Ars Fireside @ ArsFireside @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

26

Joined

2 yr. ago

Okay.

Well, if you actually ever support someone, and they appear to be a bad person, you should know you paid them for their art style adding to not knowing they were a bad person, so you're not actually guilty. Also, even that person deserves a possibility to become better and start over, and thus, they shouldn't be cancelled. That's what we both know, am I right?

Sure. What happened to Alec Holowka is a pretty blunt and cruel example.

Well, it is controversial, unfortunately. I never understood the logic behind calling piracy a theft, because nothing actually gets stolen, only copied.

Sexist, huh... It's interesting. May I ask you to elaborate further? Thank you in advance.

Digital piracy not being an immoral crime (or crime at all) and not making one a horrible person.

If anything, that was just an answer to the topic question, I don't have anything about anyone's human rights. Ah, by the way, I forgot! Of course! What I said also includes the necessity to explicitly state your words aren't deliberately harmful if they can be seen as such by someone. (Again, it's just an answer to the topic, I don't bear any harmful intentions to anyone.)

Social Justice Warriors forcing their agenda and worldview into languages, movies, books, and games, and cancelling everyone who did something regrettable in the past.

Okay, thank you for your answer! I appreciate it!

Indeed, it is. But I wouldn't ask it if I weren't interested.

I know, I know.

Thank you for the answer! I think it really does make sense, so I appreciate your answer.

Yes, we're talking about humans here.

I know it, and I even use it myself in everyday life. So?

I'm not trying to blame you for not believing or anything like that. We're just discussing, that's all. I'm trying to say that various things can exist or not exist, regardless of them being proven or not. Even not being proven, God still can exist. As well as there are various things in the past that were once proven, but didn't actually exist and later were deemed as mistakes or misunderstandings or some other phenomena.

So absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, did I get it right?

Okay. And, he doesn't exist because of... Why? What makes you think that?

I've already said it below, but I'll say it again:

Please love yourself. You are wonderful even beside you doing anything. If you're feeling guilty, then you should try to do something good to redeem it.

Well, I hope you did read The Bible by yourself to make these statements, rather than leaning only on Dawkins, who seems to seek for reasons to be an atheist. I also hope you did understand the context of what is written in Bible, relating to people's norms, God's treatment of those norms, history of nations, prophecies, etc. Besides, the same “Old Testament” God had sent His Son to the Earth to save humanity, rendering The New Testament and the doctrine of forgiveness, love, friendship, and being the better human being.

Did God instruct people to hate each other? Did He say "kill, murder, hate everyone, and destroy the world" or something like that? I thought He said the complete opposite. Like, love each other, don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness, don't be envious, etc. What's so bad about all of it?

Also, we're talking about God, but you said "Gods". Why's that? What do you have against other gods or gods in general?

The same for you. Please be well, my friend.