Buba
A total creep
That was not from orgies, but from poorly administered performance enhancing drugs (no, not viagra!) or hormones and all the shit that gets pumped into athletes.
United States Christianity, History, and US Politics
- Thread starter Megadeath
- Start date
Uh, no, no it's not, and that sort of mindset is why so few moderates and centrists bother to be active here.Hey now, this is a Christian board, we don't need to amazing orgies with tons of hot people around!
This is a board for free speech, not for any one ideology.
Dude that's legal in the Netherlands, kids with depression can ask to be legally euthanized and in Canada they just expanded the MAD act to allow people with depression and morbidly obese people to request the state help them commit suicide.
It's not what's next, it's what's already here.
Olympic Athletes were degenerate animals in the 70s and 80s.
Accept this and move on.
He is joking you fucking autist.
Buba
A total creep
I do not dispute that, but what killed them.
It was nice talking to you, bye!
Kek you hyperventilate and throw fuckers on ignore for challenging your preconceptions.
What the fuck are you doing posting on a debate board? The sheer number of athletes from those decades that ended up with Hep C and needing liver replacements from was recycling needles and hard steroid abuse.
The aids came from Olympic fuck factories
Any way
@StormEagle @ShieldWife @King Arts @S'task
https://www.fastcompany.com/90355474/the-worlds-leading-euthanasia-advocate-designs-a-death-pod
Literal suicide booths guys
Last edited:
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Actually, it seems to be restricted to stem cell therapy, specifically Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Legally speaking, it has to be this particular minimally invasive kind of transplant to be counted among the statistics, or else it's illegal for the obvious reasons.
It is not using them as an organ bank, but rather is using the relatively large sum of stem cells able to be gotten from umbilical cord blood to create the transplant tissue separately. It's overwhelmingly limited to replacing bone marrow (or rather, the contents of it you care about to replace the immune system and blood supply). They very specifically aren't harmed in the long term because it's done by processing afterbirth materials, or extracting small amounts of their own bone marrow that'll grow back.
Basically it's a way to get certainty of top tier transplant viability without getting into all the logistical mess of the spliced pigs that aren't quite entirely accurate. The methodology works perfectly fine with any stem cell samples one can get from the person themselves, so "savior siblings" are done for blood or bone marrow cancers or genetic defects where you wouldn't solve the problem by using cloned tissue of the patient.
And then there was this whole thing where God saw two cities doing gay stuff, got mad, and literally nuked them.
Not being harmed in the long term I will scoff and laugh derisively at.
A child who exists only to provide genetic material is not a child but a slave and the claim that they only harvest stem cells is something people who oppose it will dispute.
Emotionally battering your kids into donating organs and just straight up lying about why you inseminated yourself happens all the time.
Shit it happens all the time to people who aren't related. There is a black market blood bank system in the west thats operated outside the law for years on its own.
So no, you'll forgive me for believing the worst because it happens all the time any way.
StormEagle
Well-known member
...I hate this fucking planet.
King Arts
Well-known member
Alright Bacle, let me just say this religion is what is best used to justify morals because otherwise you are just listening to imperfect humans and their oppinions. It's also not just Christianity that should have a problem with abortion, if I was Buddhist I would still be against abortion as it is killing an innocent life, that is separate and unique from any other just because it's convenient. Like the only group that would be fine with abortion is atheism because of Cloak's arguments that I brought up.
Now I know that it might be difficult to see that I gave a lewd like to that post, but surely it wasen't hard to read the tone of my text, where it sounds like I'm jealous in a comedic sense? Also there is the giant fucking smiley at the end, which if it's used by someone generally means they are not 100% serious.
So many things to say, at least the liberals are killing themselves. Still pathetic though, also pretty disgusting for a company to commercialize and try to "entice" people to end their lives.
The point I was trying to make is that there is common ground to be had on many issues.
But when people try to use religion to justify anti-LGB laws or policies, or try to refight the issue of same-sex marriage, the make that common ground harder to find or hold.
It's more that, adding in the topic thread, and the way the attitude of this being a 'conservative board' or 'Christian board' is prevalent among a certain section of more active users, makes it so it's not funny, even if you meant it as a joke.
There is a definite trend of people treating this board as being meant for only one side of the ideological spectrum, we've had issues with this for a long time, and had potential users say they won't come here specifically because what you joke about is what they see as the reality of the board, and do not feel welcome here because of that.
Last edited:
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
...Again, it's from afterbirth materials. Amniotic fluid, placentals tissue, and umbilical cord blood. There's no mental trauma in getting them to agree to it because the only thing they need to do is be born. All the materials are in the inherent aftermath of that, no need to take it out on the child.
For a savior sibling to have good odds of working, you have to specifically test for a genetic match beyond simply not having the genetic defect or else you end up with no better odds than just doing it the natural way, and this testing is not something easily doable off the grid. And for larger organs you have the size dependencies so you need to have the older sibling survive long enough for the younger to grow to a close enough size.
So I'm calling bullshit on it happening at any meaningful scale because there's way too damn much that has to go wrong for it to get to that point. Sure, some people manage to go to horrifying lengths to get what they want, but then we've been over this with abortion and homosexuality already. If it's possible to do and people have a drive for it, they'll put up with some truly absurd things to do it, so removing those barriers to focus on the worst cases tends to make things better as they don't do as much horrible shit on the way to the taboo thing and you have a lot more resources to deal with the worst cases.
You can't get away from that without physically-present Angels or other such divine emissaries on hand because the Clergy telling you what the book says are imperfect humans relaying their opinion. There's fuck all way to get over this logical hurdle with demonstrable fact because all the answers to the quandary rely on metaphysics and axiomatic assertions.
Religion's a nice way to be able to call bullshit on your leaders and keep the population on the same page, but that's all it is from an empirical perspective, because anything further cannot be proven true, and usually cannot be proven false.
Last edited:
King Arts
Well-known member
I'm not sure if we want those people in then? I mean this forum is founded on free speech, unlike spacebattles or sufficient velocity where you get purged if you aren't left wing enough. Honestly I know my posts, and many others would be infracted to hell and back. The way the mods run this website is nice. Like you are a moderate right wing person, and your oppinions haven't gotten infracted. A Buddhist could come here, and they could post no problem I think. Yes people oppose you but thats because you are a centrist except for a few issues. While liberals will come into positions of power and use legal/mod force to get rid of people.
Yes, yes it's hard to know which religion is the right one. But people should still pick one because the alternative of believing in no afterlife and absolute moral nihilism and relativism is too bad to contemplate.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Humanism and utilitarianism can very much be constructed into a pseudo-religious framework operating in almost every like a true faith way to be neither nihilistic nor relativist. Indeed, the Far Left has seen many successes in constructing agnostic faiths, even as they've deliberately amplified nihilism and relativism.
Just look at how Neoconservative and Libertarian voters (not the politicians) appeal to market forces: This has vanishingly little, if any, basis in fact. They will actually make such calls when it is provably detrimental. They are not relativistic, and have a set of principals with historic thought-leaders to call out current authority figures as not following their ideology, even if these principals are not nearly as stable as true religions.
...And yes, this means I'm more or less calling for turning the likes of Das Capital into scripture. Because by making them into scripture, you ossify the principals within to get a huge chunk of the organizational benefits of religion with regards to holding leaders to standards and maintaining ideological consistency in the population without ancient leftovers at odds with modern conditions.
During one of the first marathons, one of the competitors was refused water and fed rat poison... by his own team! So yeah, my bet is stupid choices on what things actually help people.
I don't see any evidence of abortion for better athletic performance outside of the USSR though.
King Arts
Well-known member
But the difference is that there is no point to following that "religion" like yes you get called out if you go against it to publicly but as you said relativism and nihilism has increased. Because why not join a secret pedophile cult to gain riches and wealth if there is no fear of divine punishment why not do what Marquis De Sade said/did and fall into complete degeneracy. Our "elites" have no problem with devil worshipping child killing scum(maybe) because they don't fear burning in hell for eternity, or being reborn to live a miserable life. Without divine order that rewards virtue and punishes vice call it God or Karma then you only have to worry about your fellow man. And if you are rich and powerful enough you are mostly safe from them. But no amount of military power or riches will help you against God, so that is why religion should be encouraged.
Sodom and Gomorrah were a lot more involved than just "doing gay stuff". It was a systemic failure of the city's morality on multiple levels across the board that ended up condemning them, primarily from failure of Sacred Hospitality and thumbing their nose at that duty, the "gay stuff" was basically the most heinous way they could thumb their nose at Sacred Hospitality, the rubbing of salt in the wound / throwing up the double bird that was already their massive failure.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Indeed. God gave his promise to Abraham that he would spare both cities if he could find as few as ten righteous people between them. He found three, made sure those three got out, and still spared the city of Zoar which was also on the "destroy" list on behalf of the mere three he found.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
The great irony of the situation is that religion fell out of favor specifically because of answering relativism quite robustly. The ideological premise of science looked at the superstitions, the plentiful axioms, the appeals to tradition and authority, and rejected religion to replace it with Empiricism. The notion that what can be known is what can be observed, answering relativism by saying that what is real is what doesn't change with the observer.
And then Empiricism as an ideological position unto itself became the victim of a murder-orgy on the part of basically every other philosophical basis we have today, with its remains an isolated premise of the scientific method. The twisted descendant that is Critical Theory is perhaps the chief origin of dissuasion from religion today, as it's a framework exclusively for highlighting the flaws of other philosophies that perpetually refreshes the arguments that led to religion beginning to decline.
Nihilism's the hard one to answer, as it becomes incredibly difficult to avoid with Empiricism because of the is-ought problem. You can't get directly from Empiricism to ethical conclusions, you have to take on moral axioms from elsewhere which then need to be defended.
In most religions, the logical mutual exclusivity between solving nihilism and solving relativism tends to take the form of holding a particular goal as an axiom, then describing metaphysics of how that goal is achieved, then describing how real actions affect those metaphysics. We can cut this down to just taking a goal as an axiom, but taking on axioms of means, such as using some valuation of intergenerational success as a goal and axiomatically prescribing a meritocratic system as the means, makes it more resilient as you don't have to defend the system you've build on the original goal as arising from that goal.