Removed by mod
Removed by mod
And that’s why I haven’t said anything. Now no one will realize that I’m the sickest fuck of them all.
I disagree with most of these but that one most of all.
That’s the actual true neutral. You’re a druid.
You’re funny. There’s nothing even remotely pro-Russia in my post history nor have I made any effort to convince anyone not to vote.
I just think our country is fucked because of… well, pretty much everything that’s happened over the course of my life.
Is it an assumption when you reach a conclusion based on history and evidence?
Come on my dude. They are probably just friends and ol’ Vlad was just giving him a belated or early birthday gift over a lovely brunch of blinis and caviar.
~And if anyone is wondering why there’s no “end sarcasm” indicator, it’s because the sarcasm should be so fucking obvious that no one currently alive on this planet with access to the internet should be able to misunderstand it.~
And now I’m listening to Wu-tang Clan.
Modest? That sounds like an excellent proposal!
I think that was meant to be tongue in cheek. The article also says:
There are, however, no plans to introduce studies of the dark arts or satanic rituals to any classroom. The Satanic Temple champions Satan not as a literal, omnipresent demon, but as a symbol of rebellion and resistance to authoritarianism. It says its strategy here is to highlight flagrant violations of the constitutionally protected separation of church and state.
Isn’t manipulating and preying on the gullible the main way that religion causes harm?
Gulliblity isn’t binary. I’d argue that those buying into organized religion are more gullible than people who identify as “spiritual.” If I asked you to rank people from least to most gullible based only on their religion, would you not rank a person that considers themselves spiritual but not drawn to a particular church higher than a member of a pentecostal church that regularly attends faith healing events?
Finally, this part is anecdotal but, the majority of people I know that consider themselves spiritual but not religious are people that attended one or more churches for a while but questioned or took issues with parts of those churches teachings. They may believe that there is some form sky daddy watching over us but, by they have displayed a degree of critical thinking. I can’t present concrete proof that sky daddy isn’t real so, as long as they aren’t using that belief to cause harm, I see no reason to immediately distrust someone simply for considering themselves spiritual.
I think spiritual vs religious can be an important difference. Generally speaking it’s organized religions that are causing major harm not the individuals who believe their is something beyond our physical reality.
thinly veiled
Pretty sure they just said it outright.
According to the article, she was beaten by someone from Labour.
They just need to look at their Presidential candidate.
I’ve been using the term “pre-dystopia” to describe life right now.
A progressive VP would make me a lot more excited about voting Biden.
Also, there’s only one starch. We have potatoes with our toast.
America: Hold my beer…