Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:26 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:04 pm NBC News

Former Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. filed a state lawsuit Wednesday against the evangelical school founded by his father, claiming he was wrongly ousted from his leadership post.
...
In a complaint in state court in Lynchburg, Virginia, Falwell's lawyers alleged that Liberty defamed Falwell and breached the former president's contract.

"Mr. Falwell has suffered damage to his reputation, damage to his profession, humiliation, and anguish; lost business opportunities; and suffered other pecuniary damage," according to the plaintiff's complaint.

Yahoo News

Liberty University has sued its former president Jerry Falwell Jr, a once influential figure among U.S. evangelical Christians, saying he undermined its moral standards by concealing his wife's affair with a pool attendant who attempted to extort them.

The complaint filed on Thursday in a state court in Lynchburg, Virginia seeks at least $30 million in damages.

It said Falwell, 58, breached his duties by refusing to disclose his and his wife Becki's relationship with the attendant, and negotiating a higher salary and severance package when he knew the affair could damage the school.

Liberty said Falwell improperly mixed his university duties with his personal life despite knowing that "infidelity, immodesty, and acceptance of a loose lifestyle would stand in stark contrast to the conduct expected of leaders at Liberty."
...
In October, Falwell had sued Liberty for defamation, saying it damaged his reputation by lending credence to what he called Granda's "lies." He dropped that lawsuit in December.

Posted: **Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:30 pm**

Why is it always about the pool boy?

Posted: **Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:32 pm**

Because there are so few butlers anymore.

Posted: **Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:54 am**

Majority of adults not affiliated with a church

Only 47 percent of American adults said they were members of a church, mosque or synagogue, according to recently released polling that was conducted by Gallup throughout last year. It marked the first time that a majority of Americans said they were not members of a church, mosque or synagogue since Gallup first started asking Americans about their religious membership in the 1930s.

Posted: **Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:57 am**

Strange that the two most worshiped figures in America are Florida Man and Bernie Sanders. Go figure.

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2021 4:40 pm**

Thread on open Christian Nationalism in Mississippi state government (and beyond).

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2021 4:42 pm**

Why is it the inmates run the asylum?

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2021 4:55 pm**

There's good money in falsely predicting Armageddon. See the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2021 5:23 pm**

Predicting the 'End Times' is an American tradition since before there was a United States. It is practically an institution here. That it is inside the Government is a mostly new and scary wrinkle though.

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2021 5:25 pm**

malchior wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 5:23 pm Predicting the 'End Times' is an American tradition since before there was a United States. It is practically an institution here. That it is inside the Government is a mostly new and scary wrinkle though.

You understand the irony of you writing that post, right?

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2021 5:31 pm**

The thread makes clear that End Times narratives aren't the only issue, though. It features, for instance, government officials at a state-sponsored event praying for the conversion of all Jews to Christianity.

Posted: **Fri May 07, 2021 5:47 pm**

Holman wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 5:31 pm The thread makes clear that End Times narratives aren't the only issue, though. It features, for instance, government officials at a state-sponsored event praying for the conversion of all Jews to Christianity.

That is somewhat less likely than Armageddon.

Posted: **Wed May 19, 2021 12:40 pm**

Good to see the Mormon church is making good use of their tithing donations by...checks notes...buying Gamestop and Tesla stock.

The Mormon Church was a surprise winner from the GameStop short squeeze, racking up a 900% gain on the meme stock last quarter, regulatory filings show.

Ensign Peak Advisors - the secretive $100 billion investment arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - bought 46,000 GameStop shares in the fourth quarter of 2020. Its stake ballooned in value from under $900,000 to $8.7 million in the first three months of this year, thanks to GameStop's stock price going stratospheric in January and remaining elevated since then.

The surge in GameStop stock from below $19 to $190 last quarter also catapulted it from Ensign's 1,452nd most-valuable holding to number 455 on the list.

Ensign tapped into the Tesla craze as well, growing its split-adjusted stake in Elon Musk's electric-vehicle company by about 3,500% to 467,000 shares over the course of last year. It bolstered the position by another 39% to nearly 650,000 shares last quarter.

But don't you ever dare suggest they pay any taxes...

Y'know, for a religion that claims to be built on charity and good works, it's odd to me that they still managed to sock away $100 billion (and growing) in a secret fund throughout the past year where there were millions of people suffering significantly. Seems like if there were ever a time to actually use that money to do the charitable stuff you say you're focused on, this would have been a really good time.

Posted: **Wed May 19, 2021 12:56 pm**

I can’t recall where I read this* (in my youth) :

“The Catholic Church: the single richest entity on Earth , always with its hand out, asking for more.”

*Im sure it’s not accurate ...

Posted: **Wed May 19, 2021 1:12 pm**

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 12:56 pm I can’t recall where I read this* (in my youth) :

“The Catholic Church: the single richest entity on Earth , always with its hand out, asking for more.”

*Im sure it’s not accurate ...

Depends very much on how you calculate it. I only know about the US, but I think it is the same across the world - every parish is it's own entity. They have to raise their own money to build new buildings, or open schools, or hospitals. There is no central organization that just hands out money - it all has to be raised. So how do you value that? It's not like they can sell the building and move into a different church once they are finished paying for it.

Posted: **Wed May 19, 2021 5:57 pm**

Skinypupy wrote:Good to see the Mormon church is making good use of their tithing donations by...checks notes...buying Gamestop and Tesla stock.

The Mormon Church was a surprise winner from the GameStop short squeeze, racking up a 900% gain on the meme stock last quarter, regulatory filings show.

Ensign Peak Advisors - the secretive $100 billion investment arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - bought 46,000 GameStop shares in the fourth quarter of 2020. Its stake ballooned in value from under $900,000 to $8.7 million in the first three months of this year, thanks to GameStop's stock price going stratospheric in January and remaining elevated since then.

The surge in GameStop stock from below $19 to $190 last quarter also catapulted it from Ensign's 1,452nd most-valuable holding to number 455 on the list.

Ensign tapped into the Tesla craze as well, growing its split-adjusted stake in Elon Musk's electric-vehicle company by about 3,500% to 467,000 shares over the course of last year. It bolstered the position by another 39% to nearly 650,000 shares last quarter.
But don't you ever dare suggest they pay any taxes...

Y'know, for a religion that claims to be built on charity and good works, it's odd to me that they still managed to sock away $100 billion (and growing) in a secret fund throughout the past year where there were millions of people suffering significantly. Seems like if there were ever a time to actually use that money to do the charitable stuff you say you're focused on, this would have been a really good time.

If they don't have expenses within 10% of their profits, they have to pay taxes on the excess.

What this means is they will have more money to do stuff with. You can likely look into their expenses and decide whether it is a worthy charitable endeavor. But it works the same as any nonprofit.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 10:01 am**

Everyone's favorite atheist, Richard Dawkins, is back in the news, stating that it is immoral to bring a child with Down's Syndrome into the world, recommending that a woman abort the child and try again:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ome-foetus

Of course, I'm not sure how someone in his position can call anything "moral" or "immoral", but there you have it.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 10:15 am**

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:01 am
Of course, I'm not sure how someone in his position can call anything "moral" or "immoral", but there you have it.

Give me a break. As if man needs Gods to have 'morals' ?

That's absurd.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 10:33 am**

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:01 am Everyone's favorite atheist, Richard Dawkins, is back in the news, stating that it is immoral to bring a child with Down's Syndrome into the world, recommending that a woman abort the child and try again:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ome-foetus

I'll also point out that the article is more than 6 years old.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 12:43 pm**

Grifman wrote: Of course, I'm not sure how someone in his position can call anything "moral" or "immoral", but there you have it.

Your first question is begging the question. Mortality does not need a god, and therefore atheists can make mortality arguments.

Second, it's a reasonable discussion point. As a society we have been able to prevent things that were previously unpreventable. If one believes that abortion is moral, it stands to reason than intentionally allowing a human to grow with Down's would be immoral.

Ultimately, to me, it depends on where on the morality scale you find abortion.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 1:20 pm**

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:15 am
Grifman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:01 am
Of course, I'm not sure how someone in his position can call anything "moral" or "immoral", but there you have it.
Give me a break. As if man needs Gods to have 'morals' ?

That's absurd.

Nowhere did I say you can't have morals if you are an atheist.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 1:21 pm**

Unagi wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:33 am
Grifman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:01 am Everyone's favorite atheist, Richard Dawkins, is back in the news, stating that it is immoral to bring a child with Down's Syndrome into the world, recommending that a woman abort the child and try again:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ome-foetus
I'll also point out that the article is more than 6 years old.

Strange, didn't notice that, just saw it on a newsfeed today. But time still doesn't make it sound any better.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 1:23 pm**

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:43 pm
Grifman wrote: Of course, I'm not sure how someone in his position can call anything "moral" or "immoral", but there you have it.
Your first question is begging the question. Mortality does not need a god, and therefore atheists can make mortality arguments.

How am I begging the question? I'm no more begging the question than you are by stating that "mortality"

does not need a god.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 1:32 pm**

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:43 pmIf one believes that abortion is moral, it stands to reason than intentionally allowing a human to grow with Down's would be immoral.

I couldn't disagree more with this. It makes the assumption that a life with Down's is not worth living. I have know many people who suffer from Down's that are wonderful amazing people and add joy and love to their surroundings.

I have no issues with abortion. I really feel it is the choice of the two people who created the pregnancy (with a heavy heavy leaning to the woman's opinion). That said, I find it extremely distasteful to even suggest that not aborting a child with Down's would be immoral.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 1:33 pm**

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:23 pm
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:43 pm
Grifman wrote: Of course, I'm not sure how someone in his position can call anything "moral" or "immoral", but there you have it.
Your first question is begging the question. Mortality does not need a god, and therefore atheists can make mortality arguments.
How am I begging the question? I'm no more begging the question than you are by stating that "mortality" does not need a god.

You begged that question when you posted "someone in his position" regarding a well known atheist making a statement about morality.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 1:36 pm**

Eugenics has always worked so well in the past.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 1:59 pm**

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:32 pm
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:43 pmIf one believes that abortion is moral, it stands to reason than intentionally allowing a human to grow with Down's would be immoral.
I couldn't disagree more with this. It makes the assumption that a life with Down's is not worth living. I have know many people who suffer from Down's that are wonderful amazing people and add joy and love to their surroundings.

Just pointing out that we shouldn't say "suffer" from something like Down Syndrome. A person doesn't necessarily suffer because of a genetic difference. Beyond that, you're spot on. I'm not going to say someone shouldn't get an abortion because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis - abortion in general is a very complicated issue to me. The logical leap, though, from "abortion is moral" to "intentionally allowing a human to grow with Down Syndrome would be immoral" is Grand Canyon-esque.

stessier wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:36 pm Eugenics has always worked so well in the past.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 2:55 pm**

Are there any genetic differences that would shrink the leap? Would severely debilitating ones be more moral to abort?

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 3:00 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:59 pm
Remus West wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:32 pm
noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 12:43 pmIf one believes that abortion is moral, it stands to reason than intentionally allowing a human to grow with Down's would be immoral.
I couldn't disagree more with this. It makes the assumption that a life with Down's is not worth living. I have know many people who suffer from Down's that are wonderful amazing people and add joy and love to their surroundings.
Just pointing out that we shouldn't say "suffer" from something like Down Syndrome. A person doesn't necessarily suffer because of a genetic difference. Beyond that, you're spot on. I'm not going to say someone shouldn't get an abortion because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis - abortion in general is a very complicated issue to me. The logical leap, though, from "abortion is moral" to "intentionally allowing a human to grow with Down Syndrome would be immoral" is Grand Canyon-esque.
stessier wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:36 pm Eugenics has always worked so well in the past.
Ding! Ding! Ding!

I used suffer due to viewing Downs as an illness. It really isn't it is simply difference. I apologize.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 3:08 pm**

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 2:55 pm Are there any genetic differences that would shrink the leap? Would severely debilitating ones be more moral to abort?

Generally speaking, yes. If the child is unlikely to survive to birth or beyond, for example, that would seem to shorten the leap. I hesitate to get too far into specific examples, and each person is going to have their own views on morality, but it's not a black-and-white issue.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 pm**

Remus West wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 3:00 pm I used suffer due to viewing Downs as an illness. It really isn't it is simply difference. I apologize.

I was pretty sure you weren't using it with ill-intent. It's just one of those things that pops out to me (similar to saying "wheelchair bound" instead of "using a wheelchair"). Just figured that would be a decent spot to point that out, hopefully without creating too much drama.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 3:44 pm**

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:20 pm
Unagi wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:15 am
Grifman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 10:01 am
Of course, I'm not sure how someone in his position can call anything "moral" or "immoral", but there you have it.
Give me a break. As if man needs Gods to have 'morals' ?

That's absurd.
Nowhere did I say you can't have morals if you are an atheist.

Seems like everyone read this just like I did. And frankly, I don’t know what you are going to say you meant by ‘someone in his position’.

And. You’ve also (pretty sure? Forgive me if I’m wrong) argued elsewhere that without God there is no basis for ‘Good’. Am I wrong about that memory?

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 4:06 pm**

The term "morality" is irrelevant here, since I'm sure if you pressed Dawkins then he would insist that he was pronouncing on practical ethics, not morals.

But Dawkins also seems (as far as I understand the field) out of touch with modern ethics. I think most philosophers--even Utilitarian or Utilitarian-adjacent ones--would say that the ethical solution is to shape society to meet the full range of human needs and possibilities, not vice-versa.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 4:16 pm**

For the record, I don't think I agree with him, but I do think it would be an interesting and reasonable conversation; especially exploring the scale of where the differences become questionable.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 4:16 pm**

stessier wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:36 pm Eugenics has always worked so well in the past.

It's something we are absolutely going to have to deal with going into the future... and to some extent are already.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 4:17 pm**

Holman wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 4:06 pm The term "morality" is irrelevant here, since I'm sure if you pressed Dawkins then he would insist that he was pronouncing on practical ethics, not morals.

But Dawkins also seems (as far as I understand the field) out of touch with modern ethics. I think most philosophers--even Utilitarian or Utilitarian-adjacent ones--would say that the ethical solution is to shape society to meet the full range of human needs and possibilities, not vice-versa.

You'd be surprised. Actually it's probably more of an outlier, but my wife is in the process of getting her doctorate in Disability Equity in Education (or something fancy like that), and there's at least one scholar out there who is pretty much openly eugenicist.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 4:19 pm**

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 4:17 pm You'd be surprised. Actually it's probably more of an outlier, but my wife is in the process of getting her doctorate in Disability Equity in Education (or something fancy like that), and there's at least one scholar out there who is pretty much openly eugenicist.

It comes up on SGU all the time. With the CRISPR technology advancing at light speed, it's not going to be a conversation we can ignore for long.

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 4:22 pm**

St. George's University?

Stargate Universe?

Skeptics Guide to the Universe?

(First 3 Google results on SGU.)

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 4:31 pm**

WIKI says

SGU may refer to:

Saratov State University, a major higher education and research institution in Russia
Scottish Golf Union, the governing body for amateur golf in Scotland
Seinan Gakuin University, a Christian university in Fukuoka, Japan
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, the official podcast of the New England Skeptical Society
St. George Regional Airport (IATA code: SGU), a public airport located in the city of St. George, serving southern Utah, United States
St. George's University, an independent international university in Grenada, British West Indies
Stargate Universe, an American-Canadian military science fiction television series
Geological Survey of Sweden, Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning
Swiss German University, university in Greater Jakarta, Indonesia
Shaoguan railway station, China Railway pinyin code SGU

Posted: **Fri May 21, 2021 4:38 pm**

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 4:16 pm
stessier wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:36 pm Eugenics has always worked so well in the past.
It's something we are absolutely going to have to deal with going into the future... and to some extent are already.

There's a pretty big difference between CRISPR and abortion, though.

Octopus Overlords

Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness

Re: Religion Randomness