Crimson K

Saw it this afternoon. I thought it was better than it had any right to be. As an 80s kid, it hit a lot of the right notes for a He-Man movie. Some jokes fell flat, but there were legit funny lines. I didn’t feel it was preachy, more tongue in cheek poking fun at both modern and 80s cultural ideas. Teela was a badass, but they didn’t do the whole she can’t be saved by any man routine. My 17yo son, who had no idea about any of the characters, liked it too, but he was quite a bit less enthusiastic. I’d say 8/10, but he was like 6.5.

This dumbo thinks every white kid who knows how to swim had a pool.

The three middle fingers thing hit me just right. Thanks for sharing. Very informative. I hope it get a chance to use it.

quote:

---

Is this facts in or out of evidence? It’s from the testimony cited in this very thread

---

You saw the testimony where the teammate of Metcalf said Metcalf word for word said “I’m not going to fight you at a track meet?” And that Anthony was escalating while having his hand in the bag with a folding knife open and ready to go? How he was asked an estimated 15 times to leave and refused becoming more aggressive? How the other kids were literally sitting around, refuting any being ganged up on claim? Or the multiple accounts that the stabbing and push were simultaneous? (One witness even saying Metcalf didn’t really have the chance to push him before he’d been stabbed) There is zero way to look at any of this testimony and see this as anything but disastrous for the defense trying to claim Metcalf as the aggressor.

ETA. As far as premeditation goes, search says this, but I make no claims to legal knowledge

Instantaneous Premeditation: Courts recognize that the intent to kill and the decision to act can form in a matter of seconds, provided there is time for reflection before the act.
Focus on Reflection, Not Duration: The key legal distinction is whether the defendant had a "second look" or opportunity to reconsider their impulse, rather than how much time passed

If this is indeed the legal standard, then Karmelo could easily fit this based on testimony.

quote:

---

You repeatedly said that the biblical viewpoint requires a cosmological view that few Christians hold. I quoted your words. And you reiterate it below
Yes. The language in the Bible that describes the flat disc shape of the earth, set on pillars in a great deep ocean of chaos

---

Then do me the courtesy I afforded you and withdraw your claim that I made straw man argument saying this.

quote:

---

Specifically, you built up the Christian viewpoint as a logic trap. You tried to force an absurd position because it allowed you to more effectively mock. You say language is figurative when it suits your point of view, but argue it must be literal and understood by a 21st century enlightened standard when it gives you an advantage. That was and is the straw man.

I don’t see that as a straw man. I’m not falsifying or misconstruing anyone’s position…

---

If you force a false binary, giving options that support your argument either way, then you are creating a straw man. You and I will disagree on whether you are forcing a false binary. I have no problem with you claiming so, BUT you saying there is no room for disagreeing with you presupposes several things. As a simple example, a believer who does not believe in literal inerrancytive? would have absolutely zero problem with this “contradiction.” A view of the Bible as a book of wisdom focused on religious ideas contains scientific errors. Ok. A person writing from a limited scientific knowledge base making mistakes in cosmology is no surprise. It would not change the message that is being conveyed from the writer that God controlled the heavens. Your recognizing the flaw in scientific understanding changes absolutely nothing about that. Do obvious mistakes in Darwin’s understanding of evolutionary theory negate the concept? Do Platonic writings with similar errors negate the importance of the writings from a secular perspective? The analogies are of course limited, but they convey the principle. You clearly said below that a biblical viewpoint requires a literal cosmological view. I asked specifically if I was misrepresenting. I have given a basic third view here that destroys a false binary logic trap. You are insisting on a post-enlightenment view of “knowledge” and “truth” that ancient cultures did not hold. I operate from that too. We are both making arguments from that POV. Judging ancient cultures with that standard will always result in misunderstanding.

quote:

---

Look man, if you can’t agree that there are “many” flat earthers and that the main justification is their fundamentalist religious beliefs, then we probably won’t agree on much of anything. This is easily verifiable by you if you

---

This right here is exactly the kind of thing that is why I started a dialogue with you in the first place. I have no knowledge of flat earthers. I know exactly zero people, whether secular or religious, who hold this view. You made a claim that I asked you to support. (It was one of three things I asked, but you only responded to this). You did so with evidence that did NOT support your view. You then said that you were just pointing out similar things, which makes no logical sense. You have moved to, I should investigate further to prove your point. Then you say, look man you should just verify it. SO, I did. I looked at a website called the flat earth society. It is a mix of a variety of religions (including Muslims shockingly) and a strong atheist group. I actually reported this to you. Here is a quote from their Flat Earth FAQ page (bonding is from me)

quote:

---

Is Flat Earth Theory connected to a religion? Flat Earth Theory is neither officially nor unofficially associated with any religion. Throughout the ages various religious institutions have championed a flat earth model for the world. Unfortunately this leaves us with the vestigial thought that Flat Earth Theory and religions are symbiotic. They are not, even though many religions today, both mainstream and otherwise, still teach its followers that the world is flat. While they are not incorrect, believing in a flat earth isn't contingent upon believing in a deity or being a part of any religion

---

. Here is a link to that very page
Flat Earth FAQs

Is this page representative of FE ideology. No idea. But it definitely isn’t in line with your claim above. Now I actually brought receipts. I went well beyond what you were willing to do.

quote:

---

You probably forgot you took a position. Remember this?
quote: We can laugh at that video together

---

If you want to claim that denying an absurd position is in fact taking a position, then OK, you got me. But is it possible I meant that I hadn’t taken a position for or against the claim you made in the context? You know, in the sense of not unintentionally mischaracterizing what I said.

quote:

---

Yes I felt you were mischaracterizing my position. I said there were a lot of fundamentalists who believed the earth was flat, but didn’t say all Christians were fundamentalists and didn’t even say it was a majority position among fundamentalists. If it’s 0.5% of a billion people, that’s still 5,000,000 people which is “a lot” of people

---

Remember how I conceded this. Would you do the courtesy of examining positions you took that I feel have done the same?

quote:

---

They have global conferences and put up billboards

---

Not that you have demonstrated. And saying that if I don’t verify your claim after already putting in some time trying is not a valid response.

quote:

---

So at first you tried to argue no one believed that stuff, and then when I said a lot believed it, you tried to say I said it was the mainstream position

---

This is not what happened. You made a claim that I asked you to prove by testing and substantiation, which was the threshold you told another poster was necessary for making a claim. I didn’t say no one believed it. I asked you to demonstrate it. That is a mischaracterization of what happened. If you are open minded and discussing in good faith, this is indisputable I definitely overstated what you said by claiming you were calling it “mainstream.” In context you used the wording “a lot of fundamentalists” believe in a flat earth theory as a proof that theists have irrational positions. I took that to mean something that you say you didn’t, so I take you at your word.

quote:

---

I’m guilty of that too. I can be better. Sorry about that

---

Sincerely appreciated.

quote:

---

TenWheelsForJesus

---

Just curious about the user name

quote:

---

I would like you to respond

---

Only because you asked, but this is really it for me.

quote:

---

Why did I not create a straw man? Because I did not distort your view point. I didn’t falsely accuse you of making a different argument than the one you were making. At least, I don’t think I did. It’s hard to keep up with all you Christians sometimes to remember who said what

---

I will give you that you have not distorted MY viewpoint. I have explicitly stated numerous times now that I am not arguing against your positions, but am critiquing your argumentation. I have made no claims from a Christian viewpoint. Zero. I have challenged your framing of the Christian viewpoint and other viewpoints too. I challenged you on your reasoning, your linguistic argumentation and your understanding of discussion and debate. I have said and tried to demonstrate that you have been accusing those with a different view of the very things you are doing about multiple topics.

Specifically, you built up the Christian viewpoint as a logic trap. You tried to force an absurd position because it allowed you to more effectively mock. You say language is figurative when it suits your point of view, but argue it must be literal and understood by a 21st century enlightened standard when it gives you an advantage. That was and is the straw man. You repeatedly said that the biblical viewpoint requires a cosmological view that few Christians hold. I quoted your words. And you reiterate it below. You tried to prove many biblical fundamentalists hold said position by linking 2 videos from no name internet sites from multiple years ago. You also linked to flat earthers who demonstrated no religious view of any kind. After I pointed that out, you said you were only showing that some people believe in flat earth views. Why in the world would that be relevant?


This is what you quoted as proving I made a straw man claim argument you.

quote:

---

Me: This is you literally saying that rejecting biblical cosmology as you presented it is rejecting the word of God.

You: Ok. You reject biblical cosmology right? You reject the flat earth, covered by a firmament holding up a heavenly ocean, no? It is incontrovertible that the Bible describes such a thing. It’s all over including in Genesis 1. It’s an incontrovertible fact that the Israelites and their surrounding neighbors (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia) believed in this same model.

---

I said you made a claim. You agree you made that claim. You are AGREEING with my framing of what you said. You even make the claim explicitly below which I bolded in the next quote. This doesn’t meet even your half definition of a straw man argument. Where is a distortion or falsification of what you said? It’s hard to picture that I misunderstood when you appear to agree, but if I did, then clarify. If I didn’t, withdraw your claim and move on.

Again from you:

quote:

---

By denying biblical cosmology, which you have done, then the implication is that you are denying the word of God (or the words of the authors of the biblical books, depending on what you believe or don’t believe about divine authorship or inspiration). You are literally denying the truthfulness of the words on the pages. And that was a truthful statement, not mischaracterizing your arguments

---

I’ve not confirmed or denied any position. I have argued only on the framing of your position. Do you really not see that this argument here says that your framing of biblical cosmology MUST be the understood view or the mainstream view is incorrect for believers? For people who believe in the word of God, to deny that cosmology would deny the truthfulness of the words on the pages. I would assume you would tell a Jew or Christian who didn’t hold this cosmological view that they deny the word of God. If I am misunderstanding you, then I will admit that I have mischaracterized your POV.

quote:

---

So here’s the formula. I am saying your accusation that I am saying a flat earth must be a mainstream view is complete bullshite

---

I honestly went back at looked at the previous posts. I hope that you will do the same to see if you might have misconstrued anything. I can concede the point that you have not explicitly made this claim in the way I characterized it by the use of the word mainstream. I took your use of the term “a lot” farther than it can fairly go. Contextually you used it as an example of close minded theistic thinking. That is my error and I apologize for it. The intent wasn’t to twist your argument, but I did nonetheless. If you want to call it a straw man feel free.
I will stand by my assertion that your argument above carries the strong implication that Jews or Christian’s can’t claim belief in the Bible while denying that view. You haven’t explicitly said so, but I’m not sure where else logic could lead. I will also say that you have not proved “a lot.” As an aside, I’m interested to know if you think flat earth believers are at least more consistent with what they believe.

quote:

---

You didn’t like my YouTube videos?

---

Two videos from 4 & 7 years ago? I’m going to say insufficient evidence.

quote:

---

Maybe the article didn’t spoon feed you. The purpose of the article was to show the existence of the flat earthers. What you have to then research yourself is WHY are they flat earthers

---

It’s not how you framed it. Go look for yourself. You specifically responded to a quote from me about insufficient evidence for saying a lot of biblical fundamentalists…

quote:

---

That are all flat earthers due to them being biblical fundamentalists which accept biblical cosmology as the biblical authors believed

---

This is a claim you ask me to substantiate for you. Seriously? The article you linked has quotes from flat earthers mentioning how science based it is. It stretches credulity to think that the author of the article wouldn’t mention a religious connection if there had been one presented.

Just for giggles I tried to load the webpage from the billboard. No longer active. And because I am a masochist, I found a webpage called the Flat Earth Society. Their forums seem pretty evenly split between religionists of all types (which they self label jihadists funnily enough) and atheist. There is even a section where they get together to talk about what they have in common if you can believe it.

For my part, I’ll just say a general sorry for the snarkiness. That is absolutely one thing you can truthfully say has been projected. I’d argue both ways. Not sure if either of us learned anything from the other, sadly. I’ll let this thread go back to its topic and quit trashing it up.

Had to google how to kill with a hammer. What a world.

quote:

---

Their athletic programs sure aren't or, at minimum, their coaches' salaries

---

My search AI says this:

quote:

---

The vast majority of NCAA Division I athletic departments are not self-supporting, with recent analysis indicating that approximately 93% of collegiate athletic organizations operate at a deficit. While the top quartile of high-spending FBS schools (roughly 32 institutions) achieves over 100% self-sufficiency, the bottom quarter of FBS schools covers only 40% of their expenses with generated revenue, and the next quartile covers just 50%

---

That’s pretty sobering.

Vandy doing work.