How ya figure. Maybe just don’t use misleading quotes in the headline. It’s not that hard.

Just because someone said it, doesn’t mean it is misleading.

AI slop, or brainwashed person. Does it really matter? No, both hallucinate.

I don’t see how this works in thier favor. Maga people make racist comments wothout needing someone to die. So while charlie comments will die down, MAGA one won’t. So if both sides report, MAGA loses in the long run. Plus, while cheering someones death can be considered in bad taste. Knowingly employing a racist can expose a company to significant legal ramifications.

But God created everything. So he must have created Evil or it wouldn’t exist.

Yeah certainly bad enough they didn’t need a misleading headline to get clicks.

Not to make light of it, but I still hate misleading headlines. Seems most were lied to about work, travelled there and then were trafficed. Which is a lot different than “no woman is safe”. They made it sound like people were roaming the streets abducting any woman they chose anytime… still a horrible thing. Sadly it shows you what men will do when given the opportunity.

Wait a second. You argued that God made the babies… so if the babies were going to be evil… he made them that way. That sounds more like evil to me.

I think the fact that there is a divide at all about murder is pretty informative. Generally speaking, that isn’t a sign of a healthy society. It speaks to how frustrated many people are with society these days. I do believe that social media makes this occurrence drastically different than any other potential societal collapse. So any predictions are worth the cost you pay for them.

deleted by creator

I assume people could tell them where the shot came from, even if they couldn’t identify the shooter. Someone was bound to be looking in that direction and see the flash.

I dunno. Words can kill. Presidents have ordered the assassination of people with words. I doubt hitler ever killed a single person himself. There is a line somewhere. It just hazy.

Um… you can always observe the cat by opening the box, same as you can look up the stock value. Observing the cat doesn’t change it’s actual state. It only changes your knowledge of it. Same as value of a stock. No difference.

As for the definition, you hand picked 2 peices from that whole page. The first one when you read the example below doesn’t even fit your case, so you left that out.

Then you had to do mental gymnastics to make the second one fit. But it was a legal definition. None of this is a legal document, so it doesn’t matter. There is a reason that one is so low on the page.

But whatever. You want to consider stocks going down at any given second to mean you lost money in your head… fine. But when conversing with normal people, you will be hard pressed to find people who agree.

I see. Focusing on the least relevant thing I said to avoid the main point that you can’t contest. Thanks for confirming that.

As for the committee… how do you think the new testament came into being. Some person collected all the writing he liked and declared it the new testament. Then everyone else said sure… we would like to buy a copy…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

By the time it came into being, the church was an organization with power. Such an organization always draws ambitious humans who crave that power and influence. The new testament was crafted to help grow that power and influence.

It is very likely in my opinion that Jesus never even claimed to be the son of god. Probably he was a very charismatic person who actually cared about the well being of people. And so he got popular with the people. Which is why he had to be killed. Then ambitious people leveraged him and his popularity to get what they wanted. Several other modern religions took a similar road.

Interesting. None of that is evidence that God exists. Without a doubt, someone going by the name Jesus (or something like it lost in translation) existed. And a religion was founded based on him. Lots of things happened. People wrote down a lot of things. But those people all had a bias. The vast majority were trying to build a religion. So without a doubt, they embellished and picked the “witness” accounts that supported what they wanted to say.

As for the 3 famous figures mentioned at the start. The same is true. Historians often say that we don’t know the real truth, just what was written.

As for the new testament. It was created by commitee. They hand picked stories and such that created the picture they wanted to present. And plenty of religious historians have pointed out that Christianity borrowed concepts and stories that worked well from previous religions.

So all that proves is that a human being going by the name Jesus existed and had a very influential life. It proves nothing of God.

Do sure the evidence for the god you believe in.

That is basically Schrodinger’s cat. If you don’t open the box, the cat is both dead or alive. So you “could” interpret “lost money” as lost net worth. But if you read it litterally, it wasn’t money. It was an asset. You couldn’t spend it and it doesn’t meet the definition of money. Poorer, I suppose, because you could borrow against that asset, but not as much as before.

I very much agree on the don’t take the terms too seriously. They are just labels. Not entirely arbitrary, but still mostly arbitrary. That said, I do think we are due for a medical revolution anytime now. So I don’t think 200 years. But certainly plenty more time.

There’s no evidence for God period, so your “because” doesn’t support your statement. Of course you also don’t seem to understand basic logic. The lack of evidence never “proves” anything. The presence of evidence “may” prove things.

The kid spread religion online. God killed him for it. Pope makes him a saint. God facepalms and says “How many more kids do I have to kill to show you that you should stop wasting time in church and just be a good person”.