Obama on Marc Maron’s Podcast: Racism Is More Than ‘N****r’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kyle902;48030357]After all the burden of proof is on you right now.[/QUOTE] no see cause he doesn't believe in logic so he doesn't have to prove his claim but you do so you have to prove him wrong, those are the ruels

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030362]That doesn't matter, what matter is that doctrinally speaking they were considered objective because they were divinely inspired.[/QUOTE] I didn't know God's word actually being God's word was insignificant :v:

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030362]That doesn't matter, what matter is that doctrinally speaking they were considered objective because they were divinely inspired.[/QUOTE] my god said kill all jews there's an objective moral for you

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030362]That doesn't matter, what matter is that doctrinally speaking they were considered objective because they were divinely inspired.[/QUOTE] so they are subjectively considered objective, that doesn't make them objective.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030303]You do realize that it's specifically religions that actually have a concept of objective morals, or things being right because they are good?[/QUOTE] No they don't. There are plenty of different philosophies that embrace the idea of Objective morality while simultaneously denying the existence of god.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030362]That doesn't matter, what matter is that doctrinally speaking they were considered objective because they were divinely inspired. I'm still finding it hard to believe that you guys are actually having trouble finding objective morals in the Bible of all places.[/QUOTE] That's not how this works. You make a claim you provide citations or concede the point

He's not going to even attempt to carry the burden of proof, you guys. He's going to single out one snippet of one of our posts and then try to railroad the discussion in that direction. I suggest not engaging him until he supports the argument he made already.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;48030370]That's not how this works. You make a claim you provide citations or concede the point[/QUOTE] he can't concede it's against his subjectively objective moral obligations

Holy fuck, Obama is the coolest dude on the planet.

i think the problems falls to bigfatworm12 thinking the bible is an objective source

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030336]I'm genuinely confused, most people on this site are dead-set against the concept of objective morality in favour of moral relativity. Are you all just being contrary or did I come across some of the weirder members? Obviously if you have a secular outlook you don't have an objective basis for your morals. Also the the ten commandments are a pretty obvious place to start if your looking for objective morals in religion.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure most religions don't even have 100% objective morals, doesn't the bible contradict itself in a few places? Absolutely everything can be reinterpreted. Thou shalt not kill doesn't say anything about self defense for example. [editline]23rd June 2015[/editline] Whoa that was a lot of posts right there.

Hell unless he can read hebrew and gets access to an original hebrew bible then he has no way of proving his point

Remember; something objectively true and fact has the firmest roots in the religion where most of the believers can't even get the guy they believe in's race right

Ignore him. He's trying to debate you guys on Christianity, theocracies, and semantics, and he's still got a huge wall of text from Ziks from another thread he don't dare touch. This guy cuts and runs at the hint of actual opposition once his stubbornness runs out

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48030427]Ignore him. He's trying to debate you guys on Christianity, theocracies, and semantics, and he's still got a huge wall of text from Ziks from another thread he don't dare touch. This guy cuts and runs at the hint of actual opposition once his stubbornness runs out[/QUOTE] we're in the "passive-aggressive rating" phase right now

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48030427]Ignore him. He's trying to debate you guys on Christianity, theocracies, and semantics, and he's still got a huge wall of text from Ziks from another thread he don't dare touch. This guy cuts and runs at the hint of actual opposition once his stubbornness runs out[/QUOTE] Yeah but arguing is just plain fun, plus it's always good practice because it makes you think why something's wrong for when you're debating someone actually worth a fuck at debating

guys, why is it illegal for me to use chemical weapons on people I disagree with? I mean, I can't think of a single way to distinguish between talking with someone like an equal and locking them in a closest filled with mustard gas. Yeah, I wouldn't want to be murdered with chemical weapons, but who's to say the law should keep me from being killed? Not that murder is real, cause I just proved it isn't.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48030443]Yeah but arguing is just plain fun, plus it's always good practice because it makes you think why something's wrong for when you're debating someone actually worth a fuck at debating[/QUOTE] To be fair this is less debate more "bludgeoning your head against a wall repeatedly".

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48029772]Just think about it for a second, in its essence a religion is a philosophical outlook on the world and a moral code, secular neo-liberalism is precisely that. So we essentially have a sort of civic religion already, we just don't call it that. [editline]blah[/editline] If you prefer having the state employ your philosophical and moral outlook, then you are in favour of mixing religion with government practically speaking.[/QUOTE] anyone who thinks religion and state should mix are too fucked in the head to be reasoned with. it's something that absolutely cannot mix. I'll never even bother justifying my statement either because the people who try to justify the opposite can't either. You can't reason with crazy people. Even most sane religious people think that those people are stupid.

[QUOTE=J!NX;48030502]anyone who thinks religion and state should mix are too fucked in the head to be reasoned with. it's something that absolutely cannot mix. I'll never even bother justifying my statement either because the people who try to justify the opposite can't either. You can't reason with stupid people. Even most sane religious people think that those people are stupid.[/QUOTE] please don't diss my hobby

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48030522]please don't diss my hobby[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I meant to say "Crazy people" we are still bros random stranger right? it's my hobby too I swear! (i somewhat miss the joke because it's late what is going ooonn)

[QUOTE=sgman91;48027684]I listened to the whole thing, and it was just the liberal talking points with a whole lot of meaningless platitudes. Obama's not going to help anything by giving an exclusive interview to a liberal idealogue's podcast. My favorite parts: - "the other side is opposed to rational, fact based arguments." Nice job breaking down those political barriers Mr. President! - The government needs to step in and be parents to kids in poor areas by giving them "love," "meals," "engagement," and "words" with pre-school. That's the way to improve these areas. In this end, this is pandering to the left. It's a liberal president, talking to a liberal host, about liberal talking points and meaningless niceties.[/QUOTE] Let's face it: compared to conservatives in the US, I'd trust "liberals" (despite how conservative prominent ones in the US actually are) with anything in this country at the moment. Conservatives can piss right off with how little of an actual [i]help[/i] they've been to America the past few decades.

[QUOTE=J!NX;48030532]I'm sorry, I meant to say "Crazy people" we are still bros random stranger right? it's my hobby too I swear! (i somewhat miss the joke because it's late what is going ooonn)[/QUOTE] my hobby is reasoning with stupid and or crazy people and i will try that no matter what you tell me

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48030586]my hobby is reasoning with stupid and or crazy people and i will try that no matter what you tell me[/QUOTE] You're on an endless journey that will drive you into insanity if that's the case!

[QUOTE=J!NX;48030590]You're on an endless journey that will drive you into insanity if that's the case![/QUOTE] i feel it is the debate equivalent of a grindstone

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48030603]i feel it is the debate equivalent of a grindstone[/QUOTE] Bludgeoning your head against a grindstone works too

I spent like 30 minutes listening to this podcast looking for the line and got so bored that i fucked up my EDM remix [video=youtube;lYAF0qgPsu4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYAF0qgPsu4[/video]

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;48030336]I'm genuinely confused, most people on this site are dead-set against the concept of objective morality in favour of moral relativity. Are you all just being contrary or did I come across some of the weirder members? Obviously if you have a secular outlook you don't have an objective basis for your morals. Also the the ten commandments are a pretty obvious place to start if your looking for objective morals in religion.[/QUOTE] Do not kill. [editline]23rd June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48030443]Yeah but arguing is just plain fun, plus it's always good practice because it makes you think why something's wrong for when you're debating someone actually worth a fuck at debating[/QUOTE] Except not, as the New Testament is both amended and incomplete of the source derivation, as documented by the Council of Nicaea, and directly contradicted the Old Testament. Worth a fuck implies objective evidence, of which the current Bible is not remotely, even when taken as a direct translation from Aramaic.

[QUOTE=Levithan;48027758]when the right denies basic shit like climate change I think it's fair to claim that they're opposed to fact-based arguments[/QUOTE] Wow. USA got some ring wing nutjobs, now going to generalize the worlds right wing as all the bad political policies/behavior and all the left wing in the world as being all the good political policies/behavior, that makes things a lot easier! When reality is that USA isnt even on a political scale anymore they are so far right. In the rest of the world right wing is very center right. That Center right includes all the good stuff from socialism and being for the environment in the right way (nuclear power etc). Without the dictatorship oppression and environmental terrorists.

All the fuss about Obama using the N word reminds me of 4th grade. Wolf Blitzer was interviewing someone about it and said "Why not use "the N Word" instead of the actual word?" All I could think of was What's the fucking difference, idiot? Does context not fucking mean shit anymore