Las Malv I’m not sure he will attempt to defend the Thailand trip, because he hasn’t really attempted to defend it so far. Despite saying in his livestream that trafficking and ethics is “a conversation worth having”, he has never engaged in that conversation since. (The bizarre assertion of ‘racism’ on Andrew Gold’s show notwithstanding - which went down like a lead balloon) Instead he has relied on vague assertions that people have “lied about him”, and I suppose he just hopes that his patrons won’t look into the details. It seems he has come to realise that there is no way of presenting his actions that will be acceptable to most people, so he has decided to avoid specifics. But I hope you are correct and he does attempt to justify his Thailand trip, because as long as the core facts are stated, then I don’t think there is any way of him presenting them that won’t alienate most of his audience.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
-
26
Scottish National Party + Nazis
by BoogerMan inhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scottish_national_party - "however, others in the party were explicitly pro-nazi.
hugh macdiarmid, who stood as an snp candidate in 1945, believed that the nazis were "less dangerous than our own government" and wrote a poem about the london blitz that included the line "i hardly care".
arthur donaldson, who went on to lead the party between 1961 and 1969, believed a nazi invasion would benefit scotland: "the government would leave the country and england's position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on germany.
-
-
slimboyfat
peacefulpete I left the SNP because it has gone soft on independence, the leader is a liar who should have been removed from office, and they are increasingly incompetent. I don’t agree with their self-certification policy for trans people either, but for me that is a minor issue. Scottish independence is much bigger than one party. As I said, there are many Labour voters who support independence too.
Of course you are correct that the SNP has evolved over the decades. Nowadays it is left-centre party, to the left of other mainstream parties in the UK. Anti-SNP partisans try to imply that SNP don’t have a left-centre past, and that they are not entirely peaceful by distorting the actions of some in the SNP nearly a century ago. The only people that find these sorts of slurs relevant are extreme unionists largely talking to themselves. It has no legitimate place in the conversation about the majority of Scots who now want the country to be independent. It’s a desperate attempt to deflect from the basic issue of democracy - that a majority vote for independence should be respected.
-
26
Scottish National Party + Nazis
by BoogerMan inhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scottish_national_party - "however, others in the party were explicitly pro-nazi.
hugh macdiarmid, who stood as an snp candidate in 1945, believed that the nazis were "less dangerous than our own government" and wrote a poem about the london blitz that included the line "i hardly care".
arthur donaldson, who went on to lead the party between 1961 and 1969, believed a nazi invasion would benefit scotland: "the government would leave the country and england's position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on germany.
-
-
slimboyfat
You can play games with any election result by excluding non voters if you like. By your own criteria did England vote to leave the EU? Or how many voted for the government in 2019? Or do you only apply these special criteria to election results you don’t agree with?
I’d just point out that rigging the system against Scotland is a failed strategy because in 1979 Scotland was denied devolution on the basis of a dodgy, last-minute adjustment to the voting criteria which demanded more than a majority. All it achieved was to foster resentment and resulted in a huge majority for devolution 18 years later. Will unionists ever learn that attempting to deny democracy doesn’t work?
-
26
Scottish National Party + Nazis
by BoogerMan inhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scottish_national_party - "however, others in the party were explicitly pro-nazi.
hugh macdiarmid, who stood as an snp candidate in 1945, believed that the nazis were "less dangerous than our own government" and wrote a poem about the london blitz that included the line "i hardly care".
arthur donaldson, who went on to lead the party between 1961 and 1969, believed a nazi invasion would benefit scotland: "the government would leave the country and england's position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on germany.
-
-
slimboyfat
If this is a dig at me I’ll just mention that I have torn up my SNP card, and I am no longer a member of the party. There are plenty of other parties that support independence: Greens, Scottish Socialists, Solidarity, Alba, RISE, and others. (As far as I know, I haven’t actually checked up on the current status of the smaller parties, and they may have split/joined/changed names) Plus there are plenty of supporters of other parties who also support independence. In particular something approaching a half of Labour voters support independence in the latest poll. (I’ll go and check that out and add it to this post, if I can’t find it.)
If you want to talk about authoritarian or fascist tendencies, then what do you call it when the Supreme Court in another country declares that Scotland has no democratic mechanism for leaving its supposed “voluntary union” with England?
Can’t find the party data, but this is the long term attitudes survey that shows support for independence rising over the past few decades to over 50%.
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
slimboyfat
“Churn” is backstage YouTuber vocabulary, to borrow from Erving Goffman’s terminology. LE isn’t bright enough realise you’re not meant to use the word in “front-stage”, as it were.
https://www.thoughtco.com/goffmans-front-stage-and-back-stage-behavior-4087971
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
slimboyfat
He's the puss-filled hemorrhoid on the ex-JW world's ass.
You’re too kind
-
11530
It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
slimboyfat
The real number of the beast was 616 and we missed it.
His patron numbers seem to be dropping now in the middle of the month as well as the end of the month. Are people getting wise to him quicker as the decline gathers pace?
-
11
Two Translators Who Restored God’s Name to the NT
by Wonderment inone of the first prayers that many people learn is the lord’s prayer, which jesus taught his followers.
this prayer is found in what is commonly called the new testament.
the prayer begins: “our father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified [or hallowed].” (matthew 6:9) yet, god’s name, rendered in english as “jehovah” or sometimes “yahweh,” is rarely found in english translations of the new testament.
-
-
slimboyfat
Very interesting, a more substantial article than we are accustomed to these days. With the magazines being all but retired, I don’t suppose it will appear in print.
There is a copy of the Hermann Heinfetter translation on the archive website, but I discovered, when using it to collate the instances of ‘Jehovah’, unfortunately there are many pages missing from that online copy.
-
28
Jesus as 'The mighty + almighty God'
by JW Answers injehovah's witnesses refuse to believe that jesus is the almighty god.
they would state that jesus is 'mighty', but not almighty.. below is a 30 minute video proving from the word of god that the lord jesus christ is both mighty and almighty, separate from the father but equal too.. the verses used from scripture show without a doubt that christ is mighty (isaiah 9:6) and almighty (rev 1:7-8)..
-
-
slimboyfat
Plantinga’s argument isn’t against the reliability of our senses. It is an argument against the reliability of our senses given that naturalism is true. Since Plantinga rejects naturalism he is in a position to affirm the reliability of our senses on the basis that they are the result of more than just natural processes but the result of the intention of God.
As Joe Schmidt explains in the video, the proposition that all true knowledge rests on science is self defeating because science relies on basic assumptions that cannot be proved by science.
Evolution explains false beliefs just as well as it explains true beliefs. For example, why do we shiver when we hear a rustle in the bushes on a dark night? Evolution has programmed us to have a hypersensitivity to threat that in many ways creates an inaccurate picture of reality in order to boost survival. Given that evolution can produce such mistaken perceptions on a most basic level of everyday experience, why should we assume that evolution should have equipped us to accurately perceive, assess, make sound arguments concerning questions at such a high order of abstraction as the origins and meaning of the universe?
Once again, I should point out that I’m not arguing that humans are incapable of perceiving reality (I think Donald Hoffman is wrong about that, but he’s definitely worth checking out). The point is that given that we are able to perceive the world around us accurately, divine intention that humans should be equipped to understand the world is the best explanation for that fact.
-
28
Jesus as 'The mighty + almighty God'
by JW Answers injehovah's witnesses refuse to believe that jesus is the almighty god.
they would state that jesus is 'mighty', but not almighty.. below is a 30 minute video proving from the word of god that the lord jesus christ is both mighty and almighty, separate from the father but equal too.. the verses used from scripture show without a doubt that christ is mighty (isaiah 9:6) and almighty (rev 1:7-8)..
-
-
slimboyfat
Disillusioned JW, one of the reasons I began ‘doubting’ atheism is because I realised just how bad some of the atheist arguments being promoted at the time were. See this video by Joe Schmidt, himself an agnostic, detailing weakness of arguments by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and others:
To me the argument that makes the best case in favour of God is Plantinga’s argument against naturalism. Basically he argues that if naturalism is true then we are the product of a natural process that favours survival over truth. If that is so, then we have no basis for trusting our senses and our mind to reflect reality truthfully. If that is so then we have no basis for trusting that our view of naturalism is correct because it was derived from our perception and our mind. Therefore naturalism is internally incoherent.
The way out of this paradox is to assume that we are not the result of a natural process that has no regard for truth, but that we are the intentional result of God’s decision to create humans as creatures with an ability to perceive the world around us.
I also find the work of Donald Hoffman very interesting in confirming the idea that naturalism does not produce accurate perceptions in conscious beings. But instead of throwing out our understanding of reality, I think it’s simpler to throw out the idea that we are entirely the result of natural processes. The Bible says we are unique because we are made ‘in the image of God’. Science is now catching up with what that uniqueness entails. I find the work of Simon Conway Morris interesting in showing that evolution may have a direction and purpose baked into the process itself which best explained by God’s intention for the universe to be home to intelligent creatures who can perceive it and self reflect.
It also seems to me that the belief that the universe and intelligent life arose from nothing and for no reason is a pretty big ask. As I currently understand things, a simpler and more satisfactory understanding of our existence and our ability to perceive the universe is the proposition that we are the intentional result of a mind that is outside of time and space.