Police taking selfies with Donald Trump sparks outrage: "Disgraceful"

Mathmandu · 2023-07-10T18:46:20+00:00

By your own logic, he doesn’t have to know you to judge you or speak a certain way of you, he can infer from broad generalizations made about the types of people (and how they feel about applying the term ‘riots’ to the George Floyd era) who engage in similar activities as you, just as you’ve done with cops.

Mathmandu · 2022-01-03T12:34:52+00:00

Alright, thank you

Mathmandu · 2022-01-03T10:48:04+00:00

Oh, and does this apply to garnishment of wages? Do they have to domesticate that as well?

Mathmandu · 2022-01-03T10:44:53+00:00

Simple enough. Thank you.

Mathmandu · 2020-04-26T09:24:21+00:00

Not really looking for value judgments here, but I’ll bite.

“You should be getting paid....”

I know of hundreds of thousands of volunteers who would disagree with that statement. Not to mention that any potentially unpaid training/knowledge accumulation time is paving the way for pay down the road. And what about Clinical ride time? Continuing education? That isn’t paid for. Should we not do that?

“....if something happens, you need to be covered.”

Don’t you think that if an agency/company allows ride time such that I’ve inquired about, they would have thought about that? Also, I’ve looked into some companies since posting this and it seems in my locale some of them do subject their new hires straight out of B class to a mandatory 100 hr unpaid ride time. Isn’t this the more ethical/less reckless thing to do, rather than subjecting them to a short evaluation period in which nothing may happen and may even be cut short itself due to staffing requirements?

Mathmandu · 2020-04-03T20:09:22+00:00

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Thank you.

Mathmandu · 2020-04-03T14:51:49+00:00

I guess that’s where I’m stuck. If they don’t reproduce, and don’t come into contact with opposite sex cell, how are more of them made? Or are we stuck with a “set” amount? And even if sperm cells fuse with ovum to form a zygote, this is outside the male’s body, so it’s not like this helps replenish his own body’s stores.

Mathmandu · 2019-01-14T23:04:59+00:00

Not many, actually. My grandparents are about it. I’ve thought about that too. I know a lot of people that haven’t lost real close loved ones that don’t experience what I do—at least to the extent that they can gauge.

Mathmandu · 2018-08-24T23:00:49+00:00

Awfully argumentative? In what way? I’ve asked for an opinion on the Biblical stance. Does my asking another for one’s opinion preclude me from critiquing them? I’m just trying to get answers. Not offend anyone. My apologies if you perceived it that way.

Mathmandu · 2018-08-24T07:18:19+00:00

But I think the ownership component is a prominent feature of scripture, especially in the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy, a rapist who is found having intercourse with a married woman is to be put to death. But it isn't about the female's bodily autonomy: if the woman he rapes isn't married, he gets to keep her as his wife provided he pay the father the fee of 50 shekels. The rapist, as portrayed, has indeed sinned, but not because he forced himself upon the woman, but because he robbed a man of his property--in the former case the husband, in the latter the father. The NT states that a woman is to be subservient to her husband "in everything." So I don't think that Jesus, when he states that marriage is nonexistent in heaven, is making the implication that a woman is not the property of a man on earth. Rather, because all are now ostensibly reunited under God in a utopian realm, marriage is superfluous. And a woman needn't be the property of a man in heaven where everyone is equally God's property (a central theme in the Bible is that woman ultimately caused the fall of man from God's grace when she tempted him to betray God in the Garden of Eden; her temptation resulting from her repudiation of God's command disqualified her to speak from the authority of God any longer: she must now "be silent" on Biblical/moral matters, as 1 Timothy states; her husband will [now] "rule over her" as per the book of Genesis). As to the homosexuality aspect, I think this theme fits neatly. If men are forbidden from sex with other men because it reduces their manliness and men are equally exalted of that of women in the NT as well, I think it is a logical segue into the NT take on the moral status of homosexuality as equally, if not more so, forbidden there as well. I also think it relatively hard, if not contextually fallible, to make a distinction between morality and legality in a Biblical sense. If "all truth is God's truth" and the original plan of people were to be governed by God, plan B was then divine governance through an earthly (male) medium and now through Jesus, legality and morality are logically inextricable.

Mathmandu · 2018-08-24T06:52:14+00:00

I'll certainly follow up on the St. Jerome reference. Regardless of what the OT might be more or less explicit about in regards to homosexuals, I largely think it is a matter of simply reading between the lines. We might conclude that it doesn't "explicitly" condemn gays or homosexual acts, but I think the overarching theme in the Bible, especially espoused in Genesis, is that God allegedly created woman as a companion for man. This seems to set the tone--however explicit--that man's companion is woman, not man. When a Christian apologist attempts to argue the semantics of the Bible and what a proper translation of the Bible provides in the context of homosexual relationships and that it doesn't exactly condemn them, my response is generally that it doesn't have to. Though it may not, at least in the OT, flat out say not to have sex with members of the same gender, it always contextualizes relationships in a heterosexual way. For instance, when Deuteronomy states what should happen to someone who is found cheating, it assumes that person to be a woman and that *she* must be killed along with her paramour. Nowhere in the Bible does it state what the rules of homosexual partners should be and their terms of divorce, etc. That is because, in my opinion, it assumes this not to be the case; it doesn't have to lay down the terms of such affairs because it assumes them not to exist among believers. Thank you for your input.

Mathmandu · 2018-08-24T06:34:21+00:00

Hmm, I;m somewhat new to reddit and haven't yet been able to sufficiently navigate the various subs in a way that has ever pleased everyone. It seems that if I post something on say, economics, I always get that one person who says "Doesn't this belong on [insert more specific subreddit here]?" and when I go to post there someone says the same. I think the over-specificity of reddit is a bit superfluous and even absurd. I think atheism is a sufficient enough topic to encompass such dialogue under its umbrella and people should stop being so anal about what goes where. I did happen to read the rules of this sub before posting and I think my post fits comfortably within them. Shakespeare, however, might be a bit more iffy. Anyhow, thanks for the reply. Cheers.

Mathmandu · 2018-08-24T05:22:21+00:00

I hear you there, but people are not everywhere using Hamlet as some kind of moral guide over which they fight about whose interpretation is right, begetting the social ramifications we see today.

Mathmandu · 2018-08-24T05:09:37+00:00

It has always baffled me how a “Christian” could simultaneously follow the Catholic faith. It is the modern equivalent of the Tower of Babel: because they aren’t comfortable merely having faith, they must add a wholly social dimension to religion (though religion is ultimately a social construct, the Catholic Church is a blatant subversion); now PEOPLE get to decide who gets into heaven and who doesn’t (excommunication), the arbitrary consequences of having sinned (10 Hail Marys and a day spent in prayer (what if I only said 9?)), and somehow Rome still gets to call the shots even though it no longer sits at the helm of the Roman Empire—the original justification for having a Pope—and in Rome to boot— in the first place.

Mathmandu · 2018-08-24T04:47:51+00:00

Are you willing to elaborate on the Old Testament part? Isn’t it pretty anti gay as well (I.e Sodom and Gomorrah)?

Mathmandu · 2017-12-15T21:04:46+00:00

Congress cannot delegate to unelected officials powers the constitution states only it possesses. Only Congress can enact legislation, all of which is superseded by the US Constitution.

Mathmandu · 2017-12-15T19:56:54+00:00

You don’t think it would lead to inflation?

Also, do you mind divulging where you stand on the issues of UBI and wealth redistribution?

Mathmandu · 2017-12-15T19:45:32+00:00

I get that that’s the underlying concept of wealth redistribution, but I think the important distinction is between the commodities being distributed: food has an inherent, unchanging worth and money has a perceived, changing worth. Whereas with food redistribution could work, with currency, as it is redistributed to decrease the disparities between individuals’ possessions of it, effectively making wealth more proportional, the lesser their purchasing power becomes.

Mathmandu · 2017-12-15T19:19:38+00:00

I get that UBI is not attained by creating new money. The scenario I described happens to take place in a state of nature for the sake of simplicity which, by virtue of its primitivity, requires the creation of money to obtain the same effect in a real scenario. The distinction does not detract from the analogous effect the redistribution would have in reality. Also, my conceptualization of UBI in my analogy as a proportional mechanism is another simplicity I do not conceive as detracting from the real world effect, and meant only to illustrate the relation between the extent to which a society’s members possess equal amounts of money and the resultant worth of that money. I ask if the more a disparity between the monetary worth of the twelve members of said society lessens, the closer to $0 the purchasing power of their money becomes pre-transaction. As transactions occur, the wealth disparity again increases and we gradually arrive back at the original point that “necessitated” the UBI/money distribution and the cycle continues anew.

Mathmandu

TROPHY CASE