the-argument

I just think it’s funny that people will yell at me on anon for getting passive aggressive with some anons because I’d like to see how you would deal with just half of the messages I get when you can’t even say this to my face

I am not going to be nice, I am not going to sugarcoat things. 

If you do not believe asexuals or aromantics are valid, if you do not believe they belong in the LGBTQA+ community REGARDLESS of their romantic orienation

then stay the fuck away from me, stay the fuck away from my blog, stay the fuck away from my fellow aros and aces. 

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA THIS NEVER HAPPENED AHAHAHAHAH ITS RAINING AND MY SOUL IS CLEAN AND THE WORLD IS PURE IT NEVER HAPPENED pls

geardirector  asked:

What is your opinion on the "Borrowing from my Worldview" objection of Theistic Apologetics? To clarify, what I've heard is that Atheists "steal from God to make their case, because only Theism can explain the existence of abolutes like logical truths, observed facts etc."

The “borrowing from my worldview” objection comes up a lot in discussions on ethics – though the person making the claim never makes an attempt at grounding that claim. The reason for this is because the claim comes from presuppositional apologetics. Briefly, presuppositionalism isn’t about presupposing the existence of god. A lot of people think it’s something “God exists; Therefore, God exists.” While there’s circularity in presuppositionalism, it’s not quite that simple. What is presupposed is that moral truths, logic, knowledge, mathematics and perhaps other things are grounded in god’s being, so if he doesn’t exist, such things wouldn’t exist. So they’re not presupposing god’s existence, but rather presupposing the relation knowledge, moral truths, and so on have with god, namely that he is the precondition through which these things exist and make sense.

So this is where they’re getting that statement from though most Christians assert it without even understanding presuppositionalism or Transcendental Arguments (TAGs). My upcoming ebook will address this in far more detail, but I honestly think most Christians, most especially the less knowledgeable ones, say this to stir up anger. They know you’re not a Christian and yet they dare imply that you’re borrowing or as I’m more accustomed to hearing, stealing from their worldview. You claim to have knowledge, use logic, solve equations, and make moral decisions and yet fail to acknowledge the god through which these exercises are even possible. It’s another way for them to spit in our faces and imply that we know that god exists though we’re in denial. We are the “godless” and “wicked” people mentioned in Romans 1:18 who by our unrighteousness suppress the truth. It’s another way for them to impose what they already believe to be true on people who regard their beliefs as false.

There are a few Christians who aren’t saying these things to cause anger. They’re quite familiar with TAG, Clark, Van Til, and modern presuppositionalists like Oliphant. They’re not pulling a Sye Ten Bruggencate, who was obviously out to give poor Matt Dillahunty a stroke. Sye is definitely more representative of the Christians I mentioned earlier; they want to piss you off as much as the ones who say “the fool says in his heart there’s no god.” People who aren’t like that went to seminaries and are convinced by such arguments. They’d also get a bit more involved in the philosophy of it all, which relies heavily on continental philosophy–mainly Kant and Hegel. So they’ll throw around words like absolute and noumena and it’s there you would need a deeper understanding of Kantian transcendentalism and Hegelian idealism to be able to handle their arguments.

Even then, however, I don’t find TAGs convincing. The Moral Argument, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is a TAG. It’s been used by evidentialists like William Lane Craig, so people forget that it’s a TAG or don’t realize it. But notice it’s first premise: “if God does not exist, objective values and duties do not exist.” The relationships these “objective values and duties” have to god are precisely as I said earlier. 

For more detail as to why I reject TAG arguments, I ask for your patience; I’ll explain in my ebook. Sorry I have to do that, but honestly, arguments for god have been beaten to death for centuries. I am retreading oft treaded land, raking old coals. What I’m doing now has been done and in more esoteric ways I might add, so what I think is along the lines of what other atheists have thought, though as will be shown in my ebook, I have my own reasons for rejecting TAGs. 

The value of my ebook is to “dumb it down,” to bring the esoteric down to earth by putting it in language that’s easier to understand. I know, I know, I risk degrading what more esoteric words try to convey and attempt to capture, but if most Christians and atheists refuse to read esoteric scholarship, whatever strengths or weaknesses these arguments may have will never actually be known; the Christians will assume the arguments are ironclad whilst the atheists assume the exact opposite. Then whatever debate the two are having will devolve into insults galore. I want to give atheists something simple they can turn to and trust me, I’ll be mindful of not degrading or setting aside more esoteric treatments. When that’s needed, I will be sure to summon it; but it’s clear to me that a lot of esoteric writing can be brought down a level or two without losing its strength, value, or meaning.

anonymous asked:

Bucky was hurt. He has been TORTURED. How can you defend Stark for what he did to Bucky! Stark is a spoiled rich boy. He couldn't understand what Bucky went through so he beat him up. Stark is a bully.

Of course, you’re absolutely right. There is no way Tony Stark could understand his freedom being stolen from him. How could he possibly know what it is like to be taken from everything that is familiar and warm and home. How dare Tony assume to know what it is like to wake up, strapped down in a cold and unforgiving place. To be absolutely terrified and out of his mind with agonizing pain and to know that no-one is coming as he screams for help.

Tony has no clue what it is like to be held down and tortured. To feel his mind withdraw. His mind. His genius mind that can see and rationalize and leap on so many, many levels. To know what is coming before it happens and be able to do nothing about it.

I mean, how could Tony understand what it is like to be unmade and to emerge from the nightmare as a different person. To actually witness it happen. To see the bright red arc of his own blood splash across his vision. A vivid testament of the pain searing through his chest. To feel the cold intrusion of metal into his body, that no matter how much he cries. No matter how much he struggles. No matter how raw his throat becomes from screaming will no always be a part of him. How could Tony Stark, ‘spoiled rich boy’ possibly know how that feels?

How can Tony begin to understand the pain Bucky went through if he has never suffered himself? That’s what you’re saying right? I hear you. Bucky lost everything and everyone he knew and Tony knows nothing of this because he has lost nothing, right?

To sum up. Tony Stark has never suffered at the hands of others?

And Tony has never lost anyone he loves. Has never had a loved one snatched away from him never to be able to see them or talk to them again. To feel the brush of a hand against his cheek or the scent of them in the air. To wake one morning and suddenly they are gone. How could Tony possibly know how that feels?


You were saying?

Strangelight
  • Strangelight
  • Fugazi
  • The Argument
Play

I’m in a good mood today. here, have some Fugazi!

I was in such a good mood this morning in fact, that i treated myself to End Hits, Red Medicine and The Argument on vinyl.

Oh, and i also got The View from this Tower by Faraquet and Chez Viking by The Mercury Program, thus bringing the total amount of dollar spent on music in 2011 to £1,380.85. i have virtually no self control. whoops.

Epic Problem
  • Epic Problem
  • Fugazi
  • The Argument
Play
i’ve got this epic problem this epic problem’s not a problem for me 
and inside i know i’m broken but i’m working as far as you can see and 
outside it’s all production it’s all illusion set scenery i’ve got this 
epic problem this epic problem’s not a problem for me

sn9ps  asked:

libra probably actually would fit lance tbh

right??? because he’s:

  • vain
  • flirty
  • super social and extroverted
  • doesn’t like being alone
  • self-confident, sometimes even to the point of stubborn arrogance I mean look at the official description of him:
  • a romantic—took Nyma on a ride around the fuckign moon
  • speaking of which Libras have a hard time saying no because we’re such pushovers and don’t want people to think less of us, which is why Lance couldn’t say no to Nyma
  • he’s smart—he came up with that plan in the Balmera on the fly—but people don’t see it at first because he plays himself off as the class clown type. but if libras are anything we’re solution-oriented
  • libras also tend to be aloof, absorbed in the way they see the world trusting people at face-value—like going off with Nyma or not realizing Pidge is a girl
  • libras have a reputation for being diplomats and avoiding conflict, which we don’t really see in Lance considering how often he butts heads with Keith and rushes in to conflict. But the reason why we avoid conflict is because we have a strong desire for people to like us and conflict gets in the way of that. And who is super thirsty for validation? LANCE. (This is also intensified by bpd but yah). Lance wants to be the best and wants everyone else to acknowledge his value, which is very libra-like
  • Besides, after he gets some character development his more diplomatic side surfaces. When they’re in the Balmera he could’ve blown up at Keith or left him to do his own thing, but instead he suggests a better plan and they work together to succeed. Libras love people and love working in a team, and one of Lance’s most famous lines is “we are a good team.”
  • look at his face!! look how relieved he is that they worked together and they’re finally getting along and that Keith doesn’t hate him
  • Libras may not like conflict between loved ones, but they’ll argue with you literally just for the sake of arguing. That sounds contradictory but the type of arguing we love is more like banter with our loved ones, not the serious stuff. That and we love to prove that we’re right. Lance is like the master of provocation and he enjoys it.
  • Libras are also rational (at least that’s how we like to carry ourselves)
  • keyword think. Whenever Keith is about to do something impulsive Lance is there to be that voice of reason on his right shoulder—even if Keith doesn’t actually listen
  • plus, I think we can all agree Keith is most likely an aries, and what’s the opposite sign of aries? LIBRA. As in they’re the perfect two to balance each other—fire and water, aries and libra. They embody the opposite-sign dynamic perfectly

In conclusion Libra Lance is real and no one can convince me otherwise