IKR In honor of his survival, I went out and bought another copy of Dogma last week.

But....YOU said it's pretty sad if that's all you have to live for, now you say it wasn't sad for you when it was all you had to live for. Don't you see the contradiction?

Then, since none of those reasons originated during your lifetime, what changed, since at one time all those together weren't enough to make you believe, then they were? Isn't it possible you could change back?

You listed what you believe, but not why. What makes you believe these things besides a dogma that threatens torture if you don't?

Btw, I condemned no one, I pointed out clear facts in a rational way. Historically, and by religious decree (above), Christians don't discuss or respect others differing beliefs, they just try to eradicate them. It's part of the dogma to be disrespectful of any tiny difference in belief, disrespectful to the ultimate degree.

Its dogma got runned over by your karma. Awww.


https://videosift.com/video/The-American-Psyho-Show-Fairtrade-Vegan-Instagram-Trailer
...and the message he sent.....

StrangeVidSift said:
ahahaha, just saw your profile with your little ban police badge, oh wow, you kill me man! so cute
karma and good will unto you, may your days be filled with progressive thinking and much banning of ppls hard work whilst you shit on it in your chair.

cheers Boy.

Sigh.

It's a false equivalence because he's suggesting this situation:

Arguing whether it is OK for a Catholic based hospital to not offer services they don't want to offer.

Is the same as:

Arguing against creationism and homeopathy as dogma in general.

That was awesome.
I am kind of glad he got back into it.
Even if he is making crappy films they have character.

His best is still by far...Dogma.
Having damon and affleck play off each other in that movie is brilliant.
They were awesome in their cameos on Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back...the best stoner movie...EVER.

DMT(ayahuasca) are not recreational, no matter which way anyone wants to flip it. The Universe in 5 minutes... an eternal life/death scenario. I was taking ayahuasca to mediate upon my father's death 2 months prior, along with a shaman I respected deeply, I also respect the "traditions" (in that I find the anthropological history incredibly rich) but I realize after "figuring out" DMT on my own that I think my way is best (standard psychedelic procedure, alone) and is the most important thing that I can learn from it. That this is my journey into the soul and I don't need anyone else in my way during my experiences; shamans have a way of influencing the experience, but the experience itself and YOU are the real guide, no need for a shaman with smoked DMT Ayahuasca is definitely an incredible experience and plant... I just prefer my way of visiting "that" realm of infinite knowledge. Tell us how it goes

Some things I did not like about Santo Diame were Christian dogma (with a lot of beliefs taken from many religions), they want you to stay with the circle even though you may be compelled to find somewhere that is quiet and away from everyone else, they separate men from women half circle men, half circle women, guide in between, they do not want talking, but the music is incessant and influences the experience (when the lights go out, be prepared to experience hell on fucking Earth), I couldn't stand the "helpers" at the ceremony I went to, they kept urging people to drink more - there were a lot of aspects that I didn't like about it. But, I certainly wouldn't want to take ayahusca alone, either. Instead, I believe the best way, for me at least, would be one on one with the shaman, in an open place, preferably outside and for him to just chant and check in with me every once in a while.

Also, you can check out the video I made about my smoked DMT breakthrough experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuRbLAqM6Kk

Well, first off, the part about sterilising and killing was pretty obviously tongue in cheek, although I take your point that some Trump supporters might make the same point seriously.

That said, I have an expectation that the people on this site are smart enough to read what I said as comic hyperbole. As for it being in poor taste, that's up to the listener. I certainly found it in much better taste than Jim Jeffries bit on Bill Cosby, but as you quoted Reginald D Hunter "take it from the rest of us who did laugh--it was fuckin' funny."

All comedy aside, I was being 100% serious when I said that if you really believe in something so much that no evidence will change your mind, then you shouldn't be voting let alone running for office.

As for getting the same response at the DNC.... you're almost certainly right. It would be about different issues (probably vaccines, GMOs and the like), but they would be just as wrong as the Republicans.

That anger is real and not at all misguided. Woolly thinking has held the human race back for millennia and caused untold suffering and horror: racism/slavery, sexism, homophobia, the "war on drugs", climate change, alternative medicine.... do I need to go on?

I'm not saying you can't have a firmly held belief, and I'm not even saying that everything you believe must be fully supported by evidence, but everyone (myself included) should be willing to at least question their own dogma.

"Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" should be the simplest question to answer for anyone.

Muslim extremist immigrants are a huge threat to the livelihoods of many Americans in the religious dogma sector. Take a stand, only buy into good ol American Christian hatred.

@newtboy Uh..dude, "humanist" and "individualist" are already philosophical schools of thought that have determined meanings that aren't anywhere near the realm of feminism (eg, an activist movement for equal rights).

I mean, unless you're trying to stretch humanist to not mean, essentially, secular thought distancing from the dogma of the church and individualist as not the idea of the individual has more weight than collective good or the state. But.. you might have to contend with the fact those aren't the definitions of things you believe you came up with.

So Kevin Smith's Dogma then?

You can dance all you like, but you are still hypocritical. A war plane was never designed as anything other than a device to KILL. A hammer might have been used to kill, but it was not designed for it.

So, I am not trying to say you are less moral, I am just trying to get you to SEE that you are just as capable of making distinctions regarding your values as we are. We are all the sum of our parts, we choose moral stances and we choose to avoid others we consider to be less necessary. In choosing to follow the vegan dogma, you unfortunately have put yourself in a lifestyle that usually carries at least a thin veneer of "I am better than you", when in fact you have merely chosen to restrict your diet. It doesn't make you any better or worse than someone who chooses to quit smoking, or perhaps to only ride public transportation.

As far as winning, I have no intention of winning because this is an unwinnable discussion. I will neither be able to persuade you that you are being selectively moral and elitist, nor will you be able to persuade me that mankind should cease to partake in the flesh of other creatures (if we choose to). The most I can do is call you on your comments, you can take or leave my opinions the same way I would do yours.

I won't resort to a catchphrase like bacon, but the end result is the same, futile as you said.

Laughable. First you quote from a site that anyone would recognize as 100% pushing it's own agenda, then you fail to see that the site you are referencing is happy to toss terms like apex predator around. The very definition of Apex Predator is a predator at the top of a food chain.

If you bothered to learn anything other than regurgitate information that is basically dogma that they want you to spread, you could have easily clicked on one of the links at the bottom of the paper you reference, links that blow gaping holes into the 'science' that supports yours viewpoint.

Here is one: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/E796.long

The scientist used the same methodology and proved that in a REEF environment, Humans ARE apex predators. Why doesn't your dogmatic site list competitive theories? Does it not bother you that they are giving you information designed to influence others into following your beliefs without bothering to suggest counter-theories?

Personally, I consider both studies to be flawed, as we developed into an apex predator through use of tools. We trump other apex predators by either outsmarting them, using tools to defeat them (weapons,traps), or by changing their environment to suit ours (domestication, eradication).

For someone who is telling others to think outside the box, you have buried yourself IN the box on this issue. That's perfectly fine if you like it, but don't expect to not be called to task for it.

As far as morality goes, I know at least one of the two vegans here absolutely supports the development of new technological terrors (heh) that are designed to kill other humans. Since we are designing weapons to kill other humans, doesn't that go directly against the vegan outlook of do no harm to other sentient species for our own benefit? Eh, @transmorpher?

Is that Serendipity from Dogma?

How bout Rickman in Dogma https://youtu.be/fDJq0bNJbQA