483
Trump Is Pissed at Harris for Trapping Him in Two Debates
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
483 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19088 readers
3796 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You really trying to advocate that Jesus Christ existed? Despite no proof at all? Might as well try to advocate that Deadpool is real.
What would you accept as proof?
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
Or are you arguing there is no proof anyone existed prior to the 1800s? Oh sure there are documents, but that's not proof.
There's documents saying that Medusa existed as well. There's documents saying Santa claus existed. Hell, in today's world, there's documents saying Indiana Jones existed. And you accept documents as proof 1800 years after the motherfucker supposedly existed?
Genius here can't tell the difference between documents created by historians and documents created to be fictional stories.
Saint Nicholas did in fact exist. He had no magic powers, was just a generally nice guy, and folklore was created around him after he died.
Not the point and you know it. Saint Nicholas wasn't flying around in a magic sleigh. And that's before questioning the "saint" part. Do you really think some dude that turned water to wine would be mad about jagerbombs?
Well, he was a nice guy at least. He snuck into people's houses and left bags of gold so they wouldn't have to sell their daughters into slavery.
Agreed. And nobody here is arguing that Jesus was turning water into wine. If you read my post it specifically said: a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius
When you're so anti-religion you loop around to sticking firmly to your personal beliefs and ignoring any evidence that disagrees with them...
Because outside of those religious texts, there's 0 evidence to him existing at all. None.
Again, if you actually read my post, it specifically mentioned that religious texts are biased and therefore not credible, and the link mentions other historical documents that mention him existing.
But you saw a post disagreeing with your religious beliefs so you plugged your ears and tuned it out rather than risk hearing something that might challenge your (for some reason) deeply held beliefs.
We can agree Saint Nicholas was just some guy and a mythology was built up around him. We have a direct example of that happening. I don't know why the idea that a similar thing could happen to some other guy is so dangerous to your world view.
Saint Nicholas was a real, documented person, and by all accounts a good one at that. But there isn't a single bit of credible, contemporary evidence that Jesus existed at all. There are inscriptions mentioning Jesus and where he came from but they were hundreds of years after the time when he would have existed.
According to you there's no "proof" of that, it's just things people wrote down, and that's not proof.
At least your admitting you bother to look at any evidence that disagrees with your religious beliefs. From my link earlier:
No, it's more that I've come across a truly obnoxious person, so I block them on Lemmy. Bye.
It's weird how it's always the religious fundamentalists that feel the need to tell you they are blocking you instead of just leaving the conversation.
"I'm an open minded intellectual, so I'm not listening to you anymore." Okay then.
Yes, keep talking about yourself, dear.
There's more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that I am a religious fundamentalist.
How did I know this was a lie?
Go on.
Having a real hard time understanding Jesus of Nazareth existed but Jesus God Incarnate didn't, huh?
Historical evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth acting in ways that resemble a non-magical version of the New Testament is extremely underwhelming, to me. I don't have a pro-Christian or pro-Abrahamic bias.
I don't think any such figure existed, and was a wholesale invention.
True, you have an anti-Christian, anti-Abrahamic balance. Why else would you be so offended by the idea that a Jew, with followers, executed on orders of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, existed?
I don't think you exist and are a wholesale invention. There's no proof to the contrary.
I don't think the horror film character Candyman exists, either, but that's not because I'm offended by a horrifically murdered black man becoming a personification of vengeance.
Therefore I question whether it is necessary that not thinking something always exists denotes being offended. How many gods and religions do you not believe in? Do you find those offensive? If yes, that's your problem, not mine - do not hold me to your standards in this regard.
Seek psychiatric help, you're being rude to people that don't exist. Also, you (for some reason) invent figments of your imagination that are more rational than you, which is messed up.
If anyone told me "Zeus was actually based on some guy from early Greece that we have historical evidence for" my reaction to that would be more along the line of "Oh, that's interesting" instead of "Your evidence better be pretty overwhelming!" Knowing Saint Nicholas was a real person doesn't mean I'm mailing Christmas lists to the north pole. The origins of things are interesting, and I'm not going to argue with experts in the field (historians), that's how you get Flat Earthers.
Ya right, like I'm going to take advice from a figment of my imagination. That's something a crazy person would do!
You might react to tomatoes with an intense dislike, this does not stop them from being food. Your psychological preferences have no sway on facts.
In a similar way, do not assume your own excessive open-mindedness to statements made with a lack of evidence means that this is 'correct'. Your preferences are not moral laws.
I'm autistic and logical. I don't identify as a human. I don't care what the majority thinks. I'm not going to go along with something because of the status quo. The status quo doesn't feed children, it creates and exploits an underclass, it victim-blames for structural inequality. I distrust the status quo.
Every historian in the world could say we accept that "Jesus existed as a real man." I don't believe that without evidence.
Open-mindedness means being receptive to evidence, not being receptive to belief in the face of a lack of it.
How logical is it to tell someone you're blocking them and then continue to reply to them? You don't sound very logical to me.
JFC, you're an idiot. There were other responses to make but I'm talking to someone who can't even be convinced that they are human, "historians know more than you" is so far down the list of priorities of things you need to come to grips with. Find yourself a therapist you can talk to.
No proof? I can't be bothered with this idiocy. Read a fucking book about ancient Rome around 33 AD.