You mean Arzareth.Quote from solidscheme »America's real name is Arsareth. Ever heard of the Gullah Wars?
(For those who don't get the references, "Arzareth" is the land that the 10 lost tribes of Israel fled to, according to the bible. This land has never been found, or further referenced to.)
Are you referring to Native Americans? Native American history, archaeology, and even DNA testing shows that the Native Americans are not of jewish descent. The only thing that could possibly give any evidence to this theory is the Newark Holy Stones - which are obviously a hoax and shown as such even when discovered (the first stone discovered had modern hebrew writing, even though it was "found in an ancient burial ground". After proven a hoax, the same person "found" ones written more correctly).
If you are referring to the Gullah/Geechee people, as your "Gullah Wars" infers, than you are suggesting that the lost tribes of israel fled to Angola, and were then kidnapped and forced into slavery thousands of years later by slave ships? That would make Angola the Arzareth, as that would be the land they actually fled to during biblical times.
Yes, a few people long ago, including Columbus, conjectured that America could be Arzareth (as did most explorers who found new areas at the time - "Where is Arzareth?" was a huge topic in the grand explorer days). There is 0 evidence that this is the case, and there is, in fact, a huge amount of evidence that discredits this as a possibility.
Also, what does this have to do with how you believe God defines marriage?
1
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
2
But, not just hate towards them, hate towards Islam.
They want Muslims living in the West to be mistrusted and shunned. They want non-radical Muslims to be kicked out of communities.
They want everyone who is not Muslim to hate Muslims, so -in that disrepair- those hated Muslims will turn to ISIS.
I'm just going to leave these here:
http://imgur.com/gallery/YUiKI
1
You praise them when they do something you want, and castigate them when they don't. That's how they learn.
Reading this thread really makes my head spin. I can only assume many of you have never taught children anything, or -if you have- you've never really thought about what you're doing: You make them feel bad when they do something you think is bad and make them feel good when they do something you think is good. It doesn't matter if that "something good" is critical thinking or praising God.
When my students ask an insightful question, finish a hard problem, or come in for extra help when they don't get something, I make sure they feel good. I smile, say "good job," and write positive comments on their report card. I tell them they're going places.
When they act disruptive in class, don't turn in assignments, or copy off of other students, I make sure they feel bad. I scowl, say "I'm so disappointed," and email their parents. I tell them they're hurting their future, and I'm only making them feel awful for their own good.
I want them to do well; I want them to be critical thinkers and question life logically and rationally; I want them to understand physics. But, they're kids. Humans are wired for instant gratification and superstition. We have to be broken of those habits. And, I use the word "broken" purposefully.
Now, I'm sure someone on this thread is going to tell me how they're naturally not like that. How they've been inquisitive, smart, and driven from a young age. That they've never needed someone to emotionally manipulate them to be that way. Well, I have two things to say to you. First: Gratz, but most people aren't naturally like that, and I've got to teach most people, not you. Second: Just because you naturally internalized the emotional manipulation doesn't make it less. If you really are all you claim, I know you beat yourself up on the inside. You get mad at yourself when you fail. You feel awful when you don't live up to your potential. Or, maybe you just feel great when you do. Maybe no one taught to you that -and that's great for you- but you're still doing it to yourself.
Humans need discomfort or joy in order to be motivated. We're wired to want pleasure and to avoid pain. That's just how it is.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120731.gif
2
I.E. using Google to find blog posts that support your position, while simultaneously ignoring any and all results that disprove it. (Like BS post, for example... and now I feel like a Flame Warrior Sycophant sticking up for the mod over the new guy...)
2
If you're only going off of empirical evidence (and discounting holy texts as reliable eyewitness accounts), the only logical choice is True Agnosticism.*
This would be accepting the Null Hypothesis, no true scientist would do this.
Just because you have insufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis, doesn't suddenly mean you've proven the reverse true. If the counterclaim is to be accepted as fact, it must face the same rigor as the claim. Disproving God runs into the same problems as proving God: insufficient evidence. *
*(Well, the depending on the definition of 'God.')
1
They just seem to be defining the roles of husbands and wives, not defining the number of either.
1
But, we could take more aggress actions to stop it. Just as an example:
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/can-engineer-planet-fight-global-warming/
I've seen other talks about methods that would pull the CO2 out of the air. 7 Geoengineering Solutions That Promise To Save Humans from Climate Change.
At this point, we can't regulate CO2 emissions to stop it, but we weren't realistically going to do that anyway. Now we have to engineer the problem away. Like building a dam and changing the environment again to solve a manmade problem. If those solutions above don't work, we'll just have to try other ones. Mankind has always been good at adapting our environment to us; we'll just now have to do it again the other way.
1
"Should you kill X to save >X ?" The common response is "probably not." Certainly "no" when you chance it to "Should you kill X to maybe save >X ?"
I guessing you could even write an algorithm to maximize public positive response.
1
Sex: What chromosomes you have combined with what sexual organs you have.
Gender: What you're attracted to sexually. And, what "roles" you most associate within society, normally 'masculinity' and 'femininity.'
"Gender" is arguably a social construct, at least the part separate from what you're attracted to (since sexual attraction is likely genetic).
Personally, I agree with the jist of OP's post. I don't think "gender" -as it exists in the 'masculinity' and 'femininity' social norms spectrum- needs to be a thing. However, I think that because I feel we should just concentrate on labeling people based on sex. Gender adds a level of unnecessarily complexity, in my view (especially because of it's alleged fluidity [1]). They shouldn't have questionnaires asking about your "gender;" they should have them asking for "sex." (We used to. I guess too many people answered 'yes please.')
I do -personally- feel that "gender roles" in a modern society are bull*****. We're not hunter/gathers anymore; we don't need to assign roles or likes/dislikes based on chromosomes. If people have a preferences, that's fine, but automatically linking gender to sex isn't fair or necessary.
But, because of the physical differences, I do feel we should make distinctions based on SEX; however, these distinctions should be based on purely physical differences, not perceived preferences.
Edit:
Gender and Sex are different. Please make sure you are using the proper term for what you mean.
Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity. [2]
In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia. [3]
1
It wouldn't have to be 'willy nilly.' You don't want group X in your community? Do you own one of the only grocery stores? Does the guy that owns the other one not like group X as well?
Well, I guess you know how to drive them out of town now.
Your community might not have much of group X to begin with anyway. So, you might not even really hurt your profits. Especially if your local competitors are on board with driving group X out. (Or pressured into it)
What if 100 people in the town will boycott your store if you DON'T discriminate against group X? And group X only has 25 members in your town?