Posts by wiredpuma9

schmokljan said:1. We need to penalize those who incite hatred—those fueling intolerance toward anyone perceived as "different."

And that includes public figures like Vlatko Marković, Zdravko Mamić, and similar institutions that essentially signal to the public— that hating certain groups is perfectly acceptable.

The same thing happens here on this forum; the moderators, through their militia-style moderation, allow it, and by extension, encourage hate speech. Hate speech isn't dangerous just because it sounds ugly—it’s dangerous because it triggers violence.

So, everyone who promotes hatred against specific groups—whether women, Mexicans, homosexuals, Jews, Dalmatians, or Herzegovinians—through their public actions or even as anonymous posters, is complicit in this killing.
-----------------
Anyway, you're missing the point again.

We all share some level of blame. Some more, some less. That’s why I specifically pointed out those two recent purveyors of hate.

In America, spreading hate is practically encouraged; that's just the social climate. The more impressionable a person is, the easier they fall for propaganda. Beating up punks is just a substitute for beating up gay people when there aren't enough of them in small, rural towns. It always has been.

No, we don't all share the blame.
This attack wasn't carried out by anonymous posters or by Marković or Mamić; it was done by two individuals who knew exactly what they were doing, and they alone carry the full responsibility for this act.

Thomas Myers6 said:legione, you're in the wrong subforum again. 😁
This thread is meant for legal talk. If we want to dig into why this attack happened or get inside the heads of these kids—who look like they're all adults to me—we should probably move this over to psychology.
We had a similar debate over on the legal board regarding the verdict for the Luke Ritz murder, and I think vojky made some pretty solid points there.
Since these two guys are adults, they can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, so we could be looking at sentences much longer than just a year.
But what happens when we're talking about minors who aren't legally responsible?
From what I understand, the law assumes these kids aren't quite capable of making rational decisions yet. That’s why they hand out lighter sentences instead of basically ruining someone's life before they've even started. It's essentially a second chance, based on the idea that after some "rehabilitation" and a bit of maturing, they might actually reintegrate into society and realize they have to own their actions.
The problem is, how do you actually tell who was just manipulated by a bad crowd or certain circumstances, and who is just fundamentally broken?

Does that even matter?
If the person involved wasn't ten years old, they knew damn well their actions had lasting consequences, and therefore, they should face them.

The punishment should actually fit the crime.
But unfortunately, we live in such a "civilized" era now that justice has been swapped out for therapists. Suddenly, everyone’s an expert claiming these crimes are always caused by society, upbringing, video games, or movies... rather than the actual person who pulled the trigger.
So instead, we end up with a broken system where the victim ends up in a grave while the perpetrator gets a year in prison for some supposed "rehabilitation."

Paul Jones7 said:do you mean they're pushing back against other people, specifically?

Agnosticism is really about knowledge—or rather, the lack thereof—just like you put it. I guess those terms like "gnostic theist" or "gnostic atheist" are pretty much made up concepts. Nobody actually *knows*, you know? There’s really only the illusion of knowing.

But there's a piece missing from this whole categorization thing. You have the pure agnostic, who doesn't even have a set stance on whether God exists or not. They aren't leaning toward belief or disbelief; their only actual position is just... "I don't know."

Now, if someone calls themselves an agnostic atheist, I'd argue they're primarily an atheist. It feels like a bit of a misclassification to me—kind of meaningless, really. It's the same with being an agnostic theist, because since nobody knows anything for sure, the agnosticism is already implied. It doesn't really add anything beyond the absence of certainty regarding faith.

At least, that’s the only way it makes sense to me. 🤷

Exactly.

Paul Jones7 said:do you mean they're pushing back against other people, specifically?

Agnosticism is really about knowledge—or rather, the lack thereof—just like you put it. I guess those terms like "gnostic theist" or "gnostic atheist" are pretty much made up concepts. Nobody actually *knows*, you know? There’s really only the illusion of knowing.

But there's a piece missing from this whole categorization thing. You have the pure agnostic, who doesn't even have a set stance on whether God exists or not. They aren't leaning toward belief or disbelief; their only actual position is just... "I don't know."

Now, if someone calls themselves an agnostic atheist, I'd argue they're primarily an atheist. It feels like a bit of a misclassification to me—kind of meaningless, really. It's the same with being an agnostic theist, because since nobody knows anything for sure, the agnosticism is already implied. It doesn't really add anything beyond the absence of certainty regarding faith.

At least, that’s the only way it makes sense to me. 🤷

It isn't a misclassification. Atheism is defined either as the absence of belief in God or the specific claim that God doesn't exist. Since "pure" agnosticism fits that first definition, "agnostic atheist" is perfectly accurate.

Paul Jones7 said:It's like saying "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist." lol
Baldness isn't a hair color. Atheism isn't a belief either; it's just the absence of one.

Believing that something doesn't exist is nonsense.
There are people who swear up and down that God definitely isn't there. Those are anti-theists.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.

Theists and atheists just use different definitions for atheism. They'll never agree because they're starting from completely opposite sides.

It's like saying "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist." lol
Baldness isn't a hair color. Atheism isn't a belief either; it's just the absence of one.

Believing that something doesn't exist is nonsense.
There are people who swear up and down that God definitely isn't there. Those are anti-theists.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.

Theists and atheists just use different definitions for atheism. They'll never agree because they're starting from completely opposite sides.
Basically, an atheist is just... well, a non-theist. It's just the logical negation of being a theist.
amoral means lacking morality, right? Just like that.

Then you've got agnostics. You can't really slot them into the theist or atheist categories—not really. They aren't holding onto an irrational stance; instead, they hold a rational one, which is basically just saying, "I don't know."

As for an antitheist? I assume that means someone who is actively against theism—against God, if you will. But to be an antitheist, I guess you almost have to acknowledge God exists, while being fundamentally opposed to religious ideas or the whole concept of "cooperating with God."
Basically, an atheist is just... well, a non-theist. It's just the logical negation of being a theist.
amoral means lacking morality, right? Just like that.

Then you've got agnostics. You can't really slot them into the theist or atheist categories—not really. They aren't holding onto an irrational stance; instead, they hold a rational one, which is basically just saying, "I don't know."

As for an antitheist? I assume that means someone who is actively against theism—against God, if you will. But to be an antitheist, I guess you almost have to acknowledge God exists, while being fundamentally opposed to religious ideas or the whole concept of "cooperating with God."
Agnosticism is about what you know, not what you believe.
An agnostic theist believes God exists, but isn't certain.
A gnostic theist is certain God exists.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim to know if He exists.
A gnostic atheist is certain God does not exist.
So, typical agnostics actually fall under the umbrella of agnostic atheists, though some prefer the label "agnostic" just to distance themselves from the louder crowd of agnostic atheists.
An antitheist is someone who openly opposes belief in God and organized religion.

Anthony Perez9 said:Look, as an atheist, I don't believe in God and I'm not expecting a single thing from Him. Honestly, the whole concept is totally foreign to me. I’m perfectly fine with using the term to describe something beyond our limited human comprehension—like the sheer scale of reality, the awe of an infinite universe, or even that > "God" concept.

So, atheism isn't really believing that God doesn't exist.

A theist actually believes God is going to step in, help them out, grant wishes, or grant immortality.
It’s basically the difference between worshippers and everyone else—those who don't pray to or believe in a deity, whatever that may be. ☕

Belief is usually boxed in by rigid dogma. Every phrase and word has been strictly mapped out by theologians long ago. There's no room for actual curiosity, exploration, or keeping your eyes open; it's just repeating mental scripts handed down from the past. That’s a death sentence for any kind of genuine spirituality.

But look at deists, pantheists, or panentheists—they fall under the theist umbrella too, yet they aren't sitting around waiting for a divine handout.

Edward Flores4 said:

casualmaker13 said:Nothing exists in a vacuum if you look at it as a process. You’ve got the observer, the observed, and the interaction happening between them. Pull one piece out, and the whole process vanishes. That doesn't mean the observer, the object, and the interaction are all the exact same thing, though.

Basically, you realize that stripping away any part of that loop kills the "process" itself, yet you refuse to see that this very process is what defines your "self."

Without that continuous loop, you'd be in a clinical coma or a vegetative state. When everything is functioning perfectly—when you're awake and conscious—that specific process is the bedrock of your identity.

If the "I" is just the process of observing, then who exactly is the observer?
It seems more logical to me that the "I" is the observer, the process, and occasionally the object being watched, all rolled into one.

Your theories remind me of that old argument that humans are naturally bisexual—the same one you shot down before.

Peter Phillips32 said:Exactly. I’m arguing that choosing which gender you climax with or enjoy sex with is an actual possibility.
A child starts learning while their nervous system is still developing in the womb, sensing the world through vibrations and sound. Up until a certain age (maybe around 4?), they can't tell reality from fantasy. Since kids just soak up everything around them without any critical thinking, they basically absorb the state of the world as "normal." When someone is conditioned by a non-liberal environment to be heterosexual, they end up modeling their own sexuality after the concept of "Mom and Dad." Because Mom and Dad are the default, it feels natural, pleasant, and desirable. Society loves what is "natural" and "pleasant," so the individual feels the need to conform to those standards to fit in. (I think you see where this is heading.)
When something is rooted this deeply, it gets labeled as "natural"—hence all our stereotypes about being born strictly heterosexual because "that's how God made us." (Don't get mad about the religious reference; I'm not going to debate that.)

If this is purely about choice and social conditioning, how do you explain homosexuality popping up in extremely homophobic environments, where people are taught from birth that it's wrong or repulsive?