I am etched on the palm of His hand

Few Even Think to ask The Question, Circa 2021

[floweroftheantilles]

virtuoso 🎵

[modelsof-color]

Niko Riam at Miss Sohee Couture SS 26

[unusual-suspects]

[heartpdf]

[thinmintfingerprints]

If you don't/can't provide for yourself, there are limits on the leverage you have to negotiate on the things you want/need. It may be unpleasant for you, but that's doesn't mean it isn't "normal." Money is just the go-between for the actual system of bartering. If I take the labor to grow the food and make the food on land that I own,what do you have to give me that would satisfy the time and labor it took for me to do that? That's a discussion, and if you have nothing I want in exchange(the amount I'm asking), I'll find someone who does (someone with more money willing to pay).

It feels unfair, but is it really?

I go back and forth on that.

[sweetoothgirl]

Best S’mores Cookie Bars

[hanavbara]

corpse bride as anime  💍 ⚰️ 💙

[thinmintfingerprints]

"...the difficulty at the heart of feminist activism, still evident today, .......the willingness of activists to fabricate a victim story that overlooked the truly powerless being who had been destroyed."

FULL TEXT

[lowpawly]

I hate that like when arguing with christians about how they think that homosexuality is a sin because of the bible its a faux pas to be like ok well that's not real

[lowpawly]

I do not care about someone's personal creation mythology but when we are talking about like actual legislation that decides equal rights it is like ok you cannot just say source: religious document. why is that even allowed or taken seriously

[thinmintfingerprints]

Read a philosophy book,and maybe we can take you seriously

Note: People who make remarks like this are projecting. They want the world to function based upon their preferences but have no basis on why people should even agree to that (because everyone would ultimately have different opinions). At least people who have "mythology" have a standard beyond themselves and their preferences to appeal to.

[mandokero-eboy]

Religion does literally nothing to solve the problem of "everyone has different contradictory opinions on morality and you fundamentally can't provide someone an objective basis for preferred moral claims", you dumb bitch.

If you haven't noticed we already live and have always lived in a world where religions exist *and* (even within homogenous religious communities) everyone has different contradictory moral precepts. It's already hard enough to get people to establish a consensus on easily verifiable objective facts about the world and you want to act like you can easily establish an agreement on morality by quoting a magic book?

I could acknowledge literally every factual claim of your religion and reach completely different moral conclusions because the is-ought gap is *fundamental*

[thinmintfingerprints]

Yea, it does. You don't get it, and that's fine.

[mandokero-eboy]

I get that your emotional needs mean it's more personally comforting to you if you believe morality is backed up by external standards that are absolutely enforced but that doesn't make it rationally sound as a more effective basis for morality actually.

[thinmintfingerprints]

I arrived at this conclusion watching debates between atheists and apologists, reading atheist arguments, etc. I arrived at it through logical reasoning. Sure, emotions play a part, emotions play apart in literally everything, humans are emotional beings but assuming that my conclusions don't appeal to logic is.....interesting

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris , Alex O Connor, and their ilk....., their arguments weren't logically compelling enough for me

[mandokero-eboy]

yeah, those guys suck.

doesn't really solve the is-ought gap to point out a bunch of guys suck though.

[thinmintfingerprints]

I'm not concerned about whether they "suck" I cared about whether their arguments are worth their metal and they weren't ,the atheistic perspective when stress tested is weak, if Christianity is true then it's perspective on homosexuality and homosexual behavior is worth critic at least and at most public deterrence in society,if it's not true then yea it probably doesn't matter,the is ought claims have to be muddled through along with the presuppositions of which we are making our arguments

I can agree to disagree

[mandokero-eboy]

If you think Islam is fake why are you worried about Islamic extremists dawg?

[thinmintfingerprints]

I think Islam is "fake" (i.e., at best, muslims are being led astray and are worshiping a demonic force. The quran says allah is the greatest of deceivers, and Christians know satan to be the king of lies), but I still care about the souls of those extremists being led further away from Jesus

Also who brought up Islam?

[mandokero-eboy]

Damn, so things that you think aren't real can have consequences which concern you and you think are worth engaging with?

who'd have thought

[thinmintfingerprints]

As a Christian, it is logical for me to do so, and for many religious non christians as well.( Also, I didn't fully concede that Islam isn't "real",they could very well be worshipping a demonic force.)

People who are agnostic /atheist don't have a logical reason to be concerned with anything,from their world view; by their definition, it's ultimately of no consequence. There is no God, morality, and "good" is whatever I say it is, and that would also be true for the next person. Arguing about anything would be pointless. You say stealing is fine,I say stealing is wrong,and we are both right because how we feel about it (our preferences), is all that matters, and also nothing matters,we might as well be rocks.

[mandokero-eboy]

All of that would still be the case even if God existed, sorry to be the first to tell you.

[thinmintfingerprints]

Evidence of that where? Also I genuinely do not understand the atheistic perspective to argue for or against anything? It seems pointless

God does is exist, and His followers are called Christians

[mandokero-eboy]

What's the argument that it actually solves the problem?

Cause I don't see it.

Ways in which it doesn't actually solve the problem:

If someone doesn't accept your religion your moral reasoning ceases to be objective as far as they're concerned, so it doesn't solve the problem of facilitating moral communication in objective terms. "Good" is still, to both parties, whatever their preference says it is, it just so happens that your preference is colored by belief in your individual religious interpretation.

If your argument about atheism leading to nihilism is based on the fact that the lack of an afterlife leads to no eternal consequences for behavior, you're just making a consequentialist argument. Sorry to let you know that atheists have as much access to consequentialist moral reasoning as religious people do, self evidently, on the basis that we are capable of having preferences at all and can therefore prefer certain consequences over others even if such consequences are temporary and of no significance outside ourselves.

Non-religious people and non-christian religious people persuade each other into different moral positions all the time, so your argument that such people have no means to effectively engage in ethical discourse and persuasion because all morality is based on personal preference is self evidently incorrect.

[thinmintfingerprints]

1. Good isn't my preference, God defines what good is

2. Atheism is nihilistic, and that's not based on their being an afterlife or not. There are no moral standards in atheism besides preferences. There is a tribe where, as a coming of age ritual, the boys are raped( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbari_people ). The culture accepted/accepts it, and the boys don't demonstrate any psychological distress because of it, and ,so, as an atheist, can you argue why this practice would be wrong? Besides, "I personally don't like it"

3. Didn't say people can't be persuaded to different positions, didn't even say you can't engage in discourse about ethics; I just find it,again, pointless (I'll use this word alot lol) in the grand scheme of things. I don't see the point besides maybe atheists are bored, idk. I also think non religious christians are logical to engage in the discourse; I also think that they need Christ.----- In my observations, as an atheist, your argumentation appeals to nothing beyond how you personally feel about something that day. And if we, are all our own "gods," we can't make judgments / criticisms that amount to anything about each other's behavior /thoughts/actions because it doesn't matter, not because of an afterlife, because our lives are as important as dust building up on a fan. We aren't the imago dei ,we are just things pointlessly doing stuff. So, any atheist getting their hackles up about a pointless thing (person 1) having opinions about homosexuality,which is engaged in by other pointless things ( i.e., person 2&3), seems....irrational. If I bring it back, I have a moral basis based on Christ to have discourse on homosexuality, and I don't see why atheists care (they can have arguments but their emotional investment existentiallly appears pointless) beyond their present feeling in the moment. If atheism is true,why should I care about your feelings or opinions about this? You and I are fan dust.

[thinmintfingerprints]

Oooh "white christian nationalism", so scawy, oh no lmfao

Great replacement theory..hmm what was "his argument" and do you have evidence to the contrary of "his argument"?

Hated gender nonconformity? or had critisicms?- p.s. as a christian he had a reason to criticise '"gender" noncomformity.

Hated black and brown people....interesting.... where and when ? and also the east asians got a pass?

Was, in fact, a nazi....in fact....unless he was a time traveler, I don't think that's possible. And it is rhetoric like this, that positions you as uncredible. Stop appealing to emotions and inflammatory statements, and engage the arguments.

[thinmintfingerprints]

yes i think the man who advocated for white christian nationalism, thought the great replacement theory was real, hated gender nonconformity, and hated black and brown people was, in fact, a nazi. who’d’ve thought.

Prove it

[thinmintfingerprints]

[lowpawly]

I hate that like when arguing with christians about how they think that homosexuality is a sin because of the bible its a faux pas to be like ok well that's not real

[lowpawly]

I do not care about someone's personal creation mythology but when we are talking about like actual legislation that decides equal rights it is like ok you cannot just say source: religious document. why is that even allowed or taken seriously

[thinmintfingerprints]

Read a philosophy book,and maybe we can take you seriously

Note: People who make remarks like this are projecting. They want the world to function based upon their preferences but have no basis on why people should even agree to that (because everyone would ultimately have different opinions). At least people who have "mythology" have a standard beyond themselves and their preferences to appeal to.

[mandokero-eboy]

Religion does literally nothing to solve the problem of "everyone has different contradictory opinions on morality and you fundamentally can't provide someone an objective basis for preferred moral claims", you dumb bitch.

If you haven't noticed we already live and have always lived in a world where religions exist *and* (even within homogenous religious communities) everyone has different contradictory moral precepts. It's already hard enough to get people to establish a consensus on easily verifiable objective facts about the world and you want to act like you can easily establish an agreement on morality by quoting a magic book?

I could acknowledge literally every factual claim of your religion and reach completely different moral conclusions because the is-ought gap is *fundamental*

[thinmintfingerprints]

Yea, it does. You don't get it, and that's fine.

[mandokero-eboy]

I get that your emotional needs mean it's more personally comforting to you if you believe morality is backed up by external standards that are absolutely enforced but that doesn't make it rationally sound as a more effective basis for morality actually.

[thinmintfingerprints]

I arrived at this conclusion watching debates between atheists and apologists, reading atheist arguments, etc. I arrived at it through logical reasoning. Sure, emotions play a part, emotions play apart in literally everything, humans are emotional beings but assuming that my conclusions don't appeal to logic is.....interesting

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris , Alex O Connor, and their ilk....., their arguments weren't logically compelling enough for me

[mandokero-eboy]

yeah, those guys suck.

doesn't really solve the is-ought gap to point out a bunch of guys suck though.

[thinmintfingerprints]

I'm not concerned about whether they "suck" I cared about whether their arguments are worth their metal and they weren't ,the atheistic perspective when stress tested is weak, if Christianity is true then it's perspective on homosexuality and homosexual behavior is worth critic at least and at most public deterrence in society,if it's not true then yea it probably doesn't matter,the is ought claims have to be muddled through along with the presuppositions of which we are making our arguments

I can agree to disagree

[mandokero-eboy]

If you think Islam is fake why are you worried about Islamic extremists dawg?

[thinmintfingerprints]

I think Islam is "fake" (i.e., at best, muslims are being led astray and are worshiping a demonic force. The quran says allah is the greatest of deceivers, and Christians know satan to be the king of lies), but I still care about the souls of those extremists being led further away from Jesus

Also who brought up Islam?

[mandokero-eboy]

Damn, so things that you think aren't real can have consequences which concern you and you think are worth engaging with?

who'd have thought

[thinmintfingerprints]

As a Christian, it is logical for me to do so, and for many religious non christians as well.( Also, I didn't fully concede that Islam isn't "real",they could very well be worshipping a demonic force.)

People who are agnostic /atheist don't have a logical reason to be concerned with anything,from their world view; by their definition, it's ultimately of no consequence. There is no God, morality, and "good" is whatever I say it is, and that would also be true for the next person. Arguing about anything would be pointless. You say stealing is fine,I say stealing is wrong,and we are both right because how we feel about it (our preferences), is all that matters, and also nothing matters,we might as well be rocks.

[mandokero-eboy]

All of that would still be the case even if God existed, sorry to be the first to tell you.

[thinmintfingerprints]

Evidence of that where? Also I genuinely do not understand the atheistic perspective to argue for or against anything? It seems pointless

God does is exist, and His followers are called Christians

[thinmintfingerprints]

Do you think your existence is more important/consequential than a rock, and why?

[lowpawly]

I hate that like when arguing with christians about how they think that homosexuality is a sin because of the bible its a faux pas to be like ok well that's not real

[lowpawly]

I do not care about someone's personal creation mythology but when we are talking about like actual legislation that decides equal rights it is like ok you cannot just say source: religious document. why is that even allowed or taken seriously

[thinmintfingerprints]

Read a philosophy book,and maybe we can take you seriously

Note: People who make remarks like this are projecting. They want the world to function based upon their preferences but have no basis on why people should even agree to that (because everyone would ultimately have different opinions). At least people who have "mythology" have a standard beyond themselves and their preferences to appeal to.

[mandokero-eboy]

Religion does literally nothing to solve the problem of "everyone has different contradictory opinions on morality and you fundamentally can't provide someone an objective basis for preferred moral claims", you dumb bitch.

If you haven't noticed we already live and have always lived in a world where religions exist *and* (even within homogenous religious communities) everyone has different contradictory moral precepts. It's already hard enough to get people to establish a consensus on easily verifiable objective facts about the world and you want to act like you can easily establish an agreement on morality by quoting a magic book?

I could acknowledge literally every factual claim of your religion and reach completely different moral conclusions because the is-ought gap is *fundamental*

[thinmintfingerprints]

Yea, it does. You don't get it, and that's fine.

[mandokero-eboy]

I get that your emotional needs mean it's more personally comforting to you if you believe morality is backed up by external standards that are absolutely enforced but that doesn't make it rationally sound as a more effective basis for morality actually.

[thinmintfingerprints]

I arrived at this conclusion watching debates between atheists and apologists, reading atheist arguments, etc. I arrived at it through logical reasoning. Sure, emotions play a part, emotions play apart in literally everything, humans are emotional beings but assuming that my conclusions don't appeal to logic is.....interesting

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris , Alex O Connor, and their ilk....., their arguments weren't logically compelling enough for me

[mandokero-eboy]

yeah, those guys suck.

doesn't really solve the is-ought gap to point out a bunch of guys suck though.

[thinmintfingerprints]

I'm not concerned about whether they "suck" I cared about whether their arguments are worth their metal and they weren't ,the atheistic perspective when stress tested is weak, if Christianity is true then it's perspective on homosexuality and homosexual behavior is worth critic at least and at most public deterrence in society,if it's not true then yea it probably doesn't matter,the is ought claims have to be muddled through along with the presuppositions of which we are making our arguments

I can agree to disagree

[mandokero-eboy]

If you think Islam is fake why are you worried about Islamic extremists dawg?

[thinmintfingerprints]

I think Islam is "fake" (i.e., at best, muslims are being led astray and are worshiping a demonic force. The quran says allah is the greatest of deceivers, and Christians know satan to be the king of lies), but I still care about the souls of those extremists being led further away from Jesus

Also who brought up Islam?

[mandokero-eboy]

Damn, so things that you think aren't real can have consequences which concern you and you think are worth engaging with?

who'd have thought

[thinmintfingerprints]

As a Christian, it is logical for me to do so, and for many religious non christians as well.( Also, I didn't fully concede that Islam isn't "real",they could very well be worshipping a demonic force.)

People who are agnostic /atheist don't have a logical reason to be concerned with anything,from their world view; by their definition, it's ultimately of no consequence. There is no God, morality, and "good" is whatever I say it is, and that would also be true for the next person. Arguing about anything would be pointless. You say stealing is fine,I say stealing is wrong,and we are both right because how we feel about it (our preferences), is all that matters, and also nothing matters,we might as well be rocks.

[itsjustsodope]

Simplicity | 878

[thinmintfingerprints]

I’ve been thinking about the lack of paternity leave in America and:

Your partner should probably be financially prepared to not work for anywhere from 4 to 5 months once you start that 8th or 9th month of pregnancy.

Boys/Men aren’t socialized to give a shit about babies or child rearing in any meaningful way, but science has shown that when men are the primary caretaker, they are able to achieve attachments the same ways a woman raising a child would. 

With that in mind, while a woman deals with recuperating from pregnancy, he should be doing EVERYTHING, and he needs the time i.e. finances to do that. The person getting up for the feedings: him, the person putting the baby back to sleep: him, the person bathing, changing and soothing: him. By him doing all of these things, it ensures you have the time to yourself to heal from the pregnancy traumas as well as establishing that when it comes to caretaking, he is capable and responsible in the way a misogynistic society expects all women to be. If you want to raise a child (raise, not have) then prove it. Just because men (society) have decided they don’t want to provide paid pregnancy related work leave,(thereby devaluing the importance of our reproductive labor ) doesn’t mean we need to  go along to get along. He needs to at least have enough money to sustain all of you for half a year so he can raise your child while you heal.

[thinmintfingerprints]

Wow, the Lord really has worked on my heart and mind since I posted this 4 years ago🙀. I was still very much in a radical mindset , steeping myself in vice and bitterness. Like I only believe in, like maybe 25%-30% of this now and the things I agree with come from a different place. But like the economy was/is in shambles, girl and men aren't sole breadwinners anymore, get a grip🤣 we are all competing for resources,men and women alike.

[macden]

[thinmintfingerprints]

And everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi,so....you know.....