User Profile: Blest

Blest

Member Since: January 11, 2013

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • August 31, 2015 at 5:28pm

    William Avitt,

    I understand that. But how can you consider a medical professional who spends years of their life researching what drugs can do to you being in the same camp as some teenager or random person trying to score some drugs?

    I’m fine with people using drugs responsibly for medicine and for the benefit of mankind. But why do Libertarians always seem to drop the “non-aggression principle” whenever that aggression is against themselves? Do Libertarians not consider themselves to be people? If you do something that harms yourself, isn’t that wrong? Doesn’t that violate the non-aggression principle, since you are harming yourself?

    It’s like people who say they should have the right to commit suicide, but that murder should be illegal. Why should somebody have the right to murder themselves, but they can’t murder other people?

    I honestly don’t understand why people hold their own lives in such contempt, and think they should be able to do whatever they want to themselves. Do they think their life doesn’t matter? Why don’t libertarians ever deal with this issue?

    Maybe Libertarians should adopt a new principle. “If I wouldn’t do something to another person, I won’t do it to myself either.” If you wouldn’t drug somebody else, don’t do it to yourself. If you wouldn’t spike somebody else’s drink, don’t do it to yourself. If you wouldn’t kill somebody else, don’t do it to yourself.

    That’s a Libertarian I can respect and support.

    In reply to the contribution The History of Libertarianism in Pop Culture

  • [-3] August 31, 2015 at 5:01pm

    Right. Just like it’s “interesting” to see artifacts that people think were brought here by aliens, right?

    Seriously, there’s no possible way to figure out how old something is if it’s been in a bog or swamp and petrified. People in Florida have found petrified skateboards, and pickles and all sorts of weird stuff in the Everglades, because it only takes a couple of years to petrify something in a swamp.

    Where do you get this crap from? I mean, I can understand why Russia is idiotic when it comes to science. They’re 6 decades behind the rest of the world in most fields, and a century behind the rest of the world when it comes to things like the humanities. But you’re not Russian. Why don’t you know the basics of chemistry?

    My only guess is that you went to a public school.

  • [9] August 31, 2015 at 4:53pm

    For the same reason why an EMP wouldn’t be effective against the Amish.
    They don’t rely on electricity like we do.

  • [30] August 31, 2015 at 4:18pm

    This woman was not crazy. She was following exactly the logical path from liberalism and abortion ideology to its natural and rational conclusion. The argument for abortion is that if somebody will suffer, it’s better to kill them than to let them suffer. She said she didn’t want her kids to grow up with difficult lives, so she killed them.

    It’s the same liberal ideology that says a cancer patient who is dying should be killed by the doctor or given assisted suicide to avoid suffering.

    You see, we are all dying. So anybody who accepts liberalism as a worldview will logically and naturally conclude that it’s okay to kill anybody, as long as you believe that they are going to die someday anyway (which we all are) and that in the meantime, they will suffer a great deal.

    So the logic goes that death now without suffering is better than life with suffering, followed by death later. It’s literally the definition of cowardice and it is the perverse mentality that exists in every case of suicidal depression.

    This is basically the liberal ideology:
    “Torturing and killing a terrorist by ripping him apart while he’s naked: EVIL! Torturing and killing an innocent baby by ripping him apart while he’s naked: COMPASSION!”

    Responses (2) +
  • [-1] August 31, 2015 at 4:05pm

    I don’t see how this is even an issue. I mean, if Bruce Jenner is a woman, and Rachel Dolezal is black, then obviously this makes no sense. I mean, what if we wake up tomorrow and it’s no longer a mountain, but rather an ocean? Or what if the mountain decides to be the moon? Who can possibly claim that it isn’t?

    The word “Denali” is obviously racist, sexist, cisgendered transphobic fundamentalist religious dogma from ancient Alaskan superstition. But then again, so are words like “Mountain”, because it’s in the Bible. And Obama clearly said that he can’t pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe and which to ignore.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] August 31, 2015 at 3:52pm

    To paraphrase one of the greatest movies of all time,

    “Here’s a perfect example of what I’ve been talkin’ about. Ever since these folks were suckin’ on their mamas’ teets, they’ve been given everything but discipline. And now their idea of courage and adulthood is to get together with a bunch of their punk friends, and go around irritating folks who are too good-natured to put a stop to it.”

    Don’t piss off old people. They didn’t survive all this time by being weak.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkccqolaVGg

  • August 31, 2015 at 3:45pm

    Why can’t we, “The-Monk”?
    Are you saying you need the government to fight evil for you?

    How very progressive of you.

    You do realize that relying upon evil to fight evil is like relying on mold to clean your toilet. The government is inherently evil. It is a necessary evil, and a lesser evil than others in the world, but an evil nonetheless. Putting your faith in one evil to battle another evil is absurd. Even if your perfect political candidates are the ones in office, they are still occupying a position of evil, and it will corrupt them over time.

    If you cannot handle the little evils like ISIS or abortion, what makes you think you can handle the great evils, the rulers of darkness, which operate in national and global governments?

  • August 31, 2015 at 3:38pm

    Why can’t we, “The-Monk”?
    Are you saying you need the government to fight evil for you?

    How very progressive of you.

  • August 31, 2015 at 3:37pm

    She wasn’t alone. She was with a group that left her behind when they got separated.

    She was prepared. She had a water bottle with a filter in it, and a whistle to blow to call for help.

  • August 31, 2015 at 3:35pm

    She’s 62 years old, and crawled across the desert with broken bones to find water.
    She’s one tough old lady…

  • [9] August 31, 2015 at 3:05pm

    I don’t understand. So… it’s illegal for cops and FBI agents and people like that to have foster children because they own guns?

  • [3] August 31, 2015 at 2:55pm

    Yup.
    And Jesus didn’t need expensive perfume poured on his feet either.

    If you’re going to take something out of the Bible and use it for your everyday life, you might try using the parts that Jesus said, not the parts that Judas said…

  • [9] August 28, 2015 at 1:52pm

    You’re wrong. He’s not saying “If only everyone in America believed my religion, this wouldn’t have happened.”

    If people chose to avoid alcohol, there would be no drunk driving accidents in our country. If people chose to work instead of draw welfare, there would be no giant entitlement bureaucracy in our country. Those are statements of fact, not pushing a narrative.

    Matt Walsh is stating a fact, not pushing a narrative.

    The difference is that some opinions and beliefs are rooted in truth. Other opinions and beliefs are rooted in lies. It’s like a doctor condemning a drug dealer’s actions. Both the doctor and the drug dealer are in the business of administering drugs to people. But the context and reason behind the actions are completely different.

    That’s what is known as the Moral Law. The moral content of a transaction is dependent upon a lot of things, not just the action or the end results. If a drug dealer accidentally cures somebody of cancer, the drug dealer is still intentionally doing evil. If the doctor accidentally prescribes an overdose of medication to somebody and they die, the doctor is still intentionally doing good.

    You seem to be suffering from some unfortunate delusions, like moral relativism and categorical errors.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 28, 2015 at 1:37pm

    Wow. Why are people down-voting what I said? I hate it when people do that, and don’t leave any kind of reply. Crazy.

  • [5] August 28, 2015 at 1:34pm

    If you are a kid, and you ask your parents for a bike, and they say “Get a job,” that is an answer to your request. As a kid, you don’t necessarily understand the link between “I want a bike” and “Get a job”, but your parents DO understand the link, and are telling you how your request should be granted.

    That’s sort of the same way God deals with people. People are really, really dense sometimes. A great example of this is the story of the man with leprosy who is instructed to go wash in the river by one of God’s prophets. What does washing in a river have to do with leprosy? It makes no sense to our minds, just like “get a job” doesn’t seem to have anything to do with wanting a bicycle.

  • [2] August 28, 2015 at 1:25pm

    It’s because they are cowards. They are attacking a group of people just to stir up trouble, and then hide behind the shroud of anonymity. It’s LITERALLY the definition of an internet troll. They’re just doing it in real life.

    That’s what all internet trolls do. They hide behind anonymity so they can treat people horribly and have no consequences to their actions. They’re basically like homophobic gay bashers, but instead of hating gay people, they hate Christians.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] August 28, 2015 at 1:17pm

    I guess you think that Plato and Aristotle are articles of faith too, not actual history. I mean, we know way more about the life of Jesus than of those people. We have way more historical evidence for Jesus than them.

    And if Jesus was a real person, which is what history overwhelmingly agrees upon, then Jesus was born somewhere. And the only evidence we have points to Bethlehem. Unless you’ve got evidence of some other location, you can’t exactly dispute anybody else’s evidence, can you?

  • [-2] August 28, 2015 at 1:14pm

    Okay, so you don’t believe Jesus was born? Do you think Jesus was an imaginary figure? If not, he was born somewhere, right?

    Well, if he wasn’t born in Bethlehem, where was he born? What evidence do you have that he was born someplace else? Because without an alternative location in mind with better evidence, you can’t actually dispute the evidence given.

    Do you even history, bro?

  • [-1] August 28, 2015 at 1:13pm

    Yeah. I’m obviously at a loss when it comes to using reason. I mean, I’m down there in the ranks of idiocy with people like Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, and so on. I mean, they were all devout Christians who believed in the Nativity as historically true. They believed that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. They believed these things, and it was the engine that drove their science.

    Perhaps you are the one who is lacking reason. No offense, intended, and this is just an observation based on your typing skills… I doubt you could even read, let alone comprehend, the works these men are famous for.

    I admire your bravery though, thinking that you can challenge the whole of Christendom with only half a brain. As a show of respect, I’ll leave you with the BURN I just hit you with, and you may recover at your leisure.

  • [-1] August 28, 2015 at 12:58pm

    For people saying the Bible isn’t historically valid, here’s the scholar Gary Habermas explaining why it is:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c28-nsrlpsw

    People sometimes claim “Well, we have coins that show Alexander the Great was around before his biographies were written.” To which Mr. Habermas would reply, “Yes, and we find little drawings and carvings of Ichthys fish – you know, the little Fishers of Men symbol – we find those in abundance just like we find Roman coins.”

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love