@LoopZoop's banner p

LoopZoop


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 06 14:24:30 UTC

				

User ID: 2052

LoopZoop


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 06 14:24:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2052

Which church is that again? The multitude of them disagree heavily, including very conservative ones considering other conservative denominations as hellbound. For example, a lot of the people in this thread arguing against these progressive churches being a type of Christian appear to be Catholics. The "trad" evangelical church I went to growing up taught that Roman Catholics are not Christians, they practice a form of Roman pagan polytheism and constantly demonstrate their break from monotheism by:

-  Groveling before graven images and idols.

  • Use of magic talismans like rosary beads and "holy" water, belief in sacred relics and those having magical powers.

  • Belief in literal cannibalism in the form of transubstantiation.

  • Worshipping humans and pagan deities with the serial numbers filed off labeled "saints.

  • Treating Mary like a goddess and often absorbing Mesoamerican pagan deities renamed Mary through all the "Virgin of [location] stuff.

  • Belief in spells resolving sins in the form of confession and stuff like reciting Hail Mary's rather than faith alone, and the historic practice of indulgences.

  • The most powerful Catholic religious leader and most powerful Roman pagan religious leader both sharing the title Pontifex Maximus and being based in Rome.

Catholicism's historic hostility to making the Bible accessible to normal people was also interpretated as being a move by this pagan religion to keep people from reading the Bible and noticing discrepancies between Catholic teachings and "real" Christianity, the persecution of other denominations being persecution of many "real" Christians, use of priests for confession and praying to saints as a way to minimize people trying to directly contact god, and infant baptisms as invalid and a way of tricking people into not getting "real" baptisms as a conscious adult choice.

I'm sure the Catholics in turn have plenty of reasons arguing how these are compatible with Christianity and why that evangelical sect is wrong about them and damned. From an outside perspective this stuff is just like watching Sunnis and Shia arguing and insisting the other isn't a type of Muslim when both are clearly divergent branches of the same religious traditions.

I suspect given the lack of identifying details for this case provided, nor any results showing up for an alleged 1930s incident in Mayo, that you made the whole thing up, and/or filed the serial numbers off a current court case involving trans people and changed the names, entities, location and context in an attempt to create "gotcha" bait.

Much of the Bible Belt and Gulf Coast. In my neck of the woods it's more acceptable to call someone the N word than support BLM, Confederate flags are less controversial than LGBT rainbow flags, etc. TheMotte seems to heavily oversample blue state right wingers and not have many people from rural red states dominated by borderers and evangelicals.

Religious abuse of children and non-believers, censorship, restricting access to contraceptives and abortion, practicing marriages between children and adults, discrimination against atheists and other non-Christians, discrimination against sexual minorities, violating church-state separation, etc.

You're not from the Bible Belt, are you? Christian zealots ran the show and were quite controlling in the 90s. Into at least the late 2000s they were teaching only creationism in science class and punishing kids at my public school for not participating in prayers or having books like Harry Potter or the Golden Compass.

Cracks didn't start showing in that dominance until the late 2000s with growing internet access providing locals who weren't with the program access to secular spaces, plus I think the close marriage between the Bush administration and evangelicals drove some wedges and made being a Southern Baptist less of an everyone thing and more of a Republican thing.

4chan. White supremacist entryism on a few boards starting circa the turn of the 2010s followed by every board getting swarmed and quality subsequently going down the gutter over the last few years. Whole site has changed drastically from pretty apolitical to extreme far right and driven off most people I met via it; in 2010 one could talk on /an/ without the thread getting derailed and destroyed with how dinosaur reconstructions with feathers are a Jewish plot to undermine the white race, which dog breed is most Aryan or Jewish, which human races should be reclassified as animals. None of those are hypothetical examples.

It's not advice, it's a description of the recent votes having unusual line crossing.

With Roe v. Wade overturned, a guaranteed floor on abortion access that previously existed was removed and folks who voted Republican but did not favor hardcore pro-lifer bans now had real skin in the game and the opprotunity to vote directly on it in multiple states.

If it's "symbolic" because of varying state laws, I disagree. I would not consider NYC gun bans, mandatory registration and other impositions "symbolic" just because a New Yorker could hypothetically go to New Hampshire and buy an AR15 in cash from some guy outside Denny's. Additionally, pro-life factions are creating and promoting legislation to penalize people who travel out of state for abortions or those who assist in such.

Also the scenario you describe sounds pretty realistic to me. In this case though it's not total party flips, it's people voting contra most expectations on an issue when that issue is put before them directly.

It's a description, not a personal endorsement of racism or that Qanon conspiracy stuff. Those individuals are separate from people I'd count as friends, though I realize now the wording was somewhat ambiguous.

The point being to describe people who were far from Republican moderates pulling the lever in favor of abortion rights against ban attempts when the chips were down.

https://civiqs.com/results/abortion_legal?annotations=true&uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&choice=Illegal%20in%20all%20cases&party=Republican

Was a moderate on the issue fine with some restrictions but changed to total pro-choice over the last year. I was ok with "safe, legal and rare" but unfortunately pro-life activists got greedy and broke that compromise, instead going for broke with overturning Roe v Wade, total bans and taking the mask off with closing exemptions and targeting contraception. Given that I want abortion available as an option, and that past talk of exemptions and the like proved to just be the equivalent of the gun control cake slicing meme, I started donating to pro-choice efforts and voted accordingly to swing the pendulum in the other direction.

Same thing also independently caused a bunch of my friends (Trump voting hard red state pipe fitters, electricians, etc) to flip shit because they didn't want to be forced to have more kids than they already had or get trapped into child support, and they voted accordingly. Another who'd gone from lib to DeSantis fan over COVID lockdowns and anti-woke stuff swung back to the Democrats over it. I can't emphasize this enough; people I know who use the N word as an adjective on a daily basis for household objects and even bird species + believe in Q-anon stuff were incensed and pulled the lever to give the pro-choice side a landslide victory when abortion rights came up to a vote.

Banning abortion might be popular in the pulpits of some dwindling denominations and internet forums, but it is highly unpopular outside of specific geographic and religious bubbles that are way out of touch with most Americans. Those in favor of banning abortion punch above their weight in primaries and state house compositions due to unrepresentative political systems, but they were BTFO when it was a straight up popular vote even in Kansas, Michigan, Kentucky, and Montana.

Thank you for the response and recommendations. What about AR optics for indoors and pretty close range shooting for three gun matches and the like?

The craziest story I've heard is that some disarmament drills disallow directly passing weapons back and forth when repeating a drill, because after being thoroughly inadvertently trained in how to "disarm the attacker, then pass the knife back for another go", that was what someone did in an actual attack.

Seems very plausible. My old MMA gym prohibited helping your sparring partner get up after knocking them down in training after during an actual competition a member threw an opponent to the mat then reflexively bent over and reached out a hand to help him up. The opponent took advantage of it and ended up winning.

What are the best AR-15 optics for close range shooting and hitting targets up to 300-400 yards away? Either one that does both, or a pair to get. $2000 budget, but would prefer less than that if the quality is still there.

Friends who were in Iraq and Afghanistan spoke highly of ACOGs and Aimpoint Pros in the late 2000s, but it has been well over a decade since they were in the military and none really shoot recreationally. Have been major advancements since the late 2000s in AR optics available on the civilian market?

I'd also be interested in plates and carrier recommendations, something that could stop the most common versions of 5.56, 7.62x39, 5.45x39 loads that militaries use. Whole lot of sketchy information on plates, spalling, etc out there. Again <$2000 budget.