I originally claimed that he is a “murderer or at least took part in mass murder.” I have not edited or moved the goalposts. Please read closer :-)
edit: nice to see that Lemmings are simping for the US military’s illegal invasions though!
Yes I can objectively say that he was involved in mass murder. Could you please explain how the killing of hundreds of civilians, unprovoked and without warning, doesn’t constitute murder? Judged as a “flagrant violation of international law” by the UN, Bush disgustingly claimed that Panama had declared a state of war against the US, even though what really happened is that Panama declared that US had already invoked war against Panama through psychological and military harrassment (which was accurate). And then sent thousands of soldiers to invade and ultimately kill innocent civilians.
I’m not saying this individual chose to personally kill these people. But was he involved? By his own admission, yes.
If you were Panamanian I don’t think you’d have much trouble calling the men who came and killed innocent civilians in 1989 a murderer. That being the case, can you say objectively that this person isn’t a murderer or at least took part in mass murder?
So let’s be clear then—it’s not that other countries cannot influence this conflict, it’s that they choose not to. And even that is not quite right: Modi’s meeting Putin right now and their active trade with them does have an influence on the conflict, just not in Ukraine’s favour.
It is not clear if there are other countries other than the EU that can influence the situation(aside the US and Russia).
I’ll be the first to admit I am very ignorant about the geopolitics of this war, but how can this possibly be true? India could stop trade relations with Russia; China could invade Russia; the global south could conscript and send armies to support Ukraine. I’m not saying these countries would or even should do these things, but isn’t an analysis self-defeating if we just assume only EU & US have any influence?
Sir, that is the definition of a rhetorical question.
Genuine question since I am not knowledgable about this: could you expand on how HRW is Zionist? Wikipedia notes that HRW has been criticised for being overly biased against Israel, and I read through a rather awful article on Sapir (which appears to be quite unapologetically Zionist) which indeed makes this claim. Is there evidence to the contrary?
Haha I have a lot of love and joy in my life, do you really need to resort to baseless ad hominems for your argument?
And why exactly do I not have a claim? I cited scripture which directly contradicts your point and provided a clear argument. I could be very easily “talked out” of my position if you simply presented any scripture where Jesus shows support for trans rights. Thus far you have not done that.
Apart from fringe activist groups, who thinks of politics as something they have to make happen on a daily basis?
Lots of people actually. The comparison you’re making between many people being generally uninterested in politics vs mental illness being criminalized by the state is, frankly, ridiculous.
Jesus literally contradicted those passages, both in His most famous teaching (Matthew 22:34-40) and in the “why we can eat bacon cheeseburgers” post-resurrection vision in Acts 10.
I’m looking at the NIV translation of these verses and am entirely unconvinced. Saying some nice platitudes which are in no way specific to transphobia does nothing to undo the transphobic tradition that he is perpetuating.
The most straightforward reconciliation of this is to posit that the pre-Christian israelites either did not preserve God’s law as recorded by Moses after breaking the original tablets, or that Moses himself introduced errors when he carved the second set.
Strongly disagree again. The most straightforward reconciliation of this is to posit that Jesus as well as Moses were mere humans and none of this originates from God. Either way, it doesn’t really matter. If Jesus and/or the author’s of the Gospels had issues with the words transcribed from Moses, they should have addressed those specifically and advocated for trans people instead of staying silent and letting transphobism fester.
Most Jews and Christians don’t require their cloaks to have tassels or religiously mandate fields of monoculture crops or demand that men and women have entirely separate fashion. And even if you did, the most common form of trans-gender expression is to adopt the clothes of said gender, so mere transgenderism doesn’t violate Deuteronomy 22:5 (or 23:2, which is either abelsim or ethnic bigotry and doesn’t even apply to bottom-surgery transexuals.)
What modern religious people practice has little to do with what Jesus said, which is the subject of your original claim. Jesus’ words reified the transphobic tradition of the Old Testament, and without explicit acceptance of trans people and rejection of those original words, I see a very clear case that Jesus was (or at least perpetuated being) transphobic.
(It’s between you and God if you believe in Him or not, FWIW. Im happy to answer any other questions you’d like to ask.)
No I don’t have any questions; I have a claim with substantial evidence that Jesus perpetuated anti-trans beliefs and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
And, just to be clear, you can’t cite any Bible verses about Jesus being transphobic because He wasn’t. All the gospels report Him saying are “don’t stone adulterers”, “divorce and emotional cheating are bad”, and “love each other as you love yourselves”.
I’m not convinced. What do you make of Deuteronomy 22 and 23? They seem pretty explicitly transphobic to me. Granted, these aren’t the direct words of Jesus, and I understand that Jesus “rejected” some of the old testament teachings to some extent… which sounds like a load of BS to me considering the Trinity doctrine. Jesus doesn’t need to explicitly condemn trans people when he propagates a tradition that does it for him.
Yeah her post is entirely reasonable, at least depending on the industry, e.g. in my industry LinkedIn is unfortunately where most leads get generated aside from conferences, so of you’re a senior marketing person in my industry then it’s genuinely a red flag if you don’t have an active LinkedIn profile. The post on engineering is satire that kinda misses the point.
But how do you know the photo of the guy is fake? Why not just a fake tweet (easily photoshopped) using a real photo? Lighting and contrast can vary widely based on camera, conditions and editing do I don’t see any clear indication that it’s AI-generated.
Fair enough but this doesn’t make much sense to me in the context of this post, since it implies that pilots are / should be idolized more than any of the other travelers (also mostly labourers of some sort) or other airport staff.
I mean, is it though? Seems like there are a whole lot of such countries… at the very least, every country which isn’t some sort of democracy.
Honestly how much does that mean when they lack representatives / are unable to vote, and do not get full protection of US constitution (as per Wikipedia)? Sounds like citizens in name only…
Why would you idolize anyone? To err is human; we all have flaws and just because you have a fancy profession does not mean you are a good person.
Why can’t it just be fake (like Photoshop)? Shit man does everything gotta be AI these days? 🥲
…but then why did she cry in response to the stranger’s comment? Logic doesn’t seem to be adding up.