Clipper

This is the correct answer, Prince Chicken.

I've seen some difference in opinion over whether my profile picture is a corgi or a fox. I'm on the corgi side personally.

100% Unless you mean new souls, feelings, and minds so I can chalk this up to an antinatalist argument I have no idea what you mean. Unless you want to start extracting amygdalas, or making people brain-dead, I don't get how you could make feelings and minds non-existent. That doesn't even cover the soul, which... what? How do you pull a soul out of existence? There are biblical limitations for this, but it is allowed. ?

Is this like an antinatalism thing or do you consider the act of sex sinful? I could also use some clarification here. I could really use some clarification here.

I get astral projection being sinful but lucid dreaming is just being aware that you're in a dream and sometimes having control over things in it. I wouldn't use it to search for Christ or receive messages or anything, lucid dreaming is after all shaped by our own human mind, but the simple realization that you're in a dream does not seem sinful. It's like a playground for dreams where you have some control over what happens; if you do sinful things with that control I can see how one could be sinful with it, but if you're just messing around with whatever you can do in a non-sinful matter, I fail to see the fault in it.

The state of the US healthcare system ?

I know seven people among family and friends who we highly suspect have it or have had it. Only two of them have managed to get tested, others were basically told the only way they were getting tested is if they were hospitalized.

Physical fitness can be extremely important.

I bet it was those darned suffragettes, wanting the right to vote and everything.

>aspartame is a chemical >bio weapon I don't know where you're pulling these from but your source isn't even trying to hide that they don't know what they're talking about. Aspartame is one of the most rigorously tested food ingredients, being approved by over 100 regulatory organizations including the United States Food and Drug Administration, UK Food Standards Agency, and the European Food Safety Authority. The biggest risks the medical community has found associated with it is that it may trigger migraines and hypothetically may lead to changes in neurotransmitter levels. Consuming large doses of aspartame may have some biochemical effects, but toxicity studies have revealed no adverse changes to neuronal function.

I took a class on poisoning last semester, that statement can basically sum up that whole class. If they put it unsafe levels of fluoride, we would notice it, people would start getting sick on a large scale as the concentration increases. The effectiveness of fluoride is what is most commonly debated in the medical and scientific communities, not the "chemical weapon, etc." conspiracy theories you always see. Water fluoridation is supported by the WHO, the FDI World Dental Federation, and the CDC; I would argue it's better at its current concentration than not having it all.

Fluorides occur naturally throughout nature. Fluoride anions can be found in nature in trace amounts, modern day water fluoridation is just adjusting that to deal with tooth decay.

Fluoride isn't a poison, we have a recommended daily intake of 0.7 to 4.0 mg/day depending on your age and sex.

This is like calling someone under sniper fire a coward for not just running out and dealing with it, even though there's air support on the way to take out the threat.

Me watching these threads whenever another one surfaces:

No problem. The Big Tent is always open

It's not that I don't have respect for the nation or the people who fought and died to preserve the values of liberal democracy, I do. Those who fought in World War II fought for the preservation of democracy and fought against tyranny. I would love to see that level of love for liberty again. I believe that if someone should fight or die for a cause, it shouldn't be for a nation but rather for an ideology they believe in. The soldiers at Normandy were fighting against the forces of fascism in the name of the countries that represent democracy. Similarly, the soldiers at Stalingrad were fighting against the forces of fascism in the name of the countries that represent communism. But then World War II ended and we saw people no longer fighting based on their ideology but on their flag. The Vietnam War, the Soviet-Afghan War, Operation Condor, all of these were no longer in defense of an ideology, but the expansion of a flag's influence. The US supported Diem despite the fact that he was a dictator, the USSR invaded Afghanistan and bombarded civilians and military targets alike, and the US killed a democratically elected socialist leader in Chile. In all three of these situations, there was a push for the expansion of a flag's influence, not for supporting a group that followed the same ideology or fighting a group that was a direct threat to its own. Nations are usually founded or fractured based on ideological differences. Fight for the ideology you believe whether it's on a battlefield or the floor of Congress, don't fight for the flag. We have seen a rise of populism worldwide, be it in Europe with nativist views growing stronger, or the United States with candidates such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. I don't believe in fighting for either of their causes, either of their ideologies, so instead, I'm going to fight for the closest, Joe Biden (this portion ignores the idea of strategic voting and third parties in a First Past the Post system, FPTP is monumentally dumb, let's swap to IRV please). If Obama and Romney both had separate countries, and I lived in Romney's, I'd immigrate to Obama's as I agree with that flag's ideology more. But if Obama's rule changed, or my own ideology changed, I might consider immigrating somewhere else. There should be no allegiance to a flag or a candidate, I think you should follow where your personal ideology and philosophy takes you. If that sits you down near a flag then that's the group you're best suited for, but if the ideology the flag represents or you yourself change, then I see no reason not to abandon the flag. Oh yeah, other countries have higher Net Migration rates per capita than the US. The US on average is ~30th in terms of NM/c worldwide.

We do have "freedom from religion". The state can't force or advocate for any particular religion through a public institution. And you think Jesus isn't talked about in schools? Jesus is one of the most prominent figures in human history, Christian or not. He might not be presented as the Savior, but He's still vital information for any World History class worth its salt. We do have "freedom of religion". The state can't force one to stop practicing their faith. If someone wants to pray to God, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they can. I think what a lot of people here see as "Christians are being persecuted in United States and having their rights taken away" is actually just the people of the country adopting more secular standpoints and Christianity losing the privilege it's been given in public policy for the past several decades. Also, and this isn't directed to you Behold but rather the "REEEEEE DEMOCRATS" part of this site: what do you guys even think the "Democratic Party's Agenda" is? It can't be State Atheism AND Sharia Law AND Turn Everyone Gay.

The Founders were pretty much all Christian, I don't see many people denying that (besides the "actually, Freemasons" types). But the Constitution is not a Christian document. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" The state has no say in Christianity throughout the US. Any religious values imposed upon the United States are a result of voters mixing religion and politics. Any inherent religion within the government would be unconstitutional per the First Amendment. I, personally, keep my faith and politics separate. I shy away from the Moral Majority movement of the 80s and believe the US should be a secular nation with freedom of religion. I think the separation of Church and State is vital for democracy.

A) You don't have to be from a particular nation to understand the origins and implications of a political document. B) I'm from Chicago.

I don't get where this "America was founded on Judeo-Christian values" thing comes from. The US Declaration of Independence and Constitution were very clearly heavily influenced by the new liberal philosophies of the Enlightenment. "In God We Trust" replaced "E pluribus unum" in 1956 in response to the Soviet Union's state atheism, it was not always there. The United States is not God's country, it's just another nation-state in a world full of nation-states, and a particularly influential nation-state at that.

Borders are made up lines we use to distinguish who has access to certain resources without stirring up a fight. Flags are symbols that represent those borders and the rulers of those resources. There is no America, there is no Canada, there is just the resources and people those two flags claim to own. Our allegiance, our patriotism, our nationalism, is to God. I stopped saying the Pledge of Allegiance around the fifth grade, looking back, it sounds cultish. I've developed a list of nations I would probably prefer to live in over the United States, they have their own problems sure but I think they handle them significantly better. Nationalism, patriotism, whatever, it's all pointless to follow countries if they don't benefit the people living in them. If you have a better place you can immigrate to and you have the means to immigrate there, I don't see allegiance to the star-spangled banner as a reason to stop that. You probably won't get this if you've never heard of Max Stirner, but nationality is a spook.

What's with all the COVID-19 and social distancing denial on this site? Seriously, these forums are like a hub of ignorance regarding the virus. I haven't seen this level of bad takes on any other site I regularly visit.

China and Russia are both threats to Western interests. I agree that China is a larger threat, but let's not forget about Russia's support of Assad and their invasion of Crimea as well as sponsorship of the War in Donbass. Let's also not forget their influence in foreign elections. Russia is an enemy, like China. I view Russia as a military enemy, and China as an economic one. Russia and Vladimir Putin are by no means our friend. It's an authoritarian regime that silences dissent and is propped up by corruption. They need to be taken into account. On that note, I would not recommend using Yandex as a search engine.