Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


downzy last won the day on August 1 2018

downzy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6,275 Excellent


About downzy

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/12/1980

Profile Information

  • Location
    Toronto, Canada
  • Interests
    Politics, photography, snowboarding, golf, weight lifting, current events, television, running.

Profile Fields

  • Sex

Recent Profile Visitors

21,642 profile views
  1. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Go back and examine my post. At no point did I mention Christianity in my example of discriminatory behaviour. Had you just asked me to clarify by what I meant by the Bible, I would would have specified the Hebrew Bible. Instead you assumed I was speaking about Christianity and launched into a misguided defence of Christianity and a wayward attack on my views on religion. It's fine that people have different perspectives on religion. You can believe whatever you want; I personally don't care. You're welcome to put more weight on certain passages than others. It really doesn't matter. But as this thread is geared towards discussions on American politics, discussions of religion should focus on what is an acceptable allowance of religion into the body politic.
  2. Back in Time: Las Vegas 2000

    It can be considered facilitation. The age of the concert is irrelevant. Only thing matters is that it's copyrighted and owned by someone. As @RussTCB mentioned, we wish things could be different but I simply can't afford to take chances with this stuff.
  3. US Politics/Elections Thread

    I didn't get anything wrong. I said the Bible, of which the Hebrew Bible is part of the Bible. At no point do I mention Christians in my post; only Jews. But trigger you were and so here we are. In the 20 years I went to mass, I probably heard the phrase "word of God" more times than Trump's ate McDonalds. So yeah, it's pretty clear, according to the Catholic Church and anyone who has the slightest education in Christian theology that the Bible is treated as God's word. Both the Hebrew Bible and the new testament are pretty clear on who enters into the gates of heaven. Pretty sure this is one of the clearest messages put forth by both religions. I'm not the one who us emphasizing one passage over another to validate my belief structure. Again, the discussions have devolved into a) whether the old testament, and all the incidents of discrimination and bigotry, is relevant to Christians and b) whether there are similar incidents espoused in the New Testament and more particularly by Jesus. Both discussions can be validated by various passages in both books. It's all matter of how much weight one wants to place on differing passage. But there are instances of blatant inconsistencies found within each testament, whether it be the virtues of discrimination, bigotry, and tribalism or whether the Hebrew Bible is still relevant amongst Jesus and his followers. I'm not uninformed. You're speaking to someone who has read the bible through its entirety once and the new testament twice. I spent years studying it. I don't claim to be an expert, but understand you're not dealing with your typical agnostic or atheist. You're simply disagreeing with my assessment because it doesn't adhere to whatever belief structure you choose to uphold. Again, you stated that Hebrew laws were no longer followed or supported by Jesus and his followers. But the passage I provided from Matthew makes it clear that Jesus felt they still applied and those who broke them would have a tough time entering into Heaven. So what is it? Do as he says or what he does? No, you seem so triggered by your belief structure that you ignored what was obviously an example specific to those of the Jewish faith. I could have used many other examples. Someone who knows as much as you do about theology should have understood what was meant here. But no, I excluded the word Hebrew prior to the word Bible and you feel the need to defend the Christian faith when it wasn't even mentioned. It's not about daring me to correct what I said. You seem to be easily triggered when anyone voices a criticism towards Christianity, even when one wasn't raised but perceived on your end. I have no need to attack Christianity as whole. My issue is with those Christians like yourself that seem incapable of empiricism or objectivity that you must defend all quarters. Me: "Here are several instances where there are serious issues with consistency within the Bible." You: "You're just uninformed." Nice. Again, you have repeatedly demonstrated you can't see the forest for the trees and waste the time of others because of it.
  4. US Politics/Elections Thread

    The Hebrew Bible continually calls jews the chosen people. No, I'm relying on 4 years of bible studies. The Hebrew Bible (and by proxy, the Christian Bible) is God's word. And there are umpteenth passages that states that Jews (and in the Chirstian case, Christians) are the chosen people. We're not talking about anti-immigration. We're talking about the basis of discrimination; one in which there are repeated supported in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. Yeah, because that's all Jesus says. Never mind the many instances of chastising others for being non-believers. But let's continue to cherry pick the messages that validates the points we want to make and ignore everything else. Matthew 5: “Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven! But whoever keeps them and teaches others to do the same will be great in the kingdom of heaven." So do we follow what he says or what he does? Again, you're missing the point. There are numerous examples where exclusion and discrimination are sanctioned and permitted within the "word of God." Allowances for discrimination in a legal context on the basis of religion could be therefore expanded beyond business. That's the point. But you seem so blinded by your need to defend religion in all areas that you seem to miss what's being said here within the context of American society. So that's the core thing. Again, picking and evaluating passages to fit your viewpoint. Nevermind there's little consistency in the many messages found within the Christian Bible. The Hebrew bible does. The Christian Bible says the same about Christians. Seems unfortunate you have a problem with seeing the forest from the trees.
  5. US Politics/Elections Thread

    And maybe there is, but history has shown us many instances where an alternative for Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists wasn't available. That's to say nothing about different races. The success of the 14th and 15th amendments (when they were properly enforced) has resulted in the assumption that they're no longer needed. I think that's dangerous and prefer a society where business are allowed to turn down customers for reasons not given, but reasons that have nothing to do with race, colour or creed. Ultimately, if a cake shop doesn't want to bake a gay couple a cake, then just say no but don't make a whole point of it because the couple is gay. Any person is within their rights to turn away business so long as the reason for doing so doesn't violate that person's constitutional rights.
  6. US Politics/Elections Thread

    I should have referenced the Hebrew Bible with respect to the Jewish people, but regardless, you completely missed the point I was addressing. Allowances for discrimination on the basis of religion within legal framework opens up to all sorts of problems. Mind you, it's not as though the new testament negates the old covenant. Even Jesus imparts this message multiple times (don't make me dust off my old bible and quote scripture, but you know what I'm talking about). Jesus is on record that the Hebrew bible was divinely inspired, and hence, any and all instances of supporting discrimination found within the Hebrew Bible are grandfathered into Christianity. Moreover, it's not as though this narrow view of relationships doesn't cross over into Christianity, as espoused by Jesus. He is repeatedly "on record" as stating that the way to life is narrow; that married couples should divorce should one partner be an unbeliever. I believe in the book of Luke Jesus claims that enemies of his should be brought before him to be slaughtered (that passage always stayed with me). There are even passages where Jesus shits on other people for not being from the right area. Sure, he healed the woman from Canaan, but only after he refused to speak to her, compares her to a dog, makes clear he only cares about the people from Israel, and only cures her after she begs, grovels, and admits to being like a dog. Nice!
  7. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Kristen Gillibrand all voted for the 2013 reform bill. Biden would definitely support a similar measure since he championed the bill while service as Vice President. Beto O'Rourke was outspoken in his opposition to Obama's deferred action on immigration, though later opposed Trump's actions on ending the DREAMers program (which, most Americans supported at the time and still do). ----------- But I do think you're getting the argument wrong. Almost all Democrats are on record with beefing up border security and designing intelligent policy (i.e., not a dumb, useless wall) to cut down in illegal immigration. That's a different matter than deciding what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants already living in the country, some for decades; others brought here as small children who have no connection with their countries of origin. Just because a politician might want to help these people doesn't render them as being soft on border security.
  8. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Sorry, not in the sense that the authority can be scrutinized in the same way a scholarly paper can be. There's a qualitative difference.
  9. US Politics/Elections Thread

    I'm not speaking about the argument Omar and yourself are currently engaged in. People who appeal to the Bible to further their argument or position aren't appealing to an authority. They're appealing to a belief system that resides outside of quantifiable and qualifiable data sets. In no way is that in any comparable to facts and figures that can either be proven or refuted. It's a false equivalency at best and disingenuous troll/gas lighting at worst. Either way it's disingenuous and reason why it's hard to take your position seriously. With respect to the issue of immigration, I do think some Democrats have a problem by promoting and supporting a social safety net while also openly or tacitly supporting open borders. That said, I don't believe all Democrats are for open borders and pointing to individual governors or legislators as proof that Democrats are all in agreement on this matter would be akin to pointing to GOP Rep. Steve King as representative of the Republican on race. There are many Democrats who are supportive of tough border security while providing some allowances on humanitarian basis. Review the 2013 immigration reform bill that received bi-partisan support. As for low-wage workers from other countries benefiting America: you might want to examine how most vegetables and fruit is picked in the fields. Or better yet, I suppose you haven't frequented one of President Trump's fine establishment, with a long history of hiring foreign workers.
  10. US Politics/Elections Thread

    You're equating texts that include sourcing, facts, figures and evidence with a book in which the world was apparently flooded for a month (with no explanation as to where all that water went)? I'm starting to understand why the concepts of context and degrees are foreign to your world view.
  11. US Politics/Elections Thread

    According to their texts, most organized religions (and I assume you're talking about the Judo-Christian religions) are also fine with genocide, slavery, misogyny, and vehemently against inter-faith and inter-ethnic marriages. But let's just cherry pick the morality that makes us feel comfortable. Why be consistent with the texts of dead men from a different time when we can filter the bullshit that placates our own ignorance and bigotry?
  12. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Should business owners be allowed to turn away a client solely because of other criteria? The bible continually makes clear that Jews are the chosen people. Should a a Jewish business be legally allowed to turn down non Jews solely because they are not, as indicated clearly in the Bible, part of the chosen few? The bible is also pretty clear on marriage between people of different faith and ethnicities (spoiler: it's against it). Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against couples who do not practice the same religion as theirs? And replace faith with race. Should businesses be allowed to turn down businesses because they want nothing to do with people of different races than them?
  13. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Real quick for those who never took economics 101: - Capitalism, at its most basic, is an economic system where by the market sets the pricing. - Capitalism still exists even in the presence of income and estate taxes, along with capital gains tax. - The Democratic Party in the United States is still one that accepts and promotes market based pricing to almost the same extent as Republicans. The only areas where Democrats view market-based pricing as anathema to a more fair, just, and moral society is within healthcare and higher education. Every other developed country has rejected market-based pricing for these areas save for the U.S.
  14. Nothing wrong with people expressing how they feel. There's space on both sides of this issue. For some having someone like Slash make this comment is different than say someone like Fortus. For others, it's a story told many times before by even the likes of Axl and it all amounted to nothing. It should be pretty apparent from our posts that there's even different perspectives offered by the forum's different administrators. We're certainly not a monolith here. I'm a little more hopeful if not skeptical while @RussTCB is far less so. If people who run this forum can disagree or have different perspectives without taking jabs at the community as whole, so too can everyone else.
  15. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Clearly not. He's only talking about non-white people that are without a lobbying group. Listening to Trump talk about policy is akin to watching a legless man play soccer or an armless man wrestle.