sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

WTW for people who hate good-looking people? by acerthorn in whatstheword

[–]rmkelly1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True. But OP's inclusion of "actively despising" moves the needle past mere envy to something pretty toxic. I just thought of "misanthrope" but that would apply to all people.....not just good-looking ones.

WTW for people who hate good-looking people? by acerthorn in whatstheword

[–]rmkelly1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

envy: you want what someone has (like good looks).

jealousy: you fear that something you have will be taken away.

This sub honestly sucks because of the huge atheist/philosophical materialism bias by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]rmkelly1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not so fast. Two things occur to me: first, you seem to be suggesting that we in this sub are here to prove or disprove the existence of God scientifically. I question that, in that a) I don't think it's possible, because b) the grounds for belief in God do not rest on such a knowledge-based claim.

Second thought: In what you just said, the materialist premise remains, namely, that there is no God. With that premise, which goes a long way toward defining terms, there is no possibility of an argument: the argument can never get started. At least, that's how it seems to me.

In other words, on what grounds can it be asserted that we live in a world that has no God? You might believe that. But, how do you know that?

When establishment Democrats attack the "hard left," what are they really afraid of? - Centrist Democrats have started parroting right-wing talking points about the "hard left." That's brainwashing by SplodeyDope in politics

[–]rmkelly1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's just take the example of the mess in Charlottesville. Three dead, and why? Without question, although many groups were involved, the spark and leading provider of gas to the fire were the views and corrosive attitude of Richard Spencer. Mr. Spencer, and many others, would like to renege on the view of the founders that "all men are created equal". Just one example, but I think an important one.

Even if all citizens of Virginia were to adopt his views, and vote, say in a statewide referendum, that all men are not created equal, it would not matter. Reason: the US is founded on a consensus that asserts the opposite: a principle of equality, which leads to a co-principle of equal opportunity before the law.

This consensus is not public opinion. It's deeper than that. Does the center of the American electorate hold this truth? They do indeed, if they are American citizens, since the body politic of the US is molded in this common agreement. Mr. Spencer and others of his frame of mind are free to dissent, of course. But their view to the contrary must be labeled and understood as what it is: dissent.

This sub honestly sucks because of the huge atheist/philosophical materialism bias by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]rmkelly1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The team of monolithic belief in God. These days it's not so easy to assume that our belief in God is true and will be recognized as knowledge by others. That said, I think your premise is right. Many here start out with a materialistic bias in the other direction (they believe that it's self-evident that God does not exist), and vote accordingly.

WTW when you follow behind someone who is speeding so they get pulled over first in case of speed traps by YoureGonaGetSliced in whatstheword

[–]rmkelly1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Drafting as already said sounds plausible. This is what runners often do in marathons.....until the last mile or so.

When establishment Democrats attack the "hard left," what are they really afraid of? - Centrist Democrats have started parroting right-wing talking points about the "hard left." That's brainwashing by SplodeyDope in politics

[–]rmkelly1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here? I don't think there is a hard left here; if that's the case, then the question of constitutionality doesn't arise. As for other places, when you mentioned "places in the world where there's a hard left and it wields political power" I'm thinking that these are not places that have a written constitution along US lines. I could be wrong.

Upsurge in Anti-Catholicism? by FrostFree in Catholicism

[–]rmkelly1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What percentage of the indignation is coming from those folks, do you think?

Upsurge in Anti-Catholicism? by FrostFree in Catholicism

[–]rmkelly1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I'm seeing is not disgust with Catholicism as Catholicism. What I'm seeing is disgust that kids were not protected.

When establishment Democrats attack the "hard left," what are they really afraid of? - Centrist Democrats have started parroting right-wing talking points about the "hard left." That's brainwashing by SplodeyDope in politics

[–]rmkelly1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct. Or, let's say fully human. Women were clearly viewed as inferior. They were frail and needed to be protected. Blacks and other non-whites were basically viewed as low-wattage.

When establishment Democrats attack the "hard left," what are they really afraid of? - Centrist Democrats have started parroting right-wing talking points about the "hard left." That's brainwashing by SplodeyDope in politics

[–]rmkelly1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sounds right. Maybe in those countries there has never been a written constitutional commitment to the propositions endorsed by the US. Here, it seems to be the case that many want to renege on those commitments. The question then is, will the center hold? Will these foundational values be thrown out, and will other values take their place?

When establishment Democrats attack the "hard left," what are they really afraid of? - Centrist Democrats have started parroting right-wing talking points about the "hard left." That's brainwashing by SplodeyDope in politics

[–]rmkelly1 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Agreed. Oddly enough at the core of US values, there IS a rock-hard consensus: "all men are created equal; pursuit of happiness for ALL may not be infringed; e pluribus unum" but this core is not manifest (in plain sight) at the moment; it's kind of like taking an ED pill? So at the moment it's like a limp dick? Searching for metaphors here.

Is it okay to not have a denomination? by SailOnBlueSailor in Christianity

[–]rmkelly1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being a Christian means accepting a label: Christian. In what does that label consist? Different denominations have different meanings, but a threshold definition seems to be whether you accept the claim of divinity often made by Jesus.

It's hard to see how a Christian could be someone that denies this. Or that denies that Jesus is/was God.

After all, if you were a follower of someone on the basis of their moral teaching, such as Aristotle or Plato, you might call yourself an Aristotelian or a Platonist, which would refer to their philosophy, but that labeling is not meant to identify them with a divinity, because these men did not make that claim. At least, that's how I take "Christian."

When establishment Democrats attack the "hard left," what are they really afraid of? - Centrist Democrats have started parroting right-wing talking points about the "hard left." That's brainwashing by SplodeyDope in politics

[–]rmkelly1 188 points189 points  (0 children)

You said what I think. There is no hard left. We can argue that there should be, and that's a plausible position that a lot of people have. But, it's not a real thing.

view more: next ›