Tampitump

That's a good question. On one hand, I can see where certain things that could potentially cause mass chaos and panic (like yelling fire in a theater) could and should be against the rules in certain places. I'm not sure that these things are actually "laws". I assume one is allowed to use the word "fire" in a theater if they want to, but there is a line between using it in a responsible way, and doing it to cause panic. Precipitating a riot is illegal I believe, but the words used to do it are not, themselves, illegal to say. So I get your point, my response to a college safe space would be that it is not illegal for me to speak my mind here, so don't tell me I can't do it.

Nah, not really. Most of this is over my head. I try to propose something though. What are your thoughts on Trump's climate change or energy policies versus Clinton's

Do you have any universities to recommend that I should look into down the road iNow? Heck, I direct this question to anyone who wants to answer. I know there are good schools out there beyond the prestigious, household names.

I can definitely see the reasons and logic behind that. I don't want to see people denigrated, harassed, or made to feel like second class citizens. I guess my position is that in public places I feel the free exchange of ideas should not be limited, and safe spaces should be relegated to people's homes. I can definitely understand why some public places have certain rules to keep the peace. Like a library requiring lowered voices, a movie theater prohibiting people from shouting "FIRE", or an airline prohibiting people from mentioning the word "bomb". There was a preacher at my college who set up on the court yard with a PA system calling everyone who walked by "sodomites, drunkards, sinners, and evil". Everything he said was despicable, bigoted, and he was a total piece of horse shit. He even called out this girl who walked by who had short hair (who wasn't even looking his direction) and said "what are you? A boy or a girl? God punishes faggots and lesbians! You will burn in Hell if you don't change" This guy wasn't from Westboro, but he was only about a hair's breadth away from their hate speech. I wished he would just drop dead, but I still support his right to do what he was doing. He has the right to voice his opinions in public. There is nothing wrong with people being allowed to walk away and not have this guy follow them and harass them. But I think it is diffferent when you declare a piece of public land wherein this guy is not allowed to go there and publicly voice his opinion. That is the idea of a safe space I'm referring to, and I don't think my advocacy of anti-stalking, anti-harassment laws negates this position.

Nobody saw this. Bump

I know

You guys are just as bad as you're labeling me. Insulting me like that. I do apologize for my antics. I know I seem like a douche bag, and an asshole. I suffer from severe, untreated depression. I'm not trying to use that as a crutch. But it's true. This form is how I get my anger out. I think of suicide every single day. I always end up bearing it out another day.but every day is a worse struggle for me to get through. My mind is infected with such depression.

Thanks. That's a good question. I have no idea. Which is why I felt the need to state my current situation and plan and get expert advice. All I know is that I want to be on the safe side, but still try to make it reasonably possible to do a phd in neuroscience. I know that my state flagship does interdisciplinary research in neuroscience that welcomes participants from all departments. It is actually a new and very exciting thing that is getting kicked off there. I'll be honest, I question deeply my ability to do a phd with the prodigious depression I suffer from, and the fact that school tends to overwhelm me. I'm behind the other students in my c++ class right now. Maybe this problem will be fixed in the future, maybe it won't. My desire to pursue a phd is purely out of a desire to do something impressive and GREAT in my life. But I have heavy doubts that it can be done. I know a guy that is sharp as all get out who couldn't finish his phd. He out-classes me from nearly every vector of intellectualism. He went to an elite school. If he can't do it, I seriously question my ability to.

When I point out the barbaric, absolutely asinine prescriptions in the old testamtent that the Quran only aspires to be as wicked as, Christians always use the soft euphemism of "Well, that was the OLD TESTAMENT. We don't go by that. Jesus gave us a new covenant." Blah blah fucking goddamn blah. lol

My brother in law is not a narcissist, a troll, or a sociopath. He is an atheist who keeps his atheism secret because he loves his wife. He's happy in that situation, and I think I will be too. My goal is not to deceive anyone, just to end the misery I live in most of the time. Most days seem better off unlived for me. It would be nice to meet a good girl. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm not one bit ashamed for keeping my atheism a secret to open up more options in my region. No one is atheist here. There's actually this girl in one of my classes that I find VERY attractive. She is one of those really smart, nerdy types, but very sexy. There is something very attractive about how she dismisses me. She's like nerdy, smart, but very confident. I find it super attractive. I'm too dickless to talk to her though.

This should make for a nicer discussion. Here are all the candidate's responses of a professionally organized questionaire on science. Here are their views on many important questions. I'm just gonna leave this here: http://sciencedebate.org/20answers Have fun discussing.

You go right on ahead thinking of me as a bigot Strange ole buddy. I support your right to hold that opinion, and couldn't give one rat's ass less what you think. Though I don't think the subject being discussed here is one that could or would involve the type of analytical, statistical, mathematical data you're looking for. I know you hate videos, and see them as a cop out, or admission of not having an argument, but..... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-oG0L6ZnU

There are millions of legitimate safe spaces in United States worth respecting, they're called people's homes. A public safe space is a dedicated area in a public place where people can go to escape criticism, or being "triggered". Its not constitutional, its an attack on free speech, it promotes victim culture, it ends debate and conversation, and it grants more power to words than should be granted. It is an authoritarian tool of the far left, and is not supported by me. I could grant that Islam is the best religion that ever existed both morally and intellectually, and my initial argument still stands. What I'm protesting is this concocted liberal notion that criticizing Islam, as opposed to other religions or ideas is somehow "Islamophobic", distasteful, and bigoted because, lets be honest, its a religion of "colored people", who are often viewed as an oppressed minority, and it kills the liberal narrative of elitist, high-brow, perceived moral-superiority to admit real problems in certain cultures and belief sets where they exist. Hillary Clinton, and others like her, show no reservation at all in calling millions of Americans bigots, and "deplorable" in the most elitist, sanctimonious way, (and lets be honest again, she's talking about mostly white, heterosexual, conservative, Christians here). It's okay to trash white, heterosexual, conservative, Christian people all you want in this country (your often considered a champion of social justice if you do), But don't you dare criticize Islam, you BIGOT. That's the liberal narrative I'm protesting. Otherwise I, myself, am on the left. I don't care what section of the ethnic spectrum believes in a certain idea, I still have every right to be as ruthless and strident in my criticism of it as I do other ideologies that I despise. My criticism is not directed at brown skinned people, its the ideology of Islam. I can't help that the place where this idea is most heavily believed is in parts of the world populated by a certain ethnic group. A muslim does not equal a brown skinned, Arabic person. All I'm asking that the liberals who call out Christians for their bigotry, misogyny, and irrational beliefs extend the same standard to Islam and the level support of its more barbaric parts in the muslim world. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are at the forefront of the effort to lead reform and champion human rights in the muslim world, and we should support her over these sanctimonious liberal elitists who only take these viewpoints to flaunt their "superiority". I agree that the first people to call out Islam for its atrocities are usually conservative, Christian bogots who are doing so, not to promote secularism and peace, but to promote their own ancient, religious, fairy tale bullshit. I'm just as much against them as liberals are. But we have to leave all ideas on the table to be equally ripped to utter shreds. We can't allow it to happen to some, but then shield other ones because it might be indecent to do so. No idea is sacred.

I'll never bother you guys again.

Good question. I know its a dick move, but people here are clever, and know religion very well. I figured I could get some good advice. As for the favorite Bible verse, I chose Jeremiah 29:11. Seems very straight-forward and inspirational. The lord has a plan for me which includes prosperity and peace. I like it. I actually think this is a good idea. I have no problem faking belief. It works for my brother in law just fine. He's happy. I'm not as bad as you think I am. I see now that I'll get the silent treatment here now. "Don't give that prick the time of day", I'm sure is essence of what they're saying. Fine fine..... Go ahead and delete this thread if your a mod. Thanks.

And once again, we're talking about beliefs, not race. Not at all on equal grounds are these two things. Of course I don't think this way about people based on their skin color, or where they were born. I can like whoever's beliefs or values I want, and I can express it without having to rethink that I'm being a bigot. I tend to like women with Christian values, and I tend not to like women who are atheists. When it comes to sexual preference, there is no bigotry. It's who you're attracted to, that's it. But anyway, getting back to my point. Some suggestions on some of these answers. Serious suggestions only please. Thanks.

I might actually try to convert back to Christianity, or at least adopt the talking points and pretend to believe. I'm actually perfectly fine with that. My oldest sister is married to a guy who pretends to be Christian, or at least believe in God for her. They have the best relationship I've ever seen, and they are crazy about each other. He has confessed his non-belief to me when we hang out just us two. I actually don't like atheist women. I've never met one that I find attractive, and I honestly don't find atheism attractive. I like Christian women. Something about them. of course not all of them. But when they're good, they're the best.

I'm trying to find a nice girl, or meet nice girls who may potentially become dates/partners. I decided to make a Christian Mingle account because I find that I'm mostly attracted to Christian women for some reason. They seem more sweet, concerned about their presentation, pure, devoted to their partners, etc etc etc... There is something about them that lends itself to good girlfriend/wife material. So there are questions you can answer on your profile about your life, hobbies, work, goals, passions, and, of course your Christian-related views. Here are some of the questions, and my responses to some of them (tell me if they sound "Christiany" enough): Question: What does being a Christian mean to you? Response: To believe in something bigger than myself. To be aware of the sacrifice that has been made for me and everything on this great Earth, so that we need not suffer. To rejoice in Christ, and to live by his guidance. Question: How long have you been a Christian? Response: Since I was twelve years old. I was taken to church as a child and exposed to the word of Christ, but my choice to follow Christ came at the age of twelve when I consciously decided that my life is better in Christ, and that my purpose is to serve him and to help others find him. (This is actually not too far from the truth) Those are actually the only two I've answered so far..... Other questions include the following: Who am I and what am I looking for? What good things have past relationships taught me? What is my favorite Bible verse and why? (I really need help thinking of a nice verse) Should I really milk the Christianness? Or should I kind of back off from it on some questions? I want to make myself accessible to as big a variety of women as possible. I know not all of these girls will be on equal parts of the devoutness spectrum. [DISCLAIMER] I recognize that this is completely dishonest, bogus, and a total dick move. I don't care. I'm tired of having no girlfriend, and honestly, I like Christian girls. I grew up with them. They're what I'm used to. I don't mind pretending to be Christian forever (or at least for the duration of a relationship) if it gets me a nice girlfriend and all the nice things that go along with that.

I don't really have any more arguments to make. I've presented what my positions are and the level of information I have on them. The people here have torn it all apart and disagree, so all I can do is concede the win. I'm not very informed, I admit it. To be honest, I'm not very good at doing research, or making strong arguments or assessments of the material when its attained. I've been out-witted by the most ditsy, air-headed girls from high school on facebook in some arguments. I try to take on positions that are mostly considered informed or intelligent, but many times I get caught in not being able to defend them beyond the typical soundbites popularly espoused. I present the essence of a free-thinker and informed person, but what I really do is learn a surface understanding of the position, memorize what popular individuals say, then sort of paraphrase them partially in my own words. I know that other people probably do this as well to some degree, but I do it with pretty much everything. Honestly, I'm too lazy to really be a well-read, academically-ambitious person. I wish I were. Some people always seem to have the right knowledge at the right time on tap. I just don't have that ability.

I'm not talking about MUSLIMS. I'm talking about MUSLIM SUPPORT FOR ISLAMIC BARBARISM. I'm criticizing the idea, not the people. If it were a heterosexual, white, male from Kentucky, he would be equally under my criticism radar, and it would apply to him. Have I made that CLEAR? I've clearly stated that the people who are affected by this idology the most are Muslims themselves. I wish to free them (and the rest of the world) of their ideology, not to ban them from our society. I believe in criticizing the religion and the beliefs. I WANT EVERYONE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I'VE SAID THIS BECAUSE I'VE PROBABLY SAID THIS FIVE TIMES NOW IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY AND IT STILL KEEPS COMING BACK AS AN ASSERTION THAT I'M BEING BIGOTED AGAINST MUSLIM PEOPLE. No more accusations of bigotry. NONE. There is no bigotry here. I'm the furthest thing from a bigot. You do realize that a Muslim is merely a label for someone who subscribes to the belief set right? If it were an alien from the Andromeda Galaxy who subscribed to it, that alien would be a Muslim.If it were a white guy fro Ireland, he'd be a muslim. It does not mean "brown skinned, Arab person". If I believed in Islam, I'd be a Muslim. It's not a race, not an ethnicity, not a nationality. Its a label applied to people who believe in the religion. Its like calling someone a vegan of feminist. People who subscribe to the ideology. I can think that they, as vegans of feminists, are irrational without thinking that they, as overall human beings are. What is my argument? Tell me what my argument is?

Why don't you acknowledge the evidence when I present it, iNow? At least acknowledge that something which constitutes a submission of evidence has been put on the table by me. I just gave you Pew numbers from three Muslim-majority countries in their support for barbaric laws. The thing I'm arguing against is not Islamic fundamentalism, ISIS, or fringe groups within the Muslim world. I'm arguing against the mainstream Islamic community in the middle east. These beliefs are clearly mainstream when you look at the numbers of people who support sharia law, are in favor killing apostates, are in favor of stoning adulterers, etc. This is purely medieval barbarism that is repudiated by our mainstream in west and you know it. The only Christians who advocate this in the west are fringe groups who are repudiated heavily by our mainstream. Nobody cares about Dominionist Christians because they are irrelevant, and on the fringe of our society. Our mainstream discourse repudiates the Westboro people, and other people like them. When these people are polled in Muslim-majority countries, they say flat out "yes, I do think apostates should be put to death," "Yes, I do think adulterers should be stoned," "Yes, I do think homosexuals should be put to death," etc etc etc..... I don't know, and have never met a single Christian in my life who said they wanted the death penalty for adultery, or apostasy, or homosexuality, and 99.999% of the people I've ever known or met in my life have been the most devout Christians of the Bible Belt you could ever meet. The only thing I'm saying is that there is a clear warrant for criticism of mainstream Islam here. There is a legitimate need to be worried about this religion (along with these interpretations and values) propagating into western society. My objection is when liberals like Hillary Clinton use the word "Islamophobe" to slap the "bigot" label on people who even suggest that there are concerns here. She just wants to sit up there with her elitist, liberal buddies with the utmost sanctimony and tout her moral-superiority for being so "worldy" and "enlightened", when in reality she is throwing all the Muslim victims of Islamic ideology under the bus in the name of political correctness. I also keep getting slapped with the accusation that I'm painting all muslims equally, and therefore I'm being a bigot. Nowhere did I ever suggest or imply that all muslims are bad people. In fact, I've said several times that I'm criticizing the idea, and how it is popularly viewed in the Muslim world. But instead of addressing it, everyone ignores large parts of what I say, and continue to ask where my evidence is, and ignore the times when I do make good arguments, make positive statements, and present good reasons. I think everyone who has conversed with me in these two threads today should be ashamed of themselves. You've ignored evidence, and have refused to recognize true threats that face the world you live in. If commercial jets crashed into the tallest buildings in five US cities tomorrow, and the leaders of all Islamic countries rejoiced in it, all of you would probably still be sitting here saying "where's your evidence man", "you can't even make a good argument man"..... There comes a point where you're no longer using the scientific method, you're just avoiding the truth. There is high standards of evidence, then there is just denial of evidence. There is need to be alarmed by this religion and the large fundamental support for its prescriptions in the Muslim world and you all KNOW IT.

Boy, I guess you're right iNow. I am stupid. Everyone here seems to think so. Irrational.....I hold positions I don't fully understand.....can't make logical arguments.....arrive at conclusions unscientifically on insufficient evidence.....

There's the scientific method, then there's just stubborn unwillingness to accept patently obvious realities that are right before your face because they haven't been verified from "credible sources", or because no "citations" have been met. I concede the economics debate because I really don't give as much of a god damn about it, but the Islamic debate is the one that I'm still right on. I don't know how you can have such a large population of people who tell you straight up that they support the death penalty for apostates, gays, and adulterers, and still keep up with you soft, denialistic, obscurantism and unwillingness to accept the facts of reality. Here's just a small sample of the pew data: People in favor of stoning as the penalty for adultery: Egypt - 89% (66,486,600 people) Pakistan - 81% (162,069,000 people) Afghanistan - 85% (25,967,500 people) Total - Roughly 254,523,500 people People in favor of the death penalty for leaving the religion: Egypt - 86% (70,571,600 people) Afghanistan - 79% (24,095,000 people) Pakistan - 76% (138,396,000 people) Jordan - 82% (5,296, 380 people) Total - Roughly 238,358,908 And these results are only from 3 or 4 small countries. The rest of the countries that were polled ranged anywhere from 30%-60%. I understand that sample sizes matter, but this is not a surprising statistic given the doctrinal advocacy of these things from the various Hadiths and the Quran. I would say these numbers are pretty accurate, and I feel that Pew has a pretty good operation going on when it comes to statistics and polling. So when people keep saying, "there's no evidence for your assertions", or just continue to deny obvious truths, it is more than annoying and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for being like that. Like I said before, there's the scientific method, then there's just denial, obscurantism, and unwillingness to accept evidence that is presented.

The scientific method, and careful observation is not always the answer. Sometimes you need the spunk, you need the anger, and you need to react.

There's the scientific method, then there's just stubborn unwillingness to accept patently obvious realities that are right before your face because they haven't been verified from "credible sources", or because no "citations" have been met. I concede the economics debate because I really don't give as much of a god damn about it, but the Islamic debate is the one that I'm still right on. I don't know how you can have such a large population of people who tell you straight up that they support the death penalty for apostates, gays, and adulterers, and still keep up with you soft, denialistic, obscurantism and unwillingness to accept the facts of reality. Here's just a small sample of the pew data: People in favor of stoning as the penalty for adultery: Egypt - 89% (66,486,600 people) Pakistan - 81% (162,069,000 people) Afghanistan - 85% (25,967,500 people) Total - Roughly 254,523,500 people People in favor of the death penalty for leaving the religion: Egypt - 86% (70,571,600 people) Afghanistan - 79% (24,095,000 people) Pakistan - 76% (138,396,000 people) Jordan - 82% (5,296, 380 people) Total - Roughly 238,358,908 And these results are only from 3 or 4 small countries. The rest of the countries that were polled ranged anywhere from 30%-60%. I understand that sample sizes matter, but this is not a surprising statistic given the doctrinal advocacy of these things from the various Hadiths and the Quran. I would say these numbers are pretty accurate, and I feel that Pew has a pretty good operation going on when it comes to statistics and polling. So when people keep saying, "there's no evidence for your assertions", or just continue to deny obvious truths, it is more than annoying and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for being like that. Like I said before, there's the scientific method, then there's just denial, obscurantism, and unwillingness to accept evidence that is presented