empathy is a double edge sword, often causing more suffering than not. empathy has no morals.

This makes no sense. People have moral systems, empathy is often a component of that.

compassion is love without conditions.

No it isn’t. Compassion is about sympathy and pity, and also is without morals. Unconditional love isn’t a thing, and people can act compassionately without loving someone. It also doesn’t require understanding which is vital to resolution.

compassion does not require feeling what others are feeling in order to understand their suffering.

Empathy doesn’t require you to feel their suffering, but to simply understand and appreciate it.

compassion is the goal, empathy is the shitty tool that sometimes achieves the goal.

Not my goal, seems shitty. Empathy appears to be superior.

Definitions:

Compassion: sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Why would compassion be better than empathy?

If it makes you feel any better, that house would sell for at least double that price where I live.

Yes, I’m on one side, with dictionaries, etymology, and the majority of atheists, and you’re on the other side. I would agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.

Google:

noun: atheism. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Gnostic - adjective. relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.

Me:

Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist.

Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief

Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist. Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief, which is why you can have an agnostic theist. Agnostic is not a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground. I can correct you, but I can’t make you understand it.

What I said is absolutely correct. If you have a disagreement perhaps you should be more clear and less snarky.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods and out right rejection in the belief of any gods.

No, not quite. Atheism is not believing in a god, it doesn’t mean you claim there is not a god. A subtle difference, but it is the difference between not believing, and believing not. Also, agnosticism isn’t a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground, as it is dichotomous. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what you claim to know. So, a person could be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

You see, it’s just a coincidence that he is running against someone who is black and Indian and he just happened to pick the two most racist and stereotypical dishes associated with each.

We’re Number 1! We’re Number 1! USA! USA! USA!

While I guess areas may be different, the high school I went to, and also the area I now live in, have varsity and JV teams. You had to be good enough to make varsity, but no one got cut from JV. Just belonging on a team is enough for some kids to make it all bearable. Everyone mentions scholarships, but how often is this honestly actually an issue?

What do you need to know? It’s a high school team, not the Olympics. Why wouldn’t the default always be inclusion? High school is a tough time for a lot of kids, and I’d imagine it’s more difficult for most trans kids. If participating in sports makes it 5% easier, then so be it.

There is, it’s the constitution. You can’t be a member of the House without being 25 or a senator without being 30.

Buried lead:

It’s LEDE, not lead.

It took me 40+ years to learn this, just passing it along.

Don’t worry, at least there are two pizzas for 50 people!

Legally, you do. You may not like it but that’s how it works.

I’m an attorney, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

My argument isn’t about how it should be. People should be decent. They often aren’t. My statement is about the legal implications of the decision. Breasts either remain sexual which means all naughty bits are on the table or… they aren’t and are legally no different than any other nonsexual thing.

This isn’t how sexual harassment is determined at all. Nothing you’ve said has any connection to reality.

Can you take someone to court for looking at your legs? Sure. Will it have a good chance of success? No.

YES! If you’re in a workplace and that behavior is happening and it consistent, it is a hostile work environment. It would be no different if the unwanted attention was on a leg, an arm, or a breast.

If you legalize it you have acknowledged that a woman’s breasts are not sexual. There is no recourse.

No, you literally do not have to do that. You can legalize toplessness and every other aspect of every other law would remain the same.

Your argument essentially means that a person staring at a woman’s leg constantly could not constitute harassment, and that simply isn’t true.

Dems not catching up to other left parties in other countries isn’t Dems moving right. The examples I gave demonstrate a clear, if only moderate, move to the left. Their move is barely perceptible, but certainly not to the right.

Your argument is that the Dems have moved to the right, but I’m struggling to think of any examples of that in the last 30+ years. During Clinton’s term they passed DOMA and DADT, and now they’re in favor of same sex marriage and trans rights. The ACA, CFPB, attempts at student loan forgiveness, lowering prescription prices, etc. I just don’t see how the left has moved to the right, although I agree that the right has moved right.

I never understand people who make comments like this, what were you expecting going into Twisters? Citizen Kane? I watched Twisters today, it was a mindlessly fun little movie, exactly as expected.