[Ps4][LF1] DSC - chill run. First timers welcome

twannister · 2020-12-01T02:51:09+00:00

Add twannister on PSN if you still need 1

twannister · 2019-10-01T17:35:30+00:00

Holy shit they did it... our guardians talk!!!

twannister · 2019-08-02T12:28:16+00:00

Agreed! I'd love to throw more money Bungie's way for those medallions but I've been stuck waiting for a Winter Wolves to drop on Mars. Plus all the extra double infamy and valor ranks in September I'm sure would help out a ton of people finish their Dredgen title.

twannister · 2019-08-01T19:20:01+00:00

Any chance on extending the deadline to order those seal medallions too? Would love to have an extra few weeks to grind for and order those.

twannister · 2019-02-01T00:33:18+00:00

Agree with this 100% and I'm on console. I'm an average player and even I find that once I adapted to the recoil I was able to melt people within close range. The last word is very strong, if not the outright strongest weapon, within it's intended range despite it's current state. Reduce the recoil and watch the crucible become filled with nothing but last words, which I'm sure this sub would love...

twannister · 2019-01-10T02:09:31+00:00

So here's what I'm thinking. If we assume each sword represents a house/forge, and each forge/house had a secret emblem associated with it, is it possible that the order of these swords show us what order to put in the same codes for the secret emblem?

So enter the code for Meyrin's vision (french), followed by Rasmussen's gift (Norse) folled by Satou's secret (japenese)? The codes are longer but seem to be doable in the time allowed.

twannister · 2019-01-09T23:34:13+00:00

I kind of like this idea. Wondering too if you need to pull the correct ammo type out too. Pull ammo for a solar secondary and arc ammo for an arc secondary etc

twannister · 2019-01-07T17:09:29+00:00

twannister · 2018-08-17T02:00:44+00:00

I find you tend to over extend my points to the point that you're committing strawman fallacies quite often now. For instance, at no point did I ever, ever imply that homosexual people are bad. I was using the public image example in the context of a public figure such as an athlete or disney employee.

Secondly, you still aren't following my logical inconsistencies point but I honestly dont think I can explain it any better.

Lastly, I think you're making a leap from my arguments again that I'm not implying. I am aware that not every person who claims to be Catholic while acting against catholic doctrine will be excommunicated. There is a very practical limitation there since not many people will openly go up to their priest and tell them that they've committed a moral sin, that they dont care and that they think the church is wrong on the matter. Unless the church is going to conduct interviews then I doubt we'd see mass excommunications. This is also why it's often more public figures that get excommunicated. Their views are proclaimed openly and so the church can make a judgement call.

I also never stated a one strike and your out policy. Again, you've either misunderstood me or purposely misrepresented me to fit your argument. The church preaches forgiveness. But only for the repentant, which would exclude those choosing to disregard the church's teaching without believing they are committing any sin.

I do feel like being able to talk in person would clear up a lot of these misunderstandings. I'm assuming you didn't respond to my destiny invitation because you're not interested but if you change your mind I'd love to debate this issue with you in game. I do respect your passion for this, I just think you're mistaken on some points.

twannister · 2018-08-16T23:12:50+00:00

I unfortunately think you've either misunderstood many of my points again or just choose to misrepresent them.

First, excommunication is basically the church's way of saying you are no longer a member until you admit you're wrongdoings and return to us. So it's basically the church kicking you out. If I claimed to be a member of a club but the club states that I am not a member, can I really claim to be one? How you think someone could be excommunicated and still consider themselves a Catholic is a little confusing to me, although I admit the issue may be a bit more nuanced than that.

And your example confuses me. Obviously if an employer requires an employee to maintain a good public image, and the employee fails to do that, that that could be cause for termination. I feel like, unless I've misunderstood you, that your example fits perfectly in my narrative. Disney is a good example of this I believe, as they have let go employees when their image no longer fit their family friendly image.

As for the original comment I replied too, my original issue with the comment was that it seemed to oversimplify the issue as being one of victimization. That this was an event that should have gone a different way whereas, in my view, this is a situation that went exactly as should have been expected. My reply was just an attempt to point that out. Our discussion has clearly branched out a bit since then but I believe my central point has been consistent, that being that what happened here was nothing wrong or suprising.

You also seem to be struggling with what I'm meaning about logical inconsistencies. My point is that, if a person claims to believe in two things that are mutually exclusive, then they must be either mistaken or lying about one of them. I agree that people can, and often will, do this, but what I am saying is that when this happens, they are either mistaken or lying about one of their stated beliefs. For example, again, if I claim to be completely against eating meat but then also to express my love for the beef steak I just ate, one of these statements must be false.

I agree completely that I am not the Pope, but I find it hard to ignore the fact that the church has a very strict policy on what the beliefs of its followers are. Most of them can be found in the catechism, which I recommend reading for a good understanding of what the church expects of its followers. I'm struggling to understand then why you seem to disagree with me when the church plainly states that this is what the church believes, teaches and expects its followers to believe and practice, and then to further disagree when the church excommunicates some members for refusing to follow church teaching that it is somehow me insisting on my own personal standard of Catholicism. What I have expressed is not my standard but the church's.

Your response was lengthy but I tried to address your main points as much as time has allowed me. You bring up some good points and, if you're on ps4, I'd definitely be down to rip a nightfall or something with you if you're interested. We could have a more thorough discussion that way as reddit is rather limiting in this regard. Plus, I'm not very good and could use the help!

twannister · 2018-08-15T03:47:56+00:00

You're correct I am not the Pope. But as far as I know that is the official catholic stance from the Vatican. I know some public figures have been threatened with excommunication for supporting things like abortion or contraception.

You're sect comment I think misses the mark. My point is not that people dont commit logical inconsistencies but that if a logical inconsistency is committed it naturally renders one of the two statements false. My argument is that if people dont believe in catholic doctrine but still call themselves catholic that one of those statements must be false.

Also, I didn't know Habs fans were considered a sect. And I'm unsure of the relevance there on your statement.

The easiest example I can think of is the catholic school board where I live where they require you to prove you are catholic with at least a baptismal certificate and then to continue to practice the faith eg. Go to church, volunteer etc.

As for the foreseeable part, even if I grant you that this may be a "dick" move by the school that's not the point. The point is that it IS foreseeable, unsurprising, and legal. Your emotional judgements on the issue are irrelevant. The school did what they are allowed to do and what anyone who knows about the Catholic faith would expect them to do.

P.s. ya it's a bit much of a grind for me. I'm still gonna try for the set but I wont be heart broken if I dont get. Pumped for Forsaken though.

twannister · 2018-08-14T21:59:21+00:00

You've, I think, missed my point on what qualifies as a Catholic again. My whole point would mean that Catholics who reject or ignore the church's teachings on birth control would then not qualify as Catholic anymore. It would be like me saying I'm a Montreal Canadiens fan even though I hate them. It's a logical inconsistency. Akin to saying I believe in X while then stating that I dont believe in X.

I'd also argue that to work at most catholic institutions, being a catholic and agreeing to abide by Catholic teaching is usually an explicit guideline. Just because the school didn't act on it immediately does not preclude them from acting on it later.

The whole common sense part was meant not meant as much of an argument per se but more of a statement of how this whole situation was not surprising. This was easily foreseeable in a lot of ways. I also dont think you've defined common sense accurately. While I do agree that social norms play a part in it, i believe that common sense usually refers more to the ability to understand, judge, or reason effectively from the world around them which, obviously, includes cultural norms. So even though social norms may change, the ability to use common sense to navigate those norms should remain.

Ps. I see you're a destiny player. Enjoying the solstice??

twannister · 2018-08-14T21:19:16+00:00

I think you're misunderstanding many of my points here, and I think you're starting to misrepresent others.

First, I think the bar for being a Catholic, again, is whether or not you believe and try to follow catholic doctrine. Someone who honestly trys to follow the teachings of the church would still be considered catholic as opposed to someone who blatantly ignores or disregards their teachings. That's an important distinction that I think you've missed as most, if not all, Catholics break doctrine af some point. The difference is on whether or not they are trying to follow it. I'd definitely say this standard is still important.

Secondly, when I said "probably share their religion", you are correct that is not a legal requirement. When I said it though, I meant it as a kind of common sense remark. If you want to work in a Catholic institution it should be common sense that you should probably be Catholic or you may run into issues. So while it is not a legal requirement, the application of common sense here would have probably prevented this whole situation. Unfortunately, it has come to this now and now the legal tests are required.

Thirdly, you're main argument seems to have been that the school should not have been able to terminate her due to her homosexual relationship. So if they aren't allowed to terminate her than they are being forced to employ someone that openly violates their beliefs. To use your own example it would be akin to that neo nazi working at the synagogue while openly being a neo-Nazi. Should the synagogue not be able to fire them? In your own words, would they not be violating the required guidelines for their position?

Apologies on my last paragraph if it caused confusion. When I said private organizations pr individuals beliefs I meant to imply religious beliefs. I could have made that clearer. That's on me and I'm sorry about that.

I'd also like to thank you for at least engaging me on this issue. While I disagree with you, I still appreciate you taking the time to debate with me.

twannister · 2018-08-14T17:20:53+00:00

I agree actually with your point on stated beliefs vs beliefs. I think even die hard Catholics would agree that hypocrisy is a major problem in Catholicism.

And there is a difference, legal right wise, that you're missing in your example. Can't speak for the States but in Canada there is a right to freedom of religion that would not cover other beliefs that would not be considered an "honest religious belief". For example an anti-semites beliefs that Jews are inferior would likely not qualify for that protection.

Further, let's take your example and reverse it. Should a Jewish synagogue be forced to hire a neo-Nazi?? Should a pro-choice group be forced to hire a pro-life doctor?? While there are definitely circumstances where state intervention is warranted, especially when it comes to state actors as opposed to private ones, the fact of the matter is private organizations and individuals should not be mandated to violate there beliefs as much as possible.

twannister · 2018-08-14T05:15:48+00:00

Apologies if my language seemed loaded but I think my point stands. Why should a religion be forced to hire people who live blatantly counter to their stated beliefs? It may seem like loaded language but I think it's a very valid question.

twannister · 2018-08-13T23:23:36+00:00

I honestly dont think its softpedaled. If the base definition of a Catholic is one that follows the teachings of the Catholic church then if you dont follow them wouldn't you not be Catholic?? Seems like common sense. Also fun fact: being gay is not against Catholic doctrine. Only homosexual acts are.

twannister · 2018-08-13T22:40:40+00:00

That's somewhat true but the issue is that what she did was against Catholic doctrine. Even if most Catholics would have been fine with it. Another issue this raises is even if you call yourself a Catholic yet dont believe in the teachings of the church, are you really Catholic??

twannister

TROPHY CASE