Who says I’m proud of it?

The problem with free will is that everyone is entitled to use theirs as they see fit, even if you vehemently disagree with their choices.

Sometimes, the best you can do is tell someone that they’re headed for the abyss, but if they’ve already spent countless hours convincing themselves that the abyss is a lie and they intend to prove it by throwing themselves in it, there may not be much you can do to change their mind.

So no, I’m not proud of having said this, but occasionally you have to cut your losses before you get dragged down along with the other person.

That’s a very good point, and it’s interesting that you rarely (if ever) hear atheists claim that he was an atheist because he made himself equal to God and abolished the church of his ancestors in order to replace it with his own. It’s almost as if they either didn’t understand the Gospel, or they simply do not want that kind of responsibility, and prefer to endlessly complain about organized religion instead.

I’m always a little suspicious when people who don’t even believe in Jesus try to tell me what he would have loved but let’s have a look at why those evil, evil Republicans might have been on the fence about it, shall we?

A number of conservative publications and groups, including National Review and The Federalist, have criticized social-emotional learning as a “Trojan horse” used to bring in ideas such as critical race theory, sexual orientation and gender identity, and other left-wing politics to the classroom.

Ah well, that sounds pretty typical, doesn’t it. And it’s funny because SEL lists self-awareness and responsible decisionmaking among its primary goals, but somehow, the people who are pushing for it can’t seem to

1. resist shoehorning their own ideology into it
2. resist blaming their critics for when they’re found out

Not the best advertisement for SEL’s effectiveness, don’t you think?

Oh in that case, why ever try to improve anything? History shows us some asshole is just gonna come along and mess it up anyways. Perhaps the founding fathers should have just paid their stupid tea tax and stayed subject to the British crown.

Yes, you correct. My mistake, sorry about that. I fixed it.

You are indeed correct. My mistake, sorry about that. I fixed it.

Yeah, that oughta teach me to provide better service. /s

LGBT rights are human rights.

No. Human rights are human rights. They predate the LGBT movement by at least two decades. And while there’s nothing in there that would deprive LGBT individuals from any essential liberties, I’ve noticed at least two items that many of them seem to take issue with:

Article 16.3: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 20.2: No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Okay, how about a set of non-religious rules of ethics, or at least something all major religious groups can agree upon?

Don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t murder/use violence, don’t make any unwanted sexual advances, those seem general enough that everyone should be able to agree, no?

Those are worded in an inaccessable way. “You shall not…”. How about “don’t lie”? It’s the same message without the clear religious overtones that are obviously steeped in the Christian translation from Latin and Greek.

If that’s the worst you have to say about them… sure, I’m not married to a specific translation.

I also disagree with #5. Not everyone’s parents deserve honor. Some are horrible and we shouldn’t make children feel bad for not loving shit parents.

Honoring them isn’t the same as loving them, you know. And even if they’re complete shitbags who don’t deserve any respect at all, you can still honor them for having given you life by becoming a better person then them. But sure, we can strike that one if you can accept the rest.

But even if I agreed to the rest, it wouldn’t work. Those things are the basis of social emotional learning. The GOP is explicitly legislating against teaching that.

Ah well, but of course you can’t… because Republicans exist. But if rules like this are the basis of social emotional learning, and Republicans want to legislate putting them into the classroom, how exactly does that prove that they are against this sort of thing? Or are you arguing that these rules are getting in the way of such learning? If so, how?

I hope there’s no stray dogs in your neighborhood, or you might have trouble getting to your mailbox at all when you come home.

No, you’re not paying me at all, that’s the problem.

Might wanna ask them about that directly. I certainly won’t be able to answer that question.

deleted by creator

In general, specialized disciplines (like law, medicine, science, etc.) tend to also use specialized words. I don’t think English is unique in that regard, other languages do this as well.

Why would you say that, because it was a leftie who came up with it?

“The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.”

This totally applies to the supposed “all are welcome” of LGBT, because clearly, people who don’t agree with LGBT aren’t welcome. In the same way, it also explains why many Christians are wary of LGBT people because they tend to be explicitly anti-Christian, and those churches who do admit them often end up being completely overtaken by LGBT worship.

My point being, any group claiming to be more tolerant than anyone else is ultimately lying. Tolerance is always a matter of likeness and cohesion. Those who don’t fit the norms will always be excluded.

What’s with all that hate for Christianity then?

That’s true. It’s just childish and immature.

You’re welcome