Chesterton said:

Did you listen to the video clip I linked in that post?

Click to expand...

I'm aware of the full context of what he originally said. I've read the whole conversation. The video clip was him trying to double down on that. Effectively saying that an airline would employ a less qualified person, a less able pilot purely on the basis of their colour.

That is abject nonsense and we all know that.

What DEI does in this case is to give more people the opportunity to qualify. It increases the number of people who try to become pilots. And basic common sense will tell you that that will raise standards. Any given airline is going to take the best of any given group.

It rather all depends on how they (re)define our values, doesn't it?

Another point that should be made @stevevw is ignorant of simple trigonometry.
When he sees scans of the upper and lower vase and notes the perpendicularity is 0.003" and 0.005" respectively, his eyes light up and reaches the conclusion this is an example of extraordinary engineering.

What he doesn't know is the magnitude of perpendicularity p depends on the measurement length L as explained in the diagram.

The perpendicularity p is the displacement of the vertical line perpendicular to the horizontal surface as is defined by the formula
p = L.tan(θ).
If L is small then p is small and since the perpendicularity has only been calculated for the top and bottom of the vase, it's not surprising the perpendicularity is small.
If it was possible to measure the perpendicularity over the length of the vase would result in a much larger value. The large cylindricity value as shown in my previous post prevents this as the axis is bent and the central axes at the top and bottom of the vase are not coaxial.

This leads to an interesting point if the individuals concerned are 'professionals' they would know calculating perpendicularity over short distances will artificially lower the value, or may be this was done deliberately as an act of deception.

essentialsaltes said:

This sacredest honor and Sen. Schmitt's speech on What is an American are both redolent of precious bodily fluids that must not be adulterated or diluted.

Click to expand...

What, though, in the cited portion did you find creepy? I'm quite sure both the naturalized US citizens I have in mind wouldn't find it creepy.

Let take a look at those who choose to be with the lord and obey him. Let’s go into Isaiah 56: 1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. 3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. 4For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

God intended for the weekly Sabbath (this word means rest in Hebrew) to be a refreshing blessing for mankind. God knew that human beings would need periodic rest and change from work. But the purpose for keeping God's Sabbath goes far beyond simply resting on that day.

RocksInMyHead said:

See post #104. The issue isn't that ABC chose to cancel his show after what he said. The issue is that ABC chose to cancel his show after the chairman of the FCC threatened them with legal action if they didn't.

How would you feel about the chairman of the FCC under Biden threatening Fox with fines and suspension of their broadcast license if they didn't fire their commentators who perpetuated the lies about the 2020 election?

Click to expand...

First, ABC suspended Kimmel (it hasn't canceled the show) after affiliates did cancel the show by pre-empting it.

Second, I don't recall many rallying around Carlson when Fox canned him for similar reasons.

Third, "How would you feel" is irrelevant. Feelings change with mood, and that is subject to change with the most trivial things, or with nothing at all. What we think is hopefully well grounded in reason.

Fourth, see the first point. This is being portrayed as an action by the FCC, but the affiliates who pre-empted Kimmel says it's not. This is on par with canning Rosanne Barr, Gilbert Gottfried, and many others for what they said. Where was the outrage then?

Tropical Wilds said:

But you were all excited about science when you you were quoting John Q Nobody MS, lol. Now when links are furnished from ACTUAL medical sources that show you’re wrong, suddenly you don’t care.

View attachment 370254

Click to expand...

Well, if you still choose to come at me with that nonsense I will stay comfortably where I am at until you leave. But I am not going anywhere.

Tropical Wilds said:

Think I’m liberal, think I’m conservative, think I’m the lady on the moon, I don’t care. I’m one negroni deep, rounding the corner on two, and feeling the opposite of bothered by your nonsense, lol.

Click to expand...

Good.

Douggg said:

Hi Marilyn,

I agree we won't have long to see. The Gog/Magog attack on Israel will be by a coalition of Muslim nations and Russia. The destruction of those armies by the God of Israel will discredit Islam's god Allah/and Muhammad, and basically end Islam.

The Assyrian of Micah 5:5 could be referring to the leader of the Muslim nations. I think also that maybe Damascus will be destroyed that day.

Click to expand...

Hi Douggg,

Note from God`s word that those Muslim nations that go with the Russian Federation are - Persia, (Iran) Libya and Ethiopia. (Ez. 38: 5) Those 3 extra nations are ONLY SHIA part of Islam. And that is ONLY 10% while the Sunni part are 90%. So we see that Islam will still be outnumbering the EU - 350 million and 2 billion Islam.

Mercy Shown said:

Romans 3:23–25 says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.”

Some interpret this to mean Christ only died for past sins. But that misses Paul’s point. Paul highlights two things at once: (1) God’s justice required a payment even for sins before the cross, and (2) Christ’s sacrifice provides justification “for all who believe” (v.22), which is a present and ongoing reality. The reference to “sins committed beforehand” does not restrict the scope of the atonement but demonstrates that the cross reached backward as well as forward. If Jesus’ death only covered past sins, then believers would stand condemned the moment they sinned again. Yet Paul immediately stresses that justification is by faith apart from works of the law (v.28), meaning it rests on Christ’s once-for-all atonement (cf. Hebrews 10:12, 14). Therefore, Romans 3:23–25 is not narrowing Christ’s death to past sins but showing that His sacrifice is sufficient for all sins—past, present, and future.

Click to expand...

When the bible speaks of laws we no longer have to keep, it is speaking of the animal sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins. Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins).



Now we must believe (have faith) Jesus died for us (Hebrews 10:4,9-10) 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 9 then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This doesn't mean we don't have to obey God's moral laws of conduct. That would be like a man getting paroled from prison and then ignoring the same laws that sent him to prison in the first place. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation (Hebrews 10:26-27) 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The point that is not understood is that we all have sin, but until Jesus came, there was no way of getting out from under your sins. So God institute a Priesthood and laws that went with the priesthood to control the sinning, and so the Lord use animal Sacrificial laws, even though it could not remove sins.

When Jesus died on the cross that was the end of the first covenant, which consisted of the blood of animals and the keeping of God’s commandments. And his death also brought in the second covenant, which consist of the blood of Jesus and the keeping of God’s commandments.

Bradskii said:

He was implying that a black pilot might have got that position not because of his ability to fly a plane but simply because he was black.

Now I don't know whether he actually believed that, in which case I think we can say that he was stupid. Or that he didn't know any better, in which case he should educate himself before talking on such matters. Or that he knew exactly what the situation was but wanted to blow that dog whistle anyway. In which case I'd say that he was not stupid or ill informed but contemptible.

Click to expand...

Did you listen to the video clip I linked in that post?

Chesterton said:

But the people who support violence are the "them" I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

When I say 'us and them' I mean you and me. People like you and me. Those of us who don't support violence or celebrate it. Those of us who don't shoot people or break into the Capitol or excuse those who do.

Chesterton said:

I can think of someone...

Click to expand...

Me too. Trabaja in la casa blanca.

FredVB said:

The commandments in the law which God gave show what sin is, and sin is separating any from God. God's grace is needed and with Christ sent from God and the way of atonement provided through his all he did for it the way of deliverance is provided, with faith that is with our repentance that has it possible through Christ. This is not removing us from commandments but from judgment with the law. The sins they show are such for us to turn from in coming to God to willingly live in God's will for us.

Click to expand...

When the bible speaks of laws we no longer have to keep, it is speaking of the animal sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins. Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins).

Now we must believe (have faith) Jesus died for us (Hebrews 10:4,9-10) 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 9 then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This doesn't mean we don't have to obey God's moral laws of conduct. That would be like a man getting paroled from prison and then ignoring the same laws that sent him to prison in the first place. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation (Hebrews 10:26-27) 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The point that is not understood is that we all have sin, but until Jesus came, there was no way of getting out from under your sins. So God institute a Priesthood and laws that went with the priesthood to control the sinning, and so the Lord use animal Sacrificial laws, even though it could not remove sins.

When Jesus died on the cross that was the end of the first covenant, which consisted of the blood of animals and the keeping of God’s commandments. And his death also brought in the second covenant, which consist of the blood of Jesus and the keeping of God’s commandments.

FreeinChrist said:

According to God, yes it is immoral.

Click to expand...

Of course.

Oompa Loompa said:

And you know what? I dont care. Scientific brain rot build on a layered pyramid of scientific brain rot with a foundation of "how do we normalize weird sex stuff."

Click to expand...

But you were all excited about science when you you were quoting John Q Nobody MS, lol. Now when links are furnished from ACTUAL medical sources that show you’re wrong, suddenly you don’t care.

Benaiah468 said:

In 2014, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) conducted a study on anti-Semitism in one hundred countries and entities. The top ten countries, in each of which over 80 per cent of the population holds anti-Semitic views, all belong to the Arab and Muslim world. The "West Bank" and Gaza topped the list with 93 per cent. Despite this fact, Sanders believes that good relations between the United States and Israel should depend on Israel improving its relations with the "Palestinians".

Click to expand...

For some reason, people continue to use the term 'anti-Semitic' by which they mean anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist or anti-Israel.


The point being that many of the people in this conflict are Semitic people, so it is just as useful to accuse Netanyahu of being anti-Semitic in his endeavour to obliterate Gaza to create a playground for the rich and famous, as it is to accuse HAMAS or the Palestinian people of being anti-Semitic.

And why does Rom 11:26 that. and so. all of. Israeli will be saved ???????

In Romans 11:28 says :

# 1 AS CONCERNING //. KATA , IS. A PREPOSTION

# 2 THE. // HO , is a DEFINITE ARTICLE

# 3 GOSPEL. // EUANGELION. , in. the ACCUSATIVE CASE , in. the Singular , in. the Plural

# 4. THEY ARE. //. was added

# 5 ENEMIES. // ECHTHROS. , is in. the Nominative Case , in. the Plural

# 6 FOR // DIA. , PREPOSIATION

# 7. YOUR // HYMAS , PERSONAL POSSESSEIVE PRONOUN. , in the ACCUSATIVE Case , in the Plural

# 8. SAKE //. DIA , is a Conjuncation

# 9. BUT //. DE. , is a Conjuncaion

# 10. AS TOUCHING. // KATO , is a PREPOSTION

# 11 THE // HO , is a Definite Auricle. in. the ACCUSAIVE Case , in the Singular

# 12 ELECTION. // ekloge in. the Accusative Case , in. the Singular

# 13. THEY ARE , was added

# 14 BELOVED // AGOPETOS , in. the NOMINATIVE CASE , in. the Plural

# 15 FOR // DIA , is a Proposition

# 16 THE //. HO , in. ACCUSATIVE CASE , is plural

# 17. FATHERS. // PATER , in. the Accusative Case

# 18 SAKES // DIA. is a Preposition

dan p

ThatRobGuy said:

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that "determining fault" is often used as a precursor to advancing policy.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means or how it could be relevant.

Oompa Loompa said:

I dont care what you say. You will know them by their fruits.

Click to expand...

Think I’m liberal, think I’m conservative, think I’m the lady on the moon, I don’t care. I’m one negroni deep, rounding the corner on two, and feeling the opposite of bothered by your nonsense, lol.

Chesterton said:

...because trying to curtail freedoms is immoral, right? All of the Amendments are moral statements. The whole Constitution is, except for some procedural matters. The Declaration of Independence is about morality. All men are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Hitler didn't believe that. Stalin didn't believe that. A lot of the contemporary Left don't believe that, and that's why we consider them all to be immoral men.

Same thing. Ensuring the existence of a free society is a moral value judgment. Although I'm curious what you'd think of this - if you and I were stranded on a desert island with no hope of returning to society, would it be immoral if I killed you? (I know it sounds crazy to kill your only human companionship, but maybe I don't want to share limited food, or maybe you're just too annoying. )

Click to expand...

According to God, yes it is immoral.

Chesterton said:

Of course I've heard the clip. Why else would I be talking about it? If you can't figure it out, what he was saying was if there were no such thing as affirmative action, I would not wonder about a black pilot. But because of affirmative action, it can be legitimate to have a concern.

Click to expand...

He was implying that a black pilot might have got that position not because of his ability to fly a plane but simply because he was black.

Now I don't know whether he actually believed that, in which case I think we can say that he was stupid. Or that he didn't know any better, in which case he should educate himself before talking on such matters. Or that he knew exactly what the situation was but wanted to blow that dog whistle anyway. In which case I'd say that he was not stupid or ill informed but contemptible.

Pommer said:

It’s not a “news show”.

Click to expand...

Are people not allowed to react and/or not like something someone says?

RDKirk said:

I'm not impressed that he didn't know or deliberately blurred the difference between Affirmative Action and DEI.

Click to expand...

There's a little difference in approach, but substantially no difference.

RDKirk said:

But inasmuch as he also considered the Civil Rights Act to be a mistake, I wouldn't have invited him to my barbeque.

I was here before the Civil Rights Act...I remember life before the Civil Rights Act.

Click to expand...

You're free to invite or not invite anyone you want to your barbeque.

The Barbarian said:

So would sexual assault be a sexual deviancy? I'd really like to know what you think.

Click to expand...

I bet you would.