ChestRockfield's Profile

Will it matter a billion years from now whether we are kind or cruel to today?

Cast1es comments on Jan 14, 2021:

Being kind and thoughtful of others has both an impact on the present and on the future . Take for instance , protecting endangered species . Kill off an endangered species today , for the exclusive pleasure of one or two rich or powerful folks and that species has no future . Protect that species ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 14, 2021:

I think that begs the question: why does it matter if the species rebounds and lasts into the future?

I just had to share this, so sweet! :-D

zeuser comments on Jan 14, 2021:

Better safe than sorry. Does that kitty have its mask on? ;)

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 14, 2021:

This one does.

I just had to share this, so sweet! :-D

Willow_Wisp comments on Jan 14, 2021:

This proves that cats are smarter than most MAGA.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 14, 2021:

Most?

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

MerlinZap comments on Jan 14, 2021:

Odd, the VOTES say yes, Trump did call for violence, and has been inciting his drones for the last 4 years. But, the commenters for the most part seem to BE those very same Faux Noise Drones. And such a pitiful showing of the whine crowd. He rallied his troops of basement dwellers and Mamma's boys ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 14, 2021:

@MerlinZap Useless because * he * won't get any value from it, or because you think it has no value?

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

MerlinZap comments on Jan 14, 2021:

Odd, the VOTES say yes, Trump did call for violence, and has been inciting his drones for the last 4 years. But, the commenters for the most part seem to BE those very same Faux Noise Drones. And such a pitiful showing of the whine crowd. He rallied his troops of basement dwellers and Mamma's boys ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 14, 2021:

@Admin Why is a metaphor a metaphor? Is that really your question? If that's our starting point for educating people we want to find common ground with, this is an impossibly long road. Ridding yourself of someone like a squished slug off your boot or whatever the phrase was couldn't be anything * other * than a metaphor. You can't * literally * step on the president, and even if you could, it wouldn't kill him or barely even hurt him. The screenshot you posted was some super violent, very specific death threats. They call out 15 specific people, call to shoot police officers right in the head, and wait until Senators grovel before killing them too. Absolutely that person should be banned for posting that. And here, again, we see your next-level equivocation skills. Someone should just step on Trump and smear him on the curb cannot be considered the same as shoot the police officers that are protecting Senators directly in the head so we can then make the Senators beg for their lives before we shoot them to death too, plus, these specific 15 people, we are coming for you and you will know it. Tell me you're not that, whatever, that you can tell the difference between those things. Please.

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Fernapple comments on Jan 14, 2021:

As a follow on from my former comment, I do have to add. That in the past, he has often promoted a violent culture. For example in his famous "You can get away with anything, grab them by the pussy.", quote about women, and many other similar, which certainly show open approval of a violent culture,...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 14, 2021:

@Fernapple Sure, if he was going to a court with an impartial jury of his peers. But he's not. He's going to the Senate where there's near 50 of the most spineless fucking pussies that have kissed his ass for four straight years waiting to acquit him... even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue. For normal, rational, intelligent people, I think the argument I laid out * should * be sufficient.

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Fernapple comments on Jan 14, 2021:

As a follow on from my former comment, I do have to add. That in the past, he has often promoted a violent culture. For example in his famous "You can get away with anything, grab them by the pussy.", quote about women, and many other similar, which certainly show open approval of a violent culture,...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 14, 2021:

Off the top of my head I can't recall a single time I disagreed with you. I took it as a good sign that we were right, I mean, what are the chances * we * were both wrong? Yet here we find ourselves in disagreement. I'm wondering, considering your position has evolved slightly since your first comment, if I'm not wrong in my stance and perhaps you just didn't give this as much thought as you usually dedicate to your comments or if there's something I'm missing. You stipulate to the facts: -Trump invited his supporters to DC, some of whom are white supremacists he told to "stand back and stand by" in a nationally televised presidential debate -Trump has promoted violence in the past, even offering to cover legal fees for people who commit violent acts on his behalf. -Trump said, "you can't take our country back with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong." -Trump told them to go to the Capitol. Additionally, you have now admitted that he is to share in the blame. I just don't understand how you can be partially to blame without being * at least * partially at fault, especially as you shrink the period of time between his words and the subsequent violence. Furthermore, Trump has resources that most people don't have. Intelligence briefings and data that can (and has) clearly shown a link between his words and actions and the violence we see. This, coupled with the fact that he is the most powerful person on the planet, with followers he personally claims are so loyal to him he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and they wouldn't stop supporting him, should definitely be considerations when trying to determine if the intent and meaning of his words go further than the exact text of them. Careful consideration of these things against the backdrop of historical cases of incitement have lead me to conclude that his words and actions in this circumstance absolutely meets the standard for the charges filled by The House.

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Mvtt comments on Jan 13, 2021:

I must object to the ongoing accusation of politicisation of major social media networks. There is no evidence of partisan moderation, and is a complaint of the insincere and brainwashed.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@Admin Sure, as soon as you show some examples of Democrat commentators with over 1M followers inciting terrorist attacks. Hint: they'll be the same people.

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

MerlinZap comments on Jan 14, 2021:

Odd, the VOTES say yes, Trump did call for violence, and has been inciting his drones for the last 4 years. But, the commenters for the most part seem to BE those very same Faux Noise Drones. And such a pitiful showing of the whine crowd. He rallied his troops of basement dwellers and Mamma's boys ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@Admin You're right, a nameless person from a "small free website" or whatever you called it metaphorically taking about ridding ourselves of the vile, violence-loving asshole in the White House and the most powerful person in the world inciting an insurrection on his own government are totally the same. That's some powerful whataboutism game you got going on.

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

linxminx comments on Jan 13, 2021:

Read!! Read about authoritarian dictators throughout history. Trump is following "textbook" strategies for taking control of a country. This ISN'T just about storming the Capital. This IS about the bigger picture of the past 5 years which includes his year of campaigning. We should not be ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@Admin All of your posts should be Community Senate rules. I'm seeing a lot of responses to missing posts from the ridiculous number of blocks being used on this site. Can't really have the open debate you're looking for when not one of us can see every post (except maybe you).

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

TheMiddleWay comments on Jan 13, 2021:

***YES, SOME*** Did he *directly* call for violence against the capitol? No. Never. Has he *directly* called for violence against other people in other circumstances? Yes. Many times. Has he made it so his supporters *feel justified* resorting to violence? Absolutely. All the time A ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@Admin > As someone who is fluent in redneck, these are not calls of violence in that language. And we have the winner for the most head-in-the-sand comment on the whole thread, ladies and gentlemen! Are you fucking kidding us right now? You are NOT agnostic on this subject and you suggested. You're like, move a Catholic priest to a new district so he can avoid prosecution and find some fresh ass to rape level apologist here. I was already shaking my head at you when you were only looking at just his words from the speech on that day in a total vacuum (which is asinine) but to say none of that, including the literal calls to violence where you don't even need context or inflection or non-verbal cues or anything else is a call to violence is absolutely fucking insane. I don't know how you pissed on all of our legs through the internet, but I'm inside so I know it's not raining.

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Ray13 comments on Jan 13, 2021:

You are obviously a Trumper. The man's a big fat liar. Worse president we have ever had. Why would anyone, except a supporter, defend him? If I had just joined agnostic.com I would seriously consider leaving. But I've met too many wonderful people on-line to do that after 2.5 years. Please put a ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@Admin There are PLENTY of reasons conservative [white] people, collectively, are fucking terrible that are available to choose from, they don't need to resort to the color of their skin...

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

DenoPenno comments on Jan 13, 2021:

How does this question go no and on? Where have you been for the last 4 years?

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@creative51 I agree. Maybe the first go around you could try to make the claim they were "regular people" (and even that would be a stretch) but not now. Not after what we've seen for 4 years. And also, what's the definition of normal we're using here? There are a ton of racists in the country, so is that just part of normal? There are a ton of people who don't believe in facts and science. Is that normal too?

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

creative51 comments on Jan 13, 2021:

To put it in to plainest words. Trump publicly asked, pleaded for protesters to come to Washington DC on Jan 6 for a rally "to stop the steal". A steal which it has been shown in courtroom after courtroom, NEVER took place. At the rally, his sons, his personal attorney and himself incited that crowd...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@Admin What are their points exactly that you find so valid that you've failed to make up your mind?

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

creative51 comments on Jan 13, 2021:

Dear @Admin. I know you are a smart man, as you have made many millions of dollars on the internet with various dating web sites (and of course you claim to be giving most of it away to ... well I do not know what, but that is what you have said). I can not believe someone who has accumulated such ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@Admin Just because you can find opposing opinions doesn't mean the two opinions are of equal merit. There are people who believe the Earth is flat. There are people (including the President) who have claimed climate change is a Chinese hoax. There are people who believe having non-white skin makes you inferior. Do you think any of those opinions have equal merit to their counterpart??

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Fernapple comments on Jan 13, 2021:

He did not, as some people seem to think, directly promote violence as far as I have seen, but he did promote division which of course, you would have to be stupid to not realize leads to it. And even the none condemnation of violence can be a thing which makes you complicit in it, Re. Pontius ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@Admin No, political view doesn't matter. What matters are the circumstances, like I said. Was it a progressive that has advocated violence countless times like Trump ("knock the crap outta him" "When [cops] put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head... you can take the hand away" "Trump warned he’ll 'be a little more violent' next time when addressing protesters" “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing. I have a lot of fans, and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy who was a troublemaker who was looking to make trouble" etc. etc. etc.) or never, like Sanders. Was it a speech at a time when the only way to show strength was in an illegal way, or was it before an election or vote where you have to risk a pandemic or death threats from insurrectionists to carry out your duty? Did AOC speak before that progressive calling for combat or that Kamala Harris better do what we need her to do? Are you really confused by these differences, haven't really thought about then much yet and are mostly influenced initially by conservative media, or are you just a Trump loyalist equivocator? These concepts don't seem like they'd be very difficult to understand by someone who had the capacity to grasp them which I assume you do.

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

KKGator comments on Jan 13, 2021:

In all seriousness, I find it rather baffling how anyone could listen to 45's rhetoric, whether in live speeches or online, and not come away the distinct impression that he has been inciting violence, from the start. Even before the 2016 election, he was encouraging violence. I've heard him do it ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

It's like the people that say, indignantly, "Name one thing Trump has ever said that was racist!" I've actually had people, I think even on this website, say something that fucking ridiculous to me.

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Leetx comments on Jan 13, 2021:

I'll play. What did trump do, if anything, to stop violence ?

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@Leetx He also disingenuously said * "remain * peaceful" long after they were already violent insinuating that what they had done so far classified as peaceful* enough * to him.

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Fernapple comments on Jan 13, 2021:

He did not, as some people seem to think, directly promote violence as far as I have seen, but he did promote division which of course, you would have to be stupid to not realize leads to it. And even the none condemnation of violence can be a thing which makes you complicit in it, Re. Pontius ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

"Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." Coupled with the circumstances (citizens chance to "take back" a country in a peaceful way is impossible on that day or at the Capitol) to me is a very clear incitement. Especially considering other things that were said before the insurrection like having a "trial by combat". I mean, if it's pretty clear what someone means, exactly what they say shouldn't be the only consideration. For instance, if Trump had made air quotes while saying the word 'peaceful' in a sentence, "I want you to remain peaceful" would you still say his words strictly did not advocate violence? Technically that's true, but I think it's horribly disingenuous to hold that position.

In a Nutshell: [thenation.com]

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 12, 2021:

Yup. I just fear none of it will be just punishments for their crimes.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@BirdMan1 "Barnett is charged with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and theft of public money, property, or records. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of one year in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors." A YEAR?! You think that's a just punishment for an act of domestic terrorism, breaking into the speaker of the house's office and stealing government property?? SERIOUSLY?! Even worse... "Derrick Evans, a recently-elected delegate to the West Virginia legislature who filmed himself participating in the Capitol insurrection, will be charged with entering a restricted area, officials said." So his maximum must be less than Bennett's having only the first of the three of Barnett's charges. An elected official in the United States turned on his own government and committed a domestic terrorist attack may only serve a matter of weeks or months in prison. That is about the most insanely weak punishment I've ever heard of that wasn't just pure acquittal.

So, what is the viability of Trump pardoning himself and fellow family members?

racocn8 comments on Jan 13, 2021:

Trump's gross violation of the 14th Amendment renders all subsequent actions as contestable. In any case, pardons were meant to be a means of correcting injustice and righting wrongs. It was never intended to be a means of abetting criminal activity and probably some members of the judiciary would ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

I would be willing to bet the judiciary wouldn't touch that with a hundred for pole. I would love it if those disgusting fucks spent the rest of their lives in prison, but there's just no way that happens.

Seems our social media platforms have decided to be more assertive and political.

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 12, 2021:

They're not being * political *. If that's what you think you're listening to the wrong people and only hearing one side of the story. People on the left, like me, get blocked and banned too.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@powder Nice dodge of the question. You claimed that the Left abused social media in the same ways as Donald Trump. I pointed out some of the terrible things he's done with it and asked you to prove your point and show me the same from the Left. Instead you just rambled on about a slippery slope argument that didn't prove your point one bit.

Seems our social media platforms have decided to be more assertive and political.

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 12, 2021:

They're not being * political *. If that's what you think you're listening to the wrong people and only hearing one side of the story. People on the left, like me, get blocked and banned too.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 13, 2021:

@powder Well, let me shock you and anyone else who doesn't care if America remains a democracy: I * am * saying that the Left doesn't abuse social media in the same ways as Donald Trump. Even before inciting an insurrection by constantly undermining the integrity of US elections by convincing a bunch of knuckle-dragging deplorables their government was being stolen from them, Trump was doing unprecedented shit with social media. He has destroyed people's lives on social media, attacking citizens personally and individually by name resulting in a mob of his rabid supporters attacking that same person at his behest and inundating them with death threats. Donald Trump has threatened thermonuclear war on Twitter. Donald Trump has fired cabinet-level position holders on Twitter. He attacked leaders of allied countries on Twitter calling Trudeau 'dishonest & weak'. Plus all the crazy shit he did before he was president like claim global warming was a Chinese hoax, claim Obama was an ineligible and thus illegitimate president of the United States because of a fake birth certificate, claimed LED bulbs cause cancer, and so, so much more. So, what equally abusive shit has the Left done with social media oh master of equivocation?

Seems our social media platforms have decided to be more assertive and political.

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 12, 2021:

They're not being * political *. If that's what you think you're listening to the wrong people and only hearing one side of the story. People on the left, like me, get blocked and banned too.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

@powder Maybe if the right wasn't staging coup attempts, we wouldn't have to worry about seeing a response like in 3rd world nations. Anyway, is rather lose some liberty like Facebook and Twitter, both of which I stopped using anyway, than lose everything because the right so desperately wants a dictator.

Someone in the Conservative Group just posted this meme.

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 12, 2021:

I'm one of the people they banned. Those dumb fucks are the most hypocritical people on the planet.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

@BTHT He just wanted his response to be seen by his idiot friends. If he blocks you first he won't be able to post.

New endorsement...

freedom41 comments on Jan 12, 2021:

You don't need Vodka for that.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

True. They've been working of being fat and stupid for years!

Seems our social media platforms have decided to be more assertive and political.

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 12, 2021:

They're not being * political *. If that's what you think you're listening to the wrong people and only hearing one side of the story. People on the left, like me, get blocked and banned too.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

@powder I don't know enough about that situation to comment, but generically, * if * only one side was saying inappropriate shit, then it would make sense that only one side was censored. e.g. Biden didn't get banned from Twitter because he didn't incite a riot. That seems pretty logical to me.

Sam Harris experiences an epiphany. [samharris.org]

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 11, 2021:

I've never disagreed with Harris this much. "I didn't see any bending the knee by the cops." What the fuck are you taking about, Sam, you * just * said they were taking selfies with the insurrectionists TWICE during this podcast. Kneeling to show solidarity is magically different than posing for ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

@PBuck0145 The programming would do it for you. Just like a bank doesn't have to guess how much money each person has in their account or how many people have a checking and how many people have a savings account, it would be real-time counts of votes from verified, registered voters. The code could be verified by anyone of any party (provided they understood code) to make sure it was legit. It would be as absolute as the number of dollars in your account. Are you really confused by this notion? No ripped, damaged, or lost ballots. No dimpled or hanging chad. No double voting, no dead people voting, no unregistered people voting. Almost all of the things Republicans claim they want. I guess the downside for Republicans is that it won't suppress the vote of poor people and African Americans, which would be the actual reason they'll oppose this.

A lot of them have short fuses, too.

dalefvictor comments on Jan 12, 2021:

I want all those people to die for me, then I will be important.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

I just want all * those * people to die. 😝

Lawyers defend man in Capitol riot photo: He wasn't violent [youtube.com] Model citizen. Uh-huh

Redheadedgammy comments on Jan 12, 2021:

The jerk broke the law period! Convict him and jail him!

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

@LucyLoohoo Convict them with a lead pipe! Oh, wait, I mean with the law!

Trump has never done anything for the poor.

barjoe comments on Jan 12, 2021:

I bet they're white.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

This.

Was the capitol riot truly an "insurrection"?

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 11, 2021:

And while we're at it, I'm sad that there isn't any RICO applicable crimes from the list so they could charge every last one of those disgusting motherfuckers with murder.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

@nicestuff NICE! Too bad they won't. The charges they are handing out are a fuckin' disgrace so far.

Star Trek was years ahead of its time on so many levels.

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 11, 2021:

I see "Hot Hunks" posts in my feed all the time and not once is there a picture of John Stamos. Are the lady parts in this group on the fritz?

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

@Freespirit64 Just joshin' ya. The John Stamos thing is a long running joke with me and my buddies, one of whom is on this platform. I do wish I looked like him though.

Sam Harris experiences an epiphany. [samharris.org]

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 11, 2021:

I've never disagreed with Harris this much. "I didn't see any bending the knee by the cops." What the fuck are you taking about, Sam, you * just * said they were taking selfies with the insurrectionists TWICE during this podcast. Kneeling to show solidarity is magically different than posing for ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

@PBuck0145 Too proud to admit you're wrong, it's cool, we know.

For the Melania haters [abc.net.au]

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 11, 2021:

Fuck that gold-digging cunt.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 12, 2021:

@powder She doesn't hold back...

I am not one for conspiracy theories but this struck me.

273kelvin comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Okay, let us imagine that the authorities did their job properly and security had been beefed up the way it should have been? What happens next? After a night-long pissing contest at the barriers, The MAGA hats go home and Trump remains. The GOP is left with a volatile idiot waning star. Now I am ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@273kelvin Oh, I was imagining you were suggesting something else. But wait, you think we can just mix in some stuff to a criminal trial of Trump?? I mean, that would be worth it to me, but it's even more confusing to me that you think you can solve his mob's frustrations about voter fraud by trying to convict their supreme leader of crimes and throw him in jail, where even if he successfully argued his case and overturned the election, he wouldn't be able to serve his term and his sentence at the same time. Your proposition gets less tenable by the post I'm sorry to say.

@McFlewster and I were having a discussion on a post by @SohnJose about questioning believers.

Storm1752 comments on Jan 11, 2021:

Yawn; you atheists never give up. It's impossible to paint Agnostics into a corner, but easy to do so to an atheist. Why? Because atheists believe IN the non-existence of 'god' as they themselves define 'him' or 'her.' It is a BELIEF SYSTEM requiring a leap of faith in something for which there is...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@Storm1752 Care so much about what? Being careful with my words? Also, everyone knows how one likes to discuss the nuances of philosophy, religion, and politics directly relates to his they would behave at a party with a completely different purpose and group of people. You seem to have unfounded ideas about my beliefs, and I just don't know where you're getting them. I've been very clear, and your baselessly tell me I need to expand my consciousness. What is it exactly that I'm saying you find so objectionable?

@McFlewster and I were having a discussion on a post by @SohnJose about questioning believers.

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 11, 2021:

The original discussion can be found here: "When I ask a religious friend about the factual accuracy behind the existence of God, they would be ..."

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@bbyrd009 I mean, in my day-to-day life they are functionally the same thing, but words matter, so I would not deliberately voice my opinion like that, no.

Sam Harris experiences an epiphany. [samharris.org]

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 11, 2021:

I've never disagreed with Harris this much. "I didn't see any bending the knee by the cops." What the fuck are you taking about, Sam, you * just * said they were taking selfies with the insurrectionists TWICE during this podcast. Kneeling to show solidarity is magically different than posing for ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@PBuck0145 That is nonsense and you know it. If they used the same level of security or better as banking apps they would be infinitely more secure than paper ballots and octogenarians checking IDs. Really, you trust your money to apps on your phone but not your ballot? I literally have access to every penny from every account including my stock and crypto investments (as do probably most other people) with not a single worry because of the insane amount of multi-level security. The ONLY reason someone would say it's a bad idea is because they want to disenfranchise certain voters.

I am not one for conspiracy theories but this struck me.

273kelvin comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Okay, let us imagine that the authorities did their job properly and security had been beefed up the way it should have been? What happens next? After a night-long pissing contest at the barriers, The MAGA hats go home and Trump remains. The GOP is left with a volatile idiot waning star. Now I am ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@273kelvin I doubt Diana conspiracy theorists had anywhere near the vested interest MAGAs do. Either way, do you really think we should fabricate a criminal trial out of nothing just to coddle some of the dumbest motherfuckers alive in the US? That's how we should use our justice system? That's the precedent we should set? Are we going to have trials after * all * of our elections, or only ones where the idiots' candidates lose? And you've still offered no evidence to suggest that they'd accept anything that didn't conform to their preconceived notions. If the evidence didn't work, they must have hid some, or destroyed it (like the internals of the voting machines), or deemed in inadmissable, or whatever other batshit crazy conspiracy theory "Q" tells them. Dude, these people think Tom Hanks is raping children in the basement of a pizza parlor... that doesn't have a basement. Please, for your own sanity, stop thinking you will ever reason with them.

@McFlewster and I were having a discussion on a post by @SohnJose about questioning believers.

Mcflewster comments on Jan 11, 2021:

First let me make it clear that although I asked for a separate posting and I am grateful to Jeff for starting one, I think it necessary for Jeff to make it clear what his question for this post is. In the other post I was trying to help in discussions about God's existence by using agnosticism ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@DangerDave I mean, I don't know that that was really the sticking point that stated this whole discussion for me because if our only goal is proselytizing to theists, the most advantageous approach would likely be to pretend we are also theists and "lose god" through questions that don't make sense right along * with * our target (prey?).

@McFlewster and I were having a discussion on a post by @SohnJose about questioning believers.

Storm1752 comments on Jan 11, 2021:

Yawn; you atheists never give up. It's impossible to paint Agnostics into a corner, but easy to do so to an atheist. Why? Because atheists believe IN the non-existence of 'god' as they themselves define 'him' or 'her.' It is a BELIEF SYSTEM requiring a leap of faith in something for which there is...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@Storm1752 1. If your think a 'lack of a belief' puts you on a 'belief' spectrum, that's something you're going to need to take up with your English teachers. Does your lack of pregnancy have you on a prenatal schedule? Does your lack of debt have you on a payment plan? Does your lack of a conviction have you on parole? Where does your lack of autism place you on the spectrum? I think 4 examples is probably enough. If you don't get it by now your lack of understanding must not have put you on the enlightened scale. 2. Anti-theists and atheists are not the same thing either. Why do you hate dictionaries? 3. I NEVER made such a claim. If you are suggesting I did, please link it here. 4. I'm with you on that. I am pretty sure we can't know, and may never know if a god exists or existed, which makes me agnostic. However, based on everything I've learned about religions, science, the nature of reality, etc. there is nothing that makes me believe there * is * a god, so I lack said belief which makes me an atheist. 5. Look at who's a gnostic now claiming you KNOW we'll never know. How do those words taste? 6. "Self-aware ignorance"? I won't argue with you on that. 😉

@McFlewster and I were having a discussion on a post by @SohnJose about questioning believers.

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 11, 2021:

The original discussion can be found here: "When I ask a religious friend about the factual accuracy behind the existence of God, they would be ..."

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@bbyrd009 Nope. I don't hold the belief god exists, which you have taken to mean I believe god doesn't exist. And if you're going to call out fallacies, name them.

I am not one for conspiracy theories but this struck me.

273kelvin comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Okay, let us imagine that the authorities did their job properly and security had been beefed up the way it should have been? What happens next? After a night-long pissing contest at the barriers, The MAGA hats go home and Trump remains. The GOP is left with a volatile idiot waning star. Now I am ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@273kelvin you tell some hilarious jokes. He had 60 some opportunities to present evidence and no judge, even ones he appointed, thought he had anything with merit. Additionally, HIS OWN PEOPLE said it was the most secure election in history. He had tons of people actively searching for evidence of voter fraud and that all came up with nothing. He even had a voter fraud hotline and couldn't get any credible evidence of it anywhere. If * THAT * didn't move the needle for those fuckwits, nothing is going to. When he was ON TAPE blackmailing a foreign nation to interfere in our election and they didn't think there was any fraud, but here, with no evidence whatsoever, they see enough to commit a terrorist attack? These people are as biased and stupid as they come. You are fucking kidding yourself if you think anything can be done to reason them off this ledge.

I am not one for conspiracy theories but this struck me.

273kelvin comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Okay, let us imagine that the authorities did their job properly and security had been beefed up the way it should have been? What happens next? After a night-long pissing contest at the barriers, The MAGA hats go home and Trump remains. The GOP is left with a volatile idiot waning star. Now I am ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@273kelvin How do you even have a criminal trial without filing charges and a grand jury / indictment? Flowerwall said some nonsense like this, and I said I'd be fine with it if Trump wants to pay for everything up front with the possibility of being reimbursed if he's right. This has been investigated, adjudicated, and even Trump's "best people" said that it was the most secure election in history.

@McFlewster and I were having a discussion on a post by @SohnJose about questioning believers.

Storm1752 comments on Jan 11, 2021:

Yawn; you atheists never give up. It's impossible to paint Agnostics into a corner, but easy to do so to an atheist. Why? Because atheists believe IN the non-existence of 'god' as they themselves define 'him' or 'her.' It is a BELIEF SYSTEM requiring a leap of faith in something for which there is...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

First of all, that wasn't what the discussion was about. Second, no it's not, unless you're talking about gnostic atheists, which we weren't. Third, I know there are a lot of definitions people like to use, but I think there's a pretty big segment of the atheist population that defines it as simply a lack of a belief. Fourth, there are literally thousands of gods I lack belief in simply by virtue of the fact that I have never heard their names or the first thing about them. Fifth, the definition you gave for agnostic is not accurate. I think there's a newer word that is the definition for. It was either apatheist or maybe another designation I can't recall, but there are a bunch on this site and I'm sure one will chime in. Finally, I'm not trying to * win * anything, but if there's one person here who doesn't understand agnosticism... it's you.

@McFlewster and I were having a discussion on a post by @SohnJose about questioning believers.

TheMiddleWay comments on Jan 11, 2021:

I guess my first question is what is the questioning about: Are you trying to get a better understanding of the basis of their belief? Are you trying to build up a case for how their beliefs are erroneous, misguided, illogical, etc? Are you trying to change their beliefs via a socratic or ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@TheMiddleWay To be honest, I wasn't either. I didn't respond to the OP, just McFlewster.

I am not one for conspiracy theories but this struck me.

273kelvin comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Okay, let us imagine that the authorities did their job properly and security had been beefed up the way it should have been? What happens next? After a night-long pissing contest at the barriers, The MAGA hats go home and Trump remains. The GOP is left with a volatile idiot waning star. Now I am ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@273kelvin Oh, fair point, but I'm not so sure about the election stealing thing. Even Trump's own "best people" already admitted it was the most secure election ever and they still stormed the Capitol...

I am not one for conspiracy theories but this struck me.

273kelvin comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Okay, let us imagine that the authorities did their job properly and security had been beefed up the way it should have been? What happens next? After a night-long pissing contest at the barriers, The MAGA hats go home and Trump remains. The GOP is left with a volatile idiot waning star. Now I am ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@273kelvin Who is "you guys" and in the fuck does that have to do with this discussion?!

Pentagon calls sedition on Weds. "First Amendment Protests:" [dailykos.com]

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 11, 2021:

The fucking white-supremacist-supporting conservative atheists on this site are calling the leftists "fascists". This can't possibly end peacefully.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@Theresa_N Well, I don't expect that anyone that hasn't been convinced he's terrible in the past 4 years has any hope of ever figuring it out. He's a pathological liar, how can they not see it? Law & order president who pardons convicted felons to help plan a terrorist attack on his own government. Christian candidate who cheats on his wives has three marriages and probably soon to be three divorces. America first president who puts Russia's interests ahead of our own and bribes foreign entities to subvert American democracy. Good businessman who fails to follow through on contracts, and has casinos go bankrupt. Yet 11 million * more * people support him. You cannot reason with someone who has no grip on reality. We are headed for Civil War 2 or authoritarian rule.

When I ask a religious friend about the factual accuracy behind the existence of God, they would be ...

Mcflewster comments on Jan 8, 2021:

I would suggest you keep on the agnostic track as much as possible. Everyone has s skeptical corner somewhere. Once you have found their corner trap them in it and THEN and only then show them a way out using science - some research needed but it is available. Asking a question properly which is ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@Mcflewster I don't know if anyone else is interested in this, but we can try... What defines death as one year of no use?? For a second, imagine there was no current belief in any god, but we still used the word when discussing greek mythology, wouldn't that invalidate that arbitrary cutoff point?

Michael Moore: The Terrorist Attack Is NOT Over.

Flowerwall comments on Jan 10, 2021:

We need leaders to pull us together at this time! The ones who have acheived the highest positions in government, even celebrities, those who have a voice should be saying, "Unity! Unity!" To consistently not work toward that end is not right. Leaders who don't do that need to step over and let the ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 11, 2021:

@Flowerwall A dictatorship? It's always a possibility. But that makes us all losers.

. . . at the request of @kmaz

Storm1752 comments on Jan 10, 2021:

Why do you ask, pray tell? I'd say the result of your poll will lean left for obvious reasons. Most people on a site like this are intelligent.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@Storm1752 😝

Michael Moore: The Terrorist Attack Is NOT Over.

Flowerwall comments on Jan 10, 2021:

We need leaders to pull us together at this time! The ones who have acheived the highest positions in government, even celebrities, those who have a voice should be saying, "Unity! Unity!" To consistently not work toward that end is not right. Leaders who don't do that need to step over and let the ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

Seems like there's always a call for unity and bipartisanship from the losers...

Michael Moore: The Terrorist Attack Is NOT Over.

AnneWimsey comments on Jan 10, 2021:

Fully Armored/Armed National Guard & Armed Forces could fire (back).........wouldn't bother me one little bit!!!!!

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@AnneWimsey You realize I 100% agree with you, right?

. . . at the request of @kmaz

Storm1752 comments on Jan 10, 2021:

Why do you ask, pray tell? I'd say the result of your poll will lean left for obvious reasons. Most people on a site like this are intelligent.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

Most? Have you seen the group "Conservatives Atheists"??

Michael Moore: The Terrorist Attack Is NOT Over.

AnneWimsey comments on Jan 10, 2021:

Fully Armored/Armed National Guard & Armed Forces could fire (back).........wouldn't bother me one little bit!!!!!

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

Nope. Kill the fuck outta all of them. If they were brown and/or foreigners we wouldn't be having this discussion.

A question and a request: question: is there an efficient way to browse only recent polls?

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 10, 2021:

Blocks do not exist in the Senate. You can make the poll yourself.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

Oh, wait, Senate is only open to level 7 and higher, so that won't help. Too many people have blocked me, so I won't be of any help...

I am not one for conspiracy theories but this struck me.

273kelvin comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Okay, let us imagine that the authorities did their job properly and security had been beefed up the way it should have been? What happens next? After a night-long pissing contest at the barriers, The MAGA hats go home and Trump remains. The GOP is left with a volatile idiot waning star. Now I am ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@273kelvin You're assuming NewsMax and OAN will not give him air, and barring that, that he won't create his own media company that a vast majority of his supporters could sign on to? You have to know that's not going to be the case. That other thread by admin you're commenting on already has people from here defending Trump and talking about how it's not fair he's being censored and that it will cause a civil war. He's not going away because his stupid, insane supporters are not going away. They wouldn't believe he was trying to subvert democracy even though he was caught ON TAPE trying to subvert democracy. Then, when asked on camera if he would do it again, HE SAID YES. They still don't believe he was trying to subvert democracy after threatening Georgia officials into changing how the state was voting or even when he riled his supporters into attacking the fucking Capitol. NOTHING can get through to these people. How do you not see that?!

How do you feel about Parler being removed from the Internet?

DenoPenno comments on Jan 10, 2021:

I know very little of Parlor and certainly would not use it. I'm not in favor of anything Trump and never was from the beginning. Trump and his supporters have brought this upon themselves because of January 6th. Even now certain ones want to doubt that Trump was responsible. Where have they been ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@Admin > Do you have a suggestion to help Trump supporters feel that their guy got a fair deal these past four years? How can you convince someone something is true who doesn't believe in truth or facts to begin with? You can't. That's like convincing someone they were dreaming before they've woken up. For years they have been the party of "alternative facts" and "your logic", denying science and objective reality. It is not * our * job to make them feel better about the lies they were told that didn't pan out.

I am not one for conspiracy theories but this struck me.

273kelvin comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Okay, let us imagine that the authorities did their job properly and security had been beefed up the way it should have been? What happens next? After a night-long pissing contest at the barriers, The MAGA hats go home and Trump remains. The GOP is left with a volatile idiot waning star. Now I am ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@273kelvin Again, I wish you were right, but I have no evidence that you are. Our elections are pretty tight considering the EC still reigns, so as long as Trump can tip the scales some, it's the same as tipping it a lot and the Republicans will fall in line. It's what they do, and they are very good at it. Just compare statements of his primary opponents pre and post nomination. The addition of 11 million more voters wasn't a sign the GOP was suddenly more popular. Those are * Trump's * people, and they ain't leavin'. "Trump's fans condemn violence, but they aren't about to blame him | Reuters" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-supporters/trumps-fans-condemn-violence-but-they-arent-about-to-blame-him-idUSKBN29D1AL https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/12/27/fox-news-viewers-switch-to-newsmax/

When I ask a religious friend about the factual accuracy behind the existence of God, they would be ...

Mcflewster comments on Jan 8, 2021:

I would suggest you keep on the agnostic track as much as possible. Everyone has s skeptical corner somewhere. Once you have found their corner trap them in it and THEN and only then show them a way out using science - some research needed but it is available. Asking a question properly which is ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@Mcflewster Just because something exists or was imagined and was subsequently named does not provide proof of need for said thing. Just my two cents.

When I ask a religious friend about the factual accuracy behind the existence of God, they would be ...

Mcflewster comments on Jan 8, 2021:

I would suggest you keep on the agnostic track as much as possible. Everyone has s skeptical corner somewhere. Once you have found their corner trap them in it and THEN and only then show them a way out using science - some research needed but it is available. Asking a question properly which is ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@Mcflewster The water is getting muddy. I was asking why you don't think the same attitude toward mythological creatures would be equally viable for god. (i.e. there is the exact same amount of empirical evidence for god as there is for leprechauns, thus I don't believe in god the same way I don't believe in leprechauns.) I believe the word 'need' threw me off. No one has ever * needed * leprechauns.

I am not one for conspiracy theories but this struck me.

273kelvin comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Okay, let us imagine that the authorities did their job properly and security had been beefed up the way it should have been? What happens next? After a night-long pissing contest at the barriers, The MAGA hats go home and Trump remains. The GOP is left with a volatile idiot waning star. Now I am ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@273kelvin I * still * don't see how it's politically advantageous to be in that position over the one where the police quell the insurrection and they simply keep their heads in the sand for 2 more weeks. It's the same reason McConnell blocked the vote on the $2k checks. He knew it would be a bad position for Senate Republicans to be in to have to say on record whether or not they wanted their constituents to get an extra $1400.

I am not one for conspiracy theories but this struck me.

273kelvin comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Okay, let us imagine that the authorities did their job properly and security had been beefed up the way it should have been? What happens next? After a night-long pissing contest at the barriers, The MAGA hats go home and Trump remains. The GOP is left with a volatile idiot waning star. Now I am ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@273kelvin So it's not that the Capitol Police are racist shitbags just like police departments all across the country, it's that they were secretly given marching orders from the GOP to stand aside and let a group of insurrectionists take over the Capitol so that Trump would look a little worse than he already does to * some * people forcing them to then decide whether growing a spine and holding him accountable for his actions only to incur the vengeful wrath of the petulant-child-in-chief or continuing to support an unhinged, seditious asshole would be less politically damaging? Occam's razor is telling me to go with 'racist police'. I just don't see how your theory is a politically enviable position they'd want to put themselves in.

When I ask a religious friend about the factual accuracy behind the existence of God, they would be ...

Mcflewster comments on Jan 8, 2021:

I would suggest you keep on the agnostic track as much as possible. Everyone has s skeptical corner somewhere. Once you have found their corner trap them in it and THEN and only then show them a way out using science - some research needed but it is available. Asking a question properly which is ...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@Mcflewster 'Needed' is a strong word. Can you support that claim?

[youtu.

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Technically, killing everyone would stop the killing...

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@yvilletom Nothing is "off limits" for comedy. To say that some things should be off limits because someone or some group would be offended for instance allows for * everything * to be off limits because you could always find someone or some group that would be offended by it. But aren't you the one that just said, "Humor requires the violation of expectations"? So if you're expecting people to not joke about killing, doesn't that allow for a greater opportunity for humor? Not sure what the rest of your comment about technology was supposed to mean. Anyway, it was an absurd answer to a proposition with an absurd premise. The fact that someone is making a claim with an absolute like that begs it to be contradicted. The bottom line is that if you kill all the killers, the killing stops. If you then claim that new killers would arise, that then make the original implied argument defunct because whatever other way to stop killings is suggested would also be invalidated by the "new killers".

Does God exist?

ChestRockfield comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Not to defend the dude being criticized, but being involved in anything increases the possibility of sex. How does this guy not know that? Also, his follow up comments are all fallacious straw men and a fallacy of composition.

ChestRockfield replies on Jan 10, 2021:

@MrDeity Of what, the very obvious fact that increased social interaction necessarily increases the possibility of sex, or the fact that reducing his multifaceted argument to 'someone wanting a Dirty Sanchez' (or similar) is a Straw Man, or claiming that because * you * haven't met someone that * told * you they got into religion for sex than it's not a thing is a fallacy of composition?

I am not one for conspiracy theories but this struck me.

273kelvin comments on Jan 9, 2021:

Okay, let us imagine that the authorities did their job properly and security had been beefed up the way it should have been? What happens next? After a night-long pissing contest at the barriers, The MAGA hats go home and Trump remains. The GOP is left with a volatile idiot waning star. Now I am ...