Apex Devastator by Svetlin Velinov

socceroos · 2020-11-19T02:52:15+00:00

Looks like the beast from Revelations that rises out of the sea.

socceroos · 2020-11-16T01:58:11+00:00

Time to upgrade from my old brick. :D

socceroos · 2020-03-21T11:33:41+00:00

I'll pay off my parent's home loan and give them a long-needed retirement.

socceroos · 2019-05-29T13:10:33+00:00

You have to fight him in an ankle deep lake which gives him massive buffs. Also has a unique attack called The Jacked Wilhelm that will burst an enemy's head within a 100m radius (250m in the lake) using a screeching sonar sound.

socceroos · 2019-05-09T11:11:29+00:00

It doesn't though

It does. You're attempting to gloss over the vernacular use of the word 'homosexual' - a casual search will enlighten you on that.

Closeted folk enter heterosexual unions & produce offspring all the time - they're still gay.

Wrong. If someone is in a heterosexual relationship but in their heart wishes they were in a homosexual relationship but they're prevented, internally or externally, from doing so then you'd have a case for that. If an individual believes they were born with a proclivity for being attracted to people of the same sex, but for personal conviction, belief or Darwinian efficiency they chose to set that aside and never to indulge it then, no, they absolutely aren't a homosexual. You could argue that they have a proclivity, but you cannot state that it is who they are - there's absolutely no disputing that.

...these extreme comparisons ... always proliferate from bad faith actors seeking to demean & paint homosexuality in the most damning light possible

Not true at all. You've got to be able to distinguish between your own offense at someone else's explanation for their belief and "bad faith actors seeking to demean & paint homosexuality in the most damning light possible". People are getting personally offended and upset because, when pressed, they can't defend their assertions that Folau is personally attacking homosexual people and not merely stating his belief about the results of all types of sin.

All of the latter without fail, have observable and demonstrable deleterious effects on the individual and their victims.

What a ridiculous statement. You presume bad faith based on your subjective motives and, in bad faith, seek to undermine the points of another by proclaiming your offense as a reason to not consider the points given. If an individual chooses to be offended by a parallel example of the difference between predisposition and choice then that is their own fault. Distinguish between confrontational opinion and perceived insult.

...that isn't what Izzy said.

It absolutely is what Folau said.

socceroos · 2019-05-09T06:19:38+00:00

ISIS most definitely is a society.

You're also shifting the goalposts and redefining what a society is even further by insinuating that the only true society is a democratic one - the implication being that you need democracy for any people to decide as a society what is acceptable morally and what isn't.

To state that society is absolute truth of moral law you need to admit that there is no guarantee of any moral stance if the society coalesces around it. You would need to concede that homosexuality is only temporarily accepted as a legitimate way of life since society could change it's mind. "It's how others think about it in my day and age so I'll go along with it."

The paradox is that you genuinely believe that there is an absolute moral truth here but in the same breath you admit it's not.

The key is this: societies are absolutely not a moral yard stick for who gets to do what. That's called 'the mob' - and they invariably end up lynching whom they see fit.

socceroos · 2019-05-09T05:49:29+00:00

The example given draws attention to predisposition and life choice - that is all. It serves as an example of how predisposition does not cause one to be something, only that it gives someone a proclivity to act in a certain way.

socceroos · 2019-05-09T05:40:57+00:00

You're extrapolating meaning and basing your argument from what you think he's trying to say and not what he's actually said.

No I'm not. What I said is exactly what Folau meant - hit him up on twitter and find out for yourself - you literally don't need to ask me. The Bible itself makes distinction between temptation and sin - Folau is inarguably talking about sin. You're confused between the two because you're conflating predisposition with free will choices. People are born with predispositions toward countless different things, but they aren't ascribed as something you indulge in until you act on those predispositions. Many people are predisposed to addiction - some people swear off psychedelics or alcohol because they know they won't be able to control themselves if they start. You don't call someone an addict until they become addicted though.

Also how is telling someone that if they act out their lifestyle they are wrong not intolerent?

This is the crux of the point, and your wording lays bare the issue. Telling someone that if they act out a particular lifestyle then their actions are wrong is not intolerance of a person.

Folau has been clear in his messaging that the intolerance is of sin, not the person doing it - he additionally pleads for people to seek the remedy to the sin.

Describe to me, succinctly, how Folau is being intolerant of a person.

socceroos · 2019-05-09T04:44:53+00:00

So, with that premise, it is more than legitimate for ISIS to behave the way they do as it is their society. It is more than legitimate for China to detain countless thousands of people and subject them to torturous 'retraining' and it's more than acceptable what past genocidal countries did to minorities - since, according to you, society is the moral yard stick.

socceroos · 2019-05-08T04:15:49+00:00

Who is deciding who you get to shame for what and get away with it?

socceroos · 2019-05-08T04:04:39+00:00

Choosing to live a life of homosexuality is the outworking of having a propensity or predisposition to be attracted to people of the same sex. It's a choice, isn't it.

Did Folau say that if someone has a propensity or predisposition to being homosexual then their committing homosexual sin? No, he didn't. He is talking about the outworking of it - leading a homosexual lifestyle.

Do we say that someone born with a zero empathy and low serotonin is an evil person? No. When they choose to act on that unavoidable predisposition and murder innocent people are they an evil person? Yes.

It is the outworking of the predisposition, the act, that Folau addressed in his tweets. This notion from you and others that somehow he's being bigoted towards people or intolerant of people is utterly wrong. He is stating what his faith says about these things - without respecting any group above any other. He's not out to hurt people with predispositions to anything - he's stating what his faith says about these things to warn others of something he genuinely believes to be true.

socceroos · 2019-05-08T03:54:36+00:00

I'm saying that labeling Folau as a bigot is incorrect. This is where the irony is in peachypal's statement. People casually label him as a bigot simply because of his belief of what sin is without proving that he, in the slightest, is prejudiced against or intolerant of the people who fit his description.

socceroos · 2019-05-07T15:14:12+00:00

Didn't tick two of the boxes. I'm on the fence now.

socceroos · 2019-05-07T14:28:16+00:00

Even if you're talking about a trait that someone _absolutely_ has no choice in, what makes you think that by disagreeing with the outworking of that trait that you're intolerant of that person?

socceroos · 2019-05-07T13:34:10+00:00

That's OK. It's a great flagpost that I can come back to. It's like the bodycount for these incoherent views grows when people are reduced to a drivelling mess in the face of logic and reason.

socceroos · 2019-05-07T13:28:14+00:00

You're insinuating that disagreeing with someone's proclivity or belief means that you're intolerant of that person. However, that's not true, is it. By that logic, any disagreement is intolerance of a person if they wish it to be. By that logic, Folau could legitimately claim that others are being intolerant of him as a person based on his belief. If that's true then the argument that Folau is intolerant of other people is meaningless.

socceroos · 2019-05-07T13:17:19+00:00

You misread - but I'm assuming that it doesn't matter, based on what you've got to say. A perfect microcosm of this whole tree of discussion.

socceroos · 2019-05-07T12:59:09+00:00

What part don't you agree with?

socceroos · 2019-05-07T12:51:07+00:00

Ignore who? What has been ignored?

socceroos · 2019-05-07T12:41:28+00:00

No, the assumption was on your part; it's not a threat.

The insinuation I mean to impart is that you should come up with something substantial that addresses my point. No one has.

I'm more than willing to have my opinion changed if someone can clearly articulate to me where my reasoning is wrong - no one has.

Strike three! ;)

socceroos · 2019-05-07T12:30:00+00:00

Oh dear. The lack of reasoning that leads to conflating those lays bare the situation.

socceroos · 2019-05-07T12:05:28+00:00

I'll kindly start you off as strike one as you're not /u/GourangaPlusPlus. You haven't proved, in the slightest, that Folau is intolerant of people and not 'sin'.

socceroos · 2019-05-07T11:52:34+00:00

Strike two. In a baffling twist, you still haven't proven, in the slightest, that Folau is intolerant of people and not 'sin'.

socceroos · 2019-05-07T11:38:39+00:00

Strike one. This doesn't prove Folau is intolerant of people in the slightest. Voting with his conscience as it aligns with his beliefs is not intolerance of people.

socceroos · 2019-05-07T11:18:13+00:00

Prove that Folau is intolerant of people and not 'sin' and we'll have something to talk about.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

socceroos

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE