For the first eighteen years of a person's life, any version of Christianity they are presented with is going to be fake.
Christianity for children involves pretending that Christians do not have legitimate disagreements on important matters.
Once adulthood starts, any Christian who asks a...
You are welcome to potter along to the East End of London and take a look at wino/junkie charities like Spitalfields Crypt.
I worked there for a year. Their view of the world is that it consists of one group: victims (winos, junkies and a handful of others), who have zero accountability towards...
A wino or junkie has no responsibilities at all. Nothing will ever be demanded of Captain Victim.
However, suggest that a wino's or junkie's right to income support, night-shelter accommodation or endless handouts of food and clothing might not be worth providing any more and all hell will...
I wouldn't watch a forty-minute video to hear a person's viewpoint in the first place. That said, if I had absolutely nothing to do for that amount of time, the chapter headings alone are enough to tell me that the author is not taking the debate seriously.
I could watch some cake set instead.
Wrong.
You can definitely have rights without responsibilities.
Just take a look at children, asylum-seekers, people with 'mental-health issues', winos, junkies etc.
The question of the legitimacy of government is irrelevant to my original post.
This is nothing to do with where law-making bodies get their authority from or where anyone thinks they should. It is to do with the fact that law-making bodies exist, whether you want them to or not.
The concept of universal human rights is nonsense.
A right can be given by a law-making body.
The absence of a law against something means that it is a right until a law against it is introduced.
That is all a right amounts to. Everything else described as 'my right' is a want.
As more...
If the Commodore Amiga, the Atari ST and the Sinclair QL all evolved from the Apple Macintosh, how come they all existed in the shops at the same time?
If there is never any justification for violence, Chris Rock's remarks have nothing to do with anything related to Will Smith's behaviour.
If Chris Rock's actions are somehow part of the discussion, then violence has justification under some circumstances. What those circumstances are is a...
The original question reminds me of a joke about creationists which it would not be permitted to tell on these forums.
It's a shame, because it's quite a funny joke.
EDIT: 'not be permitted to ask' changed to 'not be permitted to tell'