That's kind of myopic. Not everyone chooses their morals...you just sort of acquire them through living and learning. And obviously they're not always good either.
I'm using similar line of thinking as Sharkbait is. Different people choose morals and values while some learn what morals and values are best for them and etc. I just see more theists as having morals and values for selfish reasons, but I don't think it applies to all theists. I just find it extremely stupid to claim atheists' morals and values either don't exist or change or are bad when there's no proof to back that up. I mean, Hicks was an atheist when he executed the three Muslim teenagers, but KKK were/are Christians who go after anyone that doesn't agree with their views or are Christians.
Not that I think much of religious people, but that doesn't even make sense. Even if it's just because of the afterlife, having good morals is still their choice as much as it is an atheist's choice. On the contrary, using that logic makes it seem like religious people are better human beings since they'll always uphold their morals because they technically have to because of their faith, as opposed to atheists who could go through a hard time in life and drop all their good morals because of it. You said it yourself that their morals are influenced by environment and experiences, which includes a bad environment and bad experiences. So by your logic religious people offer far more stability.
More or less would relate to the circumstances of your life. So whether you choose or learn more depends on your experience. Obviously it's all more complicated than just one or the other. It's all a combination of different mediums born of diverse life experience. Whatever you do more would just relate to what you're exposed to the most.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
My parents are both Christian. Both accept and support my sexuality, the only real gripe is my father who told me he didn't care who I brought home, so long as they weren't black.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-up-protesters-now-that-its-happened-can-he/
You could get into a debate forever about this, because it would travel in circles. The only thing that I feel is absolute, from the bible, is that there are no exceptions for love. You cannot make exceptions because they don't share the same religion, or the same sexuality. My point is that people are individual people, and there is no "true Christian", not just because you have a ton of different variations of the Christian belief, but because people aren't that simple. What they believe, is what they believe to be true.
I know plenty of homosexuals who are still religious, and even when their parents are religious it doesn't mean they'll disown their kid/s. It all depends though. I mean, not all Christian parents will say "you want to fuck your own gender? OUTTA MY HOUSE!!!"
Is it really completely their choice or are they being bribed to have good morals and values?
How is he encouraging such violence? Then why don't you see Trump supporters disrupting rallies of other politicians, especially on this scale? Are you actually defending those sick people in what happened?
You want to make a philosophical discussion of "what is a choice"? And comparing faith to "bribery" makes no sense.
What? How would they "find out" it's a scam? They themselves decided to believe in something that can't be proven or disproved, yet you say they can find proof to disprove it? Are you suggesting there is actual proof that the afterlife doesn't exist?
This speaks volumes of you as a person, and they're really bad volumes. You obviously have no clue how the first amendment and freedom of speech works, which is sad if you're actually an american. There's also limits to protesting rights in America. You can protest, but disrupting a private event inside a private, rented area is going against the law. Please go inform yourself what free speech and protesting entail before spouting such nonsense.
What do you mean how? Trump is doing that in the explicit and literal meaning of the word. As in, protesters show up and trump literally tells them to be violent against them.
It depends, sometimes he says "don't hurt them" or "be gentle". But yes he does not like protesters. So your point? How is that alone enough to encourage violence of this scale? People attacking policemen and destroying cars?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Indeed, which is why I expect this event to actually be helpful for Trump as he can play the victim card to either get more people on his side or to further reinforce the ones he already has.
No, I'm not condoning violence. But I'm not going to be against the right to protest either. Those people waited in line and made their intentions known ahead of time. His security has been kicking people out of events preemptively...I wonder how they screen these people to determine whether they're supporters or not...?
It's clear what Trump thinks of them and he doesn't seem to care that it goes both ways. The guy has literally told people not to vote unless they vote for him. I don't think he respects the actual democratic process itself. But he's not necessarily alone in that, with Cruz's campaign basically telling people that Carson was dropping out of the race when he didn't. Cruz is just as much scum as he is, but he's right in saying that Trump basically encourages violence at his rallies...I mean, there's recorded evidence of it. So no, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Was probably only a matter of time.
"You wearing a MAGA hat? Come on in then!"I wonder how they screen these people to determine whether they're supporters or not...?
The right to protest? You have no right to protest inside a private area. They can protest outside but not inside, surely I as a European don't have to tell you the limitations of protesting and the law of private places in America do I? Want me to come to your house and start making a ruckus, exercising my "free speech" and my "right to protest"?
Yes, so why are they attacking policemen when they dislike Trump? These people seem to have more issues than just being triggered by Trump.
They waited in line like everyone else. I mean, I haven't seen much footage, nor was I there obviously. Trump even said himself that the rally could have still gone on but they cancelled it. So why was it cancelled then? It isn't like Trump hasn't very loudly had protesters removed from him rallies before. This entire thing probably playing into what he wanted in the end might not be much of an accident.
Of course, as I'm sure most of them weren't inside anyway.
More than 10,000 people signed up for one march. There's been huge apprehension regarding his rally being in Chicago for a while now. I haven't seen evidence of vandalism, but you can't act like such things are reason as to why people shouldn't have a right to assemble. Last time I checked, people were arrested.
Trump saying "be gentle" or "don't hurt them" does not mean anything if he is the one telling people to attack protesters to begin with. The context here is basically "rough them up, not too much, but you have my support to rough them up". This is him literally encouraging violence, it does not get any more explicit than that. It more than accounts for violence of this scale and if anything it's only going to escalate.
I've seen plenty of media coverage of what was done. Some friendly blm people were even shooting their guns upwards for...some reason. I've even accidentally been watching the stream and could see some of the initial footage. Overall it ain't a pretty sight. Not something a person expects to see in America. People can assemble and express themselves, shutting down others is where the line gets crossed.Of course, as I'm sure most of them weren't inside anyway.
"It more than accounts for violence of this scale and if anything it's only going to escalate." O-okay then, let's equate throwing out troublemakers to all that happened and to the escalation you expect. Surely one warrants the other..
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---