It fits the definition of a rhetorical statement. One example is your metaphor regarding masturbatory activity. Metaphor is a rhetorical device. I'm not sure how that is an assumption on my part since it is obvious that you did not mean that individuals are literally doing what you stated they were doing. What do you believe is a rhetorical statement if your audience is not supposed to infer such from your statement?
You're still missing the forest for the trees. And quite frankly I don't have the desire to hold your hand through understanding the mockery.
Are you sure? I was spanked and it was not abuse. Am I unique exception among those that have experienced corporal punishment? Also, if science were settled, we would still believe maggots are derived from spontaneous generation. The very essence of science is that it is never "settled." If it were, individuals like Johan Mendel (father of genetics), Anton van Leeuwenhoek (father of microbiology), and Joseph Lister (father of antiseptic surgery) would be remembered in infamy as science deniers today. The science was "settled" before their revolutionary discoveries.
People going through abuse and rationalizing it away that it wasn't that bad is a very well known quirk of the human brain. The normalization of hitting children to raise them usually lands with people who have gone through it themselves. Like every other form of abuse, children growing up in an a family of alcoholics are also more likely to turn to alcoholism, for example.
And it's settled science in the sense that we have the actual research and data to reference, your example of maggots spawning from nothing is not comparable to modern science in any way, shape, or form. It was an early precursor built on conjecture and guesswork, modern science has actual rigorous standards to document, test, and verify results. The results of the current studies hold up to scrutiny and have been successfully repeated beyond any doubt.
What you are describing is a consequence of increased consumption. The demand for convenient goods and services has increased exponentially. This then causes an increased demand for labor to supply these conveniences. Better pay, increased PTO, and a shorter work week sounds great, though fails to address the issue driving labor demand, consumer consumption. I do not see any sort of quick fix since the solution would require a cultural shift in attitude regarding consumerism (not an easy task with aggressive and invasive commercial advertising). Providing such benefits would seem to only exasperate consumer demand for labor supply rather than decrease it since time away from work is typically utilized to consume goods and services.
Automation has increased productivity by orders of magnitude yet wages stagnate, work weeks get longer, and the only people profiting are the capital owners. There's a reason unions are getting demonized in the US and how the standard of living is higher in the EU, where we do have a lot of those things you people lost over the decades.
Therefore Christian love is actually hate? You will need to elaborate your reasoning. As far as my lack of mind reading abilities are concerned, this is a non-sequitur.
Here is the most succinct way I can explain this: when a Christian mom loves their gay child a lot and sends them to conversion therapy in the hopes to make the kid "good" in the eyes of their religion all they do is put more abuse onto the child and accomplish nothing but adding more trauma. This dichotomy between a perceived act of love and the actual effects being nothing but abuse is rampant amongst the more extreme branches of the Christian faith, and has been for a long time.
Yes, I am ignoring every other group of people being guilty of the same, as only one religion is relevant here, at this moment.
Okay, so what you are saying is that an absent father is not a contributing factor while single parenthood is a contributing factor. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the majority of single parent homes are missing the father, at least that is the case in my area. I am also aware of the fact that repeated behavior children in public schools tend to come from homes without the biological father, with a revolving door of live-in boyfriends or, an abusive and/or negligent father. Basically, these children lack a stable and safe male parental figure. I was blessed to have a father that suffered the tragedy of being raised without his own father, who passed away from cancer. This caused him to vow never to allow his children to go without their father. My area is not so progressive as to have a significant pool of same-sex parents to render such a factor as relevant in these observable cases. These are children and families that I actually interact with. They are not some anonymous, impersonal, ambiguous statistic in an academic publication I read online.
Everything you've just said is literally just agreeing with what I said. The fact that the missing parent in question is predominantly the father, from your experience, doesn't change that the outcome would have been nearly identical had it been the mother that's missing instead.
That was the entire point I was making, a parent missing is the problem, not specifically that it's the father that is missing.
I am honestly unsure what you mean to say here. Do you mean that the fact that I claim that predominantly perceiving reality through the online lens causes a warped perception of reality has tainted that claim? If this is what you mean, please explain this phenomenon further since my reference to hyperreality was to express that my knowledge and experience on the subject is not chiefly online and that I suspect your own to be. If you disagree, please explain.
Your presupposition that my own experience is online only in combination with you telling me such online was reason for me to call out the hypocrisy of your statement.
Did I?
I thought that I was expressing that frequent drug use in the home is another factor I've found in common within the most hateful and resentful people that I know. You may read the context of the above excerpt again. I do not believe that I "cited drugs as the reason for the dysfunction." If you disagree, please explain why. It's also unclear as to what dysfunction you are referring to since there are two possibilities in this discussion, child behavior and adult hate and resentment.
Children learn from the people around them, substance abuse that is observed by young children will often be mirrored once they get older, perpetuating the cycle. Often times this is combined with emotional neglect, leads to stunted emotional growth, which can then also lead to the cycle repeating with the next generation.
I'm also referring to both, they are linked and often progress from one during childhood to the other during adulthood.
Hypocrisy is innately human. I can't really speak for others, but for myself it can be frustrating at times as the flesh and the reborn spirit war with one another.
The context of the above Scripture is that the Apostle Paul is arguing that the purpose of the Law of Moses (Torah) is to inform us of our inherent unrighteousness, thus necessitating the coming of the Messianic Savior, that is Christ Jesus. I highly recommend reading the entire epistle, not just the above excerpt from the section labeled Chapter Seven. Paul presents a well formulated apology for his position, making it an enjoyable read.
As my signature expresses, we are to hate the sin and not the sinner. Whether other professing Christians practice that or not, I cannot control and will not attempt to control. I can only petition for repentance and point to Jesus Christ. I do ask that you resist the urge of using sinners to justify your hatred of Jesus Christ. Though He is wholly man, He is also wholly God.
I've got no problem with the carpenter that potentially lived a couple thousand years ago and had aspirations to make the world a better place, I do have a problem with his followers using that as a justification for a lot of suffering they afflict on the rest of the world.
I do not believe your religion, and that is the nicest way I can formulate that.
Not a Christian, little boy. Not a Republican. Not a boomer. So that's three strikes against your flimsy little Strawman.
Just because you get checked by multiple people doesn't mean you OFFENDED multiple people. It just means you presented a shitty argument and got slapped down by the entire room.
Please find something more original than calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist, or of harboring a phobia. These words don't work at all. On anyone. Not sure what you were expecting, here. Probably not THIS outcome.
Please sit down and shut up. You're embarrassing yourself.
I was expecting exactly what I got from the people I mocked, the fact you can't grasp this isn't my problem. You also ignored the actual point I was making in favor of your own strawma but that was to be expected as well.
I'm quite glad you think I'm embarrassing myself because everything you said in here is so unbelievably stupid and narrow-minded it's basically a work of art.
Just in case I actually need to spell this out for you in plain English so you can pick it up the third time around: Everything you've said in here is so far removed from how reality actually works it's genuinely impressive and I am glad I have next to nothing in common with you, or people like you.
