Bartimaeus

Learned yesterday that I'll need surgery to fix something in my wrist that's been causing debilitating pain for the past couple of years. Of course, I had previously decided to just become left-handed (including totally re-learning how to use a mouse and keyboard) in order to not deal with it and attempt to let it heal itself over the past couple of years, but since it still hasn't, I guess I'm finally going to deal with my phobias of anesthetics, knives, and being cut open. (e): fixed

It sounds like you may be a form of Christian agnostic (not what you might think it would be if you're looking only at the "agnostic" part). I'd say I'm halfway between that and just agnostic.

Thanks. That would've been very good context to have about 2 pages ago, so thank you for digging it up. I still stand by my previously stated general position, but given that what he said was at the very least in a mostly theological context, it would be extremely silly to hold those statements to that general standard, and I am disappointed that Sanders did, especially providing virtually no context for it as he did (just a nondescript footnote at the beginning). (e: context context context)

I have no problem with his beliefs, per se. If he thinks Islam is barbaric, if he believes all non-Christians are condemned to an eternity of hell - that's all more or less fine. Many people think those sorts of things already, including probably a majority of the people elected throughout this country. The difference, I feel, is when it begins to seep into your actual behavior, how you treat people, and the things you say to them. Biases, prejudices, and stereotypes - moral or immoral, rational or irrational, justified or unjustified - are all things we're subject to, and subconsciously (or consciously) subject other people to. If you stick around certain people or groups/types of people for too long, there's a certain tendency to unconsciously notice patterns with those or other types of people, and that's exactly what biases, prejudices, and stereotypes are born from. I can't blame people for doing that, especially when I know it's something that I struggle with myself. So where I draw the line, personally, is when people start treating people differently as a result of them: in other words, when it stops becoming a matter of "just" thinking and a matter of actually discriminating against or between people in a patently unfair manner. If you're elected/appointed to a position in the public sector, I'm not going to feel particularly comfortable with you if you've previously done things that support the notion of you possibly unfairly discriminating against or between others when you're supposed to be serving a large variety - all varieties, actually - of Americans equally. I feel as though publicly announcing a certain religion as being, again, "deficient" kind of qualifies for that: for me, it clearly signals that it's no longer something that you merely think, but is now instead a prejudice that you're actually acting upon and modifying your behavior as a result of - otherwise, why would you be telling the whole world about it? I don't think we should be subject to a thoughtpolice, but I don't know, this entire sort of public and denigrating proclamation stinks of unfairness to me. (e): Additionally, I think people would be better served by criticizing specific issues involving groups of people, not the entire group in a blanket statement overall, particularly when there are so many different sub-groups who may not even be party to the things that you think are wrong with them. This guy did the latter. I think Bernie put it best when he was running for president: let's focus on the issues.

No, you already said it: in our heads vs. not in our heads. If you make a point to insult and condemn groups of people for no other reason besides that you can, I'm sorry, but I'm naturally (and I think pretty darned justifiably) going to have concerns about your character. No, if he believed Santa Claus was real, I wouldn't have the same type of concern, because it doesn't actually concern anyone but himself (...unless he started announcing to the world that all people who didn't similarly believe in Santa Claus were ignorant fools that weren't going to ever get any presents on Christmas, I guess). The reality of the matter, though, is that he's being appointed to a public sector job, where he's supposed to deal with and treat everyone with the same amount of respect, including the types of people he's called as having a "deficient theology" and "being condemned to hell" - the latter might literally be one of tenants of his faith, but you don't see every other Christian candidate making a point of it to announce it to the world. I just don't know, man - why wouldn't this concern you? If you're saying that you wouldn't be concerned with a candidate who is a militant atheist that publicly announces that all Christians are ignorant, then O.K., that's fair: clearly you're much more concerned about them doing just their job competently rather than any beliefs or ideology they may or may not have that may or may not affect how they look at and treat people on a basic level, and I can respect that. For me, this theoretical candidate would appear ill-intentioned and no, I don't want them anywhere near a public sector job where they're supposed to treat all Americans equally. Their previous treatment of certain types of Americans (even if it's just verbal!) calls that part of their job into question for me. Can you explain to me why it wouldn't for you? That is not a sarcastic question: I'm genuinely curious. (e): various fixes

My response is exactly the same regardless of whether the candidate is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, or atheist: if the candidate is set on making a public statement condemning other groups on a total non-basis - if it's a Christian saying Muslims have a "deficient" theology or that all non-Christians are "condemned", or an atheist calling Christians "idiots" or "ignorant" and denouncing all religions, or a Muslim calling non-Muslims infidels or whatever - and then repeatedly reinforcing that statement when later questioned about it with the lame excuse of "Well, as a Christian...", it's going to raise some serious red flags for me on their ability to treat and serve all types of Americans equally. I one hundred percent agree with Bernie Sanders on his final statement: I'm not sure we need any more kinds of these candidates who evidently set on condemning and looking down upon entire groups of Americans for no other reason besides their stinking religion. As you literally just put it yourself a few posts ago, "[We] are heading down a dark road when [we] start judging people on what is going on in their heads." That's exactly what this candidate did, and it's why some of us would feel uncomfortable with him when it concerns a not insignificant amount of people on a total non-basis. He's the one that's making the public statements of condemnation, right? Maybe it actually doesn't have any bearing on his ability to do his job in a fair and competent manner...but nevertheless, it is rather gross and ill-appearing.

It feels like we're arguing the same thing here.

I would disagree with that, and would say it's not really the fundamental problem here. If an atheist exuded the same sort of hostility, this sort of superiority complex where they're looking down upon other groups and calling them "deficient" simply for their religious affiliations - not even ideological, just religious, which varies so much from person to person! - I'd say that's unbecoming of your office and your ability to represent and serve all types of Americans equally, just as much as the man in that video. This whole tribalism mentality really needs to go out the window...

It was actually a joke. He's not really a whistleblower or leaker, because they were his private (and unclassified) memos that he can release however and whenever he feels like it. It might be arguably in poor taste to publicly share the private conversations between him and the president, but he's certainly within his rights, especially seeing as executive privilege was not claimed prior to him sharing those conversation. In regards to Sanders, I have no real issue with what he said and would expect him to take similar issue with any candidate that publicly and repeatedly claimed a proportion of their constituencies were straight up "condemned" on no real basis*. If he didn't, then I would also lose respect for him. Has there been any such example? *On a side-note, if the candidate really wanted to be consistent with their beliefs, shouldn't they have mentioned atheists and agnostics and Jews (this one being brought up by Sanders himself) and all other non-Christians in his statement? Why single out Muslims? Perhaps he did and it simply wasn't included here?

I believe the term is "whistleblower".

Thanks for the additional context. And then there's the additional problem of Brexit and there needing to be a free border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and yet the EU requiring a border between the EU and non-EU countries. Seems like Britain is currently stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Raithe, is there any credence to the idea that a Conservative/DUP coalition is in violation of the Good Friday Agreement? As I understand it, a coalition with one side of the Northern Island issue (nationalists vs. unionists) is, in its necessity, an unlawful "supporting"/empowering of one side when Britain has very strictly agreed to remain neutral on the issue of Northern Ireland independence. (For anyone that doesn't know, the Good Friday Agreement is the treaty between the UK and NI and Ireland that ended the Troubles, the nationalist/unionist conflict between these three parties, and was the basis for the end of the IRA.)

Yeah...serious mental illness often leads here. I'd rather have broken bones than chronic depression - the former will at least heal.

Officially hung.

Right now it looks like Labor will form a coalition with the SNP and Corbyn will be PM. At the very least Labor picked up more seats than they had previously, and this is with the media ****ting on Corbyn for the past two years and his own party stabbing him in the back. Tories truly dun goofed. I don't know if it means anything, but the Sky News news anchors seem to think the Conservatives making a coalition is more likely (although everyone seems to think Theresa May will resign regardless...which will mean an unelected PM, unless another election is immediately called for?), but you know, I don't know much about UK politics or if they're right.

Yeah, that's my head canon, too.

One of the most interesting things Comey said today, I think, was why he didn't want to announce to the public that Trump was not personally under investigation by the FBI. It was twofold: one, because he felt it would create a duty to correct, or retract, that statement later further down the line if it changed, which he must've considered at least a possibility for it to give him that much pause. Two, it ties back to the Clinton email case: after the appearance of impropriety reached such a high and ridiculous level in the Clinton case, and specifically after Clinton met privately in suspicious circumstances with Obama's attorney general, he felt a duty to set the record straight for the public, as it were, regarding the investigation. Days before the election, he was given new evidence for the Clinton case that required the reopening of the Clinton case, which, after telling the public that the investigation was over, he felt the need to correct when that status changed. That little mistake quite possibly tipped the scales in Trump's favor just enough that he won the election, though it's impossible to say for certain. He was loath to make the same kind of mistake with Trump, it appears, and for good reason, I think. And to think, all Clinton and her campaign had to do was keep their noses clean and stay clear of the investigation, and he probably would've never felt the need to make that announcement to begin with, and we might've never had a Trump presidency at all. Gosh dang all of you: Hillary Clinton, your garbage campaign, and the idiotic and corrupt Democrat party and election committee.

It actually does end, when the Abyss was sent hurtling to the bottom of the planes in...4th or 5th edition*, I think. That's right about the time I stopped giving a crap about D&D. *Yep, I looked it up just now: it's 4th edition, and I got it a little wrong: it's sent into the middle of the planes (the Inner Planes, specifically), underneath the elemental planes among a couple of other things like Limbo, where apparently the tanar'ri are more or less trapped. Kind of lame, if you ask me. The Blood War was such a big, and, in my opinion, rather interesting feature of planar warfare...gave the overall D&D setting a bit of an interesting twist compared to the typical "forces of good vs. forces of evil" shtick that everything else does.

From what I'm reading online, what you said is not quite correct, kensu. Lemures (and other fiends) are actually ex-petitioners who have sold their souls to become fiends themselves, perhaps (but not necessarily) to avoid a worse judgement (such as being determined to be False or Faithless). So, lemures are generally just the lowest/weakest manifestation of these petitioners-turned-demons, although those selling their souls do not necessarily always become lemures, and may become something stronger if they were once powerful. However, I am reading from third party sources here, which may not be correct...but it seems as though from everywhere I'm reading, lemures are definitely a specific type of fiend, and not some other spiritual manifestation. So to get back to algroth's original question...uh, I'm not sure what the answer would be. I'm not sure if there's an "original" "subset" of fiends, so to speak, that were the first fiends, or if they were ALL originally mortals and the most powerful of them have just been slowly growing stronger over time, or what. (e): I'm also a little confused on the matter of other immortals, then. Can other immortal races, like celestials, convert petitioners to become members of their own race? If not, how in the world do the celestials over hold back the forces of Hell and the Abyss after the Blood War ends, as their forces grow ever-stronger? Perhaps petitioners can become these immortal races depending on their alignment - chaotic evil petitioners to the Abyss, lawful evil to Hell, lawful good to celestials (or something), etc.? Or do these other types of immortal races just reproduce in a more normal fashion instead? I'm not really sure...

In other news, it looks like the conservatives in the UK may be in for a big loss tonight after calling for a snap election. Originally projected to win somewhere around 40-50 seats, they're now projected to lose about 20-15, which would cost them their majority, likely leading to another election. Will have to see how that turns out...

From the concerned looks of his colleagues, I think I have to agree with Gromnir: that didn't seem like his usual self. Hopefully he wasn't having a mini-stroke or something, but it would explain his behavior.

If you're saying that to me, then the reasons I dislike ESPN as a network have nothing to do with the guy's prior termination. Everything to do with them leading the way of tabloid levels of journalism in the sports sphere, and continuing to double-down on it even as their subscription numbers sink. And then you let half of your reporter and insider crew, guys with actual speaking/writing abilities and connections that can come up with legitimate stories, while saying morons like Bayless and Smith are good for ratings...

Par for the course for ESPN, it seems. Every time they're presented with a decision to make, it seems like they virtually always make the wrong one. The more people that cord-cut and sink that network, the better, methinks... Too bad it's owned by Disney and has little chance of ever truly (spectacularly) failing.