Tautological DEISM
(IFF) theism requires a set of holy rules from a god
(AND) deism merely asserts (ontologically) that some (unknown/unknowable) god made everything, but did not provide a holy rule-book
(AND) atheism asserts that any god concept is indistinguishable from no-god (or a purely imaginary god)
(THEN) deism is functionally identical to atheism (neither endorses a holy-rule-book).
Your scathing critique is requested.
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
Congratulations @logiczombie! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
lol my mind is having trouble being led down that path : )
Functionally identical ? I don't think so. If I believe in a creator that would imply purpose to the creation (you and I). different world view = different behaviors ?
I appreciate your comment.
An unknown/unknowable god (like "the big bang" or the gods in Prometheus or Spinoza's god) does NOT "imply purpose" (this would be the teleological fallacy).
DEISM informs nothing about human morality or meaningfulness.
@themarkymark, what crime has been committed here that requires a downvote?
I just want to make sure I clearly understand all your personal laws. Perhaps you have a link?
libel
From your link,
(1) Traditionally, libel was a tort governed by state law. State courts generally follow the common law of libel, which allows recovery of damages WITHOUT PROOF of actual harm.
(2) Under the traditional rules of libel, injury is presumed from the fact of publication. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment's protection of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION limits a State's ability to award damages in actions for libel.
I'm guessing you're leaning towards version (1)? Or do you have some evidence that the accused has caused you some demonstrable harm?
I just want to understand your logic so I don't overstep my place. I'm pretty new here and I certainly wouldn't want to be serially-auto-downvoted by a top-tier witness like yourself.
Just look through his hundreds of comments that you serial upvote.
Let's just take this one comment on this page as an example,
How has this comment caused you harm?
What do you find objectionable about it?
It seems perfectly polite.
Do you think people should be punished arbitrarily and capriciously?
If I happened to mention somewhere that it was my personal opinion that you seemed to act arbitrarily and capriciously, would you consider my words LIBELOUS?
I certainly hope not! I just want to know where you draw the line, so I don't suffer your wrath.
You seem like a reasonable and intelligent person.
And if this joe.public individual is some sort of criminal, I'd be more than happy to downvote them into OBLIVION at your command!!
Look at his current posts. They are lies.
Look at his spam.
and libel comments like this.
I really shouldn't have to spell it out, his comment and post history is all publically available.
He has done it many times before and continues to do it. I don't flag people for opinions, but I will flag people who spread lies, spam, and troll.
So this joe.public character seem to be suggesting that you are an "abuser" of some sort without offering specifics. This sounds like an (unsubstantiated) opinion to me.
They think you're an abuser and you think they're an abuser, but you've got a bigger fist, so you just pound them into submission.
The duplicated posts seems like someone shouting in the street. I'm sure if they could afford an official banner ad, they'd use that instead.
I'm just not sure this has caused you any harm personally.
Plus, all of their posts and comments are already AUTOMATICALLY hidden (-3)!
So basically you're beating a dead horse at this point.
They are not lies.
They are a perfectly reasonable response to your many abuses and dishonesty.
I am drawing attention to the obvious fact that your behavior is damaging to the platform.
I get that you wanted to hide the rather amusing scam that @berniesanders pulled off. It was the first scam of his that i found, and I had only just arrived.
But for you to try and convince me that he really did give away 100 steem was just pathetic!
He even said that day that he had opened an account through blocktrades and back then you could easily find out who created the account on Steemworld.
And quite frankly I have found you to be even more abusive than bernie. You certainly never had the guts to call him out on his behavior
I'm actually afraid to upvote any of their comments because I don't want to kill my rep!
Your rep isn't touched when someone else is flagged and you voted on it.
Your rep isn't touched
When someone else is flagged and
You voted on it.
- themarkymark
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.
Thanks for the note! That's just one less thing for me to worry about.