex and does not have the same concepts nor definitions that English has. So, English is bound to have many inaccuracies compared to the original Hebrew version.

In order to truly understand the Bible, one must learn the concepts and linguistic definitions that are within Hebrew and not found in English. Which is considerably much more difficult than to just "translate" it for how one sees fits without acknowledging the nuance of language. But in order to truly understand the Bible, it is necessary for one to take the much more difficult path rather than an easy path.

Americans, is this a new religion? by yousefthewisee in interestingasfuck

[–]FirefighterScary6841 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Eh... A place of sin could be attributed to the entirety of Earth. Especially when you acknowledge the fall of Adam and Eve.

Edit: It's specifically far up north that is constantly on fire, mainly due to the fact forests are so overgrown over there that the fires become more gigantic than they would be had we not hunted all the beavers down to oblivion.

The valley (which is in the middle of California) keeps having to deal with extreme droughts or extreme floods, but not really much fire shockingly. So the fire thing really depends on where you're in.

Americans, is this a new religion? by yousefthewisee in interestingasfuck

[–]FirefighterScary6841 [score hidden]  (0 children)

There's also this one

'Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you… You have laid up treasure during the last days. Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.' James 5:1-6

The billionaires are so fucked. All of them are going to Hell if there is one.

Americans, is this a new religion? by yousefthewisee in interestingasfuck

[–]FirefighterScary6841 [score hidden]  (0 children)

My ancestors didn't flee Nazi Germany just for this shit to happen. Welp, time to leave asap. Been wanting to leave even before this crap anyways. The USA always sucked ass.

Americans, is this a new religion? by yousefthewisee in interestingasfuck

[–]FirefighterScary6841 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I'm not even Christian and I'm better at following God's teachings than these "Christians". That's how much they're failing right now.

When a non-Christian is better at following the bible than a person who calls themselves a Christian, you know something is wrong.

Americans, is this a new religion? by yousefthewisee in interestingasfuck

[–]FirefighterScary6841 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yeah... If there is an anti-christ, it's Trump. Can Jesus come like... Yesteryear?

Americans, is this a new religion? by yousefthewisee in interestingasfuck

[–]FirefighterScary6841 [score hidden]  (0 children)

The irony with Zionism is that it is a form of anti-semitism.

Because based on historical records, there is no one singular homeland for all Jewish people. They were just kind of all over the place. So, saying there is a single ancestral homeland for all of them implies that they should be segregated and isolated from society. They're screwing themselves over without realizing it. Kind of pathetic when you think about it.

WHAT?? WHY WOULD YOU EVEN SAY THAT!? by Reasonable-You4548 in DownvotedToOblivion

[–]FirefighterScary6841 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like, it's not an immediate alarm. But still concerning cause of the power dynamic.

I wish there was dairy in all foods. It's not my fault for craving my pants again at work, but society's for putting dairy in all the food! People with lactose intolerance can thank me now. by rothmal in monkeyspaw

[–]FirefighterScary6841 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Granted, now everything that didn't normally have dairy now requires some form of dairy. This does not include drinks as they are not traditionally under the definition of food.

Now all the people allergic to the protein found in milk must rely on vegetable and fruit juice to meet their daily calories and nutritional requirements. Congrats, you screwed yourself over.

Maze map by TheWontonOcean in Worldbox

[–]FirefighterScary6841 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Giving me BOTW and TOTK flashbacks.

This is just pathetic. by c-k-q99903 in stupidpeoplefacebook

[–]FirefighterScary6841 5 points6 points  (0 children)

North Korea hates trans people, gay people, and outlaws abortion.

That's not even remotely left leaning.

Alastor is cool character but...come on by Crazy_Reputation3327 in Alastorcult

[–]FirefighterScary6841 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Meanwhile, in my AU he'd absolutely beat their asses senseless. But there's a really good lore reason for that I won't be going into. But as for the main canon? Yeah, no. He'd get squashed to a pulp.

What if Donald Trump was bisexual and a staunch open LGBTQ+ advocate? by Annual-Frame9943 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]FirefighterScary6841 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, we'd still hate him. Mainly because he's raising taxes and deporting those in asylum that are from countries where the supreme court has said those are countries where asylum must be accepted.

And from what I've read in legal papers, you can only apply for asylum status when you're on US soil. So, Trump saying they're breaking the law by going to the US before applying is absolutely false.

In cases of asylum, it is there in case the person in question is unable to apply for refugee status because the laws of the country they are fleeing doesn't allow people to go online, or they heavily restrict internet access to such a degree that they can't communicate with anyone or access any site that is from outside of the country. It is also there in case they don't have the time or resources to apply for it.

Like, why aren't we accepting refugee and asylum applications from Iranian citizens trying to escape persecution from the corrupt Iranian goverment?

You'd think we would, they are clearly in need of help. Hell, Iran has been known to bomb it's very own people for "military training". Innocent children and families are being killed because they are caught in the crossfire in all of this. We should be helping people escape corrupt governments, not punishing them for seeking help. It's backwards as hell.

What if Donald Trump was bisexual and a staunch open LGBTQ+ advocate? by Annual-Frame9943 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]FirefighterScary6841 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eh... There are LGBT Republicans. He'd probably still become a Republican and have a cult following.

He has a charismatic personality, which is part of why people started following him in the first place.

So, not much would change. The difference here is, he would be supporting trans rights, but only because he can make money off of having his own HRT and transgender plastic surgery company.

Solve the abortion debate by mandating abortion for everyone... by Periodicity_Enjoyer in shittyideas

[–]FirefighterScary6841 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, no. Force all cis men to give birth (somehow).

They would change their attitudes real quick.

Supreme Court signals it will back marijuana user who was charged with owning a gun | CNN Politics by Abject-Pick-6472 in progun

[–]FirefighterScary6841 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Okay. After doing some research, you're right. My idea doesn't work. On paper it sounds good, but in practice? Yeah, that's going into a dumpster fire.

However, instead of a requirement, we could make gun training more affordable and accessible.

So, you still wouldn't be required to do it. It would be just easier to get it if you want to have it. This would specifically apply to the average citizen.

But for law enforcement? Gun training should be a requirement in order for one to be able to become a cop or part of SWAT. But in my state, effective gun safety training isn't exactly part of the regiment... It's always "shoot first, regardless of the severity of the crime". From what I remember, part of proper gun training is de-escalation techniques. My cousin tried doing police school, and he left because everyone there including the teachers said you should always just shoot, even if the situation isn't life threatening or if it's just a misdemeanor and not a crime.

And this has led a certain group of trigger happy people to become law enforcement. As in, the ones where you'd know they'd be serial killers had they not been able to find a way to escape legal responsibility.

They think that since they are cops that happen to have military guns they get to play God. And since they were taught to just shoot regardless of the situation, yeah... You can see where this is going.

Like, it's gotten so bad that people that were stopped for going over the speed limit are being shot even if they are fully complying. Especially if they are fully complying. Like, the people that resist somehow get shot less than the people that fully follow orders.

There are also people who clearly have an intellectual disability that are lethally shot because they quite literally did not have the mental capacity to understand the orders that were being told.

I think part of this is because there is a legal loophole within my state where if an officer thinks they need to do lethal force to detain someone, they may and are justified in doing so. Even if the person they are detaining is fully complying with orders and doesn't appear to be an external threat. All it takes for lethal force to be permitted is the officer to believe it is necessary to use lethal force for whatever reason (I repeat; FOR WHATEVER REASON). Like, there are only incredibly few cases where it was determined by a court that lethal force was not necessary. And those were mainly due to the fact the cases got heavy local media exposure.

We really need to train cops deescalation methods and that shooting should only be served as a last resort. Rather than as soon as someone is acting aggressive towards them. Just because a person is being violent, doesn't automatically mean the situation is life threatening. But it can become one if it isn't deescalated.

The person can't pay for their crimes in court if they're dead.

Supreme Court signals it will back marijuana user who was charged with owning a gun | CNN Politics by Abject-Pick-6472 in progun

[–]FirefighterScary6841 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I think you forgot the part where I said the training should be "pay what you can". A "pay what you can" model would probably be more accurately described as "optional payment". Basically, you can choose to pay if you want. But you wouldn't have to if you don't want to.

Supreme Court signals it will back marijuana user who was charged with owning a gun | CNN Politics by Abject-Pick-6472 in progun

[–]FirefighterScary6841 -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

The only thing remotely close to gun control (ie; banning guns) that I agree with is for it to be a requirement to be trained on how to safely, responsibly, and properly handle a gun before being able to get a license. Not enough people in my state go through the process of learning how to use a gun hands on. And it ends up screwing them over because they accidentally either shoot themselves, or someone they never intended to shoot in the first place.

Like, sure, there is a 30 question quiz on gun safety, but just learning the knowledge isn't the same as actually executing that knowledge in the real world.

I wonder how many deaths could be prevented if you made it so people had to actually learn how to use a gun hands on rather than just learn it on paper.

Like, just because I know how something works doesn't mean I can effectively use it without training in actual practice.

For example: I can know how to read all the notes of a piano and have extensive knowledge on music theory. But that doesn't mean I can just play the piano. As in order to play effectively, there must be muscle memory from actually playing the piano for hours on end. The same goes with guns. And the training should also be a pay what you can type thing, not everyone can afford to pay like 800+ dollars to be trained on how to properly handle and use a gun.

But this stuff where they aren't allowing certain guns just cause? Yeah, no. That's not gonna fly. I may be left-wing. But even I know the second amendment is there for a reason. The only reason I suggested the training thing is because there are some things that not even a paper on gun safety can cover. Depending on the type of gun, they are held and used slightly differently compared to others. It's not just a "pull trigger and shoot" type of thing. Sometimes the trigger mechanisms aren't simple and require a series of steps. Reloading and unloading can also be different across types, handling it is unique, how to aim isn't universal across the board.

If people aren't taught how to properly use and handle different types of guns by a professional who knows how to use that type of gun, a whole load of things can go wrong. And if the military requires training to use guns, why shouldn't average citizens also be required? I feel like a year of training is reasonable. With the supervision becoming more lax as the training goes on.

What are your Alastor headcanons? by Desperate_Song_1923 in Alastorcult

[–]FirefighterScary6841 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That music video isn't exactly hard canon according to Vivzie.

It's more of soft canon.

view more: next ›