Stupid Reasons You Voted for Trump

5. He's a successful businessman.

4. He speaks his mind.

3. He has real solutions.

2. Hillary's the Devil!

1. Because he's Christian!

Stupid Reasons You Voted for Hillary

5. Trump is islamophobic

4. Trump is racist

3. Trump is sexist

2. Because Democrat!

1. Because Feminism!

Consoling A Grieving Friend

Just over a week ago, a good friend of mine lost his mother.

You know how when a close loved one re-locates, that overwhelming feeling of loneliness because you won't be able to see them again for a long time, and no matter how properly you say your goodbyes that doesn't actually help you feel a whole lot better?

Grieving for a dead loved one is the much more brutal version of that. Someone you hold very dear to you is separated from you. at times suddenly without any warning, and due to circumstances and causes beyond your control.

Unlike when a loved one re-locates, you don't get the chance to say a proper goodbye. And there's no chance or hope at all that you'll get to see them again - unless you believe in an afterlife but even if you do, it's going to be a LONG wait before you get to see them. You won't get to see them again in this life. Even those who believe in an afterlife value this current life and the experiences they have. They'd want to be able to share those with their loved ones. For that to be suddenly taken away from them can be devastating.

Now for you as the friend of someone who's mourning or grieving, one of the worst things that could happen is if that grieving friend becomes so broken that they start harming themselves - suicide, doing crazy or stupid things that accidentally gets them killed or hurt, getting fired from their job, getting arrested. So as a friend, even if you've lost someone before and can relate to how they feel, the fact remains that you are not at the same time, experiencing the same pain as them. It's so important that you stay conscious of that fact in everything you do in your attempts to console your grieving friend.

The first thing to do is to reach out to them, and simply make them aware that you care.

- in person, card + flowers?
- private message - phone, social media, email.
- attend the funeral if you can.
- DONT say "you know how it feels" or "you know it must be hard" because you don't know.


Over the next coming weeks.
- make yourself available.
- invite them to hang out
- DON'T initiate a conversation about their loss. Instead let them talk about it when they want to. If they do, offer a listening ear and a shoulder to cry on.
- "I don't know what to say or do. Just know I care, and I'm here for you."

Rape Victim Blaming Myth

To avoid rape, dress modestly.
To avoid theft, own nothing.
To avoid murder, die now.

David Rajaraman Exactly dude! If I walk into a known dangerous part of town alone and in the dark flashing around my jewellery and waving around $100 bills in my hand, and get robbed - it would be ridiculous to say that my own stupidity had anything at all to do with my chances of getting robbed.

In fact, it's ridiculous that any of us lock our doors at night or when we leave the house. We should just leave our doors and windows wide open all the time. Because we have no responsibility whatsoever in taking reasonable precautions to protect ourselves from the assholes of our society.

Logic level: 9999

Like · Reply · 2 · March 24 at 12:40am · Edited

Mainul Hasan People get robbed in homes with their very closed doors and things taken taken from us where we feel the safest. Victim blaming is not gonna help David

Like · Reply · 2 · March 25 at 3:02am · Edited

David Rajaraman No mention of victim blaming here. Simply stating that with the knowledge that we live amongst dangerous people, we ought to take precautions to reduce our likelihood of becoming their victims. Being irresponsible is being irresponsible. Lets call it what it is.

That doesn't make the person who failed to lock their door guilty on behalf of the robber. We understand that. We agree that the robber is the one fully guilty and responsible for the *crime* but we still advise everyone to lock their doors at night. It still reduces your chances. No doubt that walking through a prison naked is more likely to get you raped than being properly dressed. What turns you on more? A naked woman or one who's dressed? You are fully responsible for controlling yourself, but the fact is that not everyone in our society can be trusted to.

By your reasoning that people can take no precautions whatsoever for their safety and expect their chances of being attacked to remain the same, we don't need police in our societies either. Victim blaming is only victim blaming if the offender is allowed to run free without consequence - yes it happens. The response to that shouldn't be to start advising everyone that it's reasonable not to take any safety precautions whatsoever.

Go ahead, leave your doors unlocked, put all your valuables out in the open, - it makes no difference to your chances of being robbed, afterall.

Like · Reply · March 25 at 11:56am · Edited

Mainul Hasan Dressing modestly should not be one of the precautions. Because locking the doors to a house is not the same as dressing modestly. Maybe it's not the same where you come from but I have seen aplenty offenders running from their due justice.
A fully clothed women will sadly be the victim of harassment if the perpetrator believes he can get away with it.
Advising everyone to lock their doors is a sound advice while telling girls to dress modestly is not. But asking them to take us self defense is and should be the first solution we provide to people that are going to be prone to rape in this clearly dangerous world.

Like · Reply · March 25 at 8:00pm

David Rajaraman Mainul Hasan I agree that it *shouldn't* be a precaution. But we've already established that we're detached from an ideal society.

Ideally, I *shouldn't* have to remember to lock my doors at night. In fact, women *shouldn't* need to know martial arts and self defense to safely go about their daily activities for the same reason you say they *shouldn't* have to dress modestly.

If we grant that being trained in self defense *should* be advised, then so should anything else which is ONLY applicable in this non-ideal society. On the exact same premise, we should all dress in a way to reduce our chances of becoming victims of crimes.

If the girl is capable of defending herself in any and all scenario's and is perfectly comfortable exposing herself to the risk of being attacked, she has every right to do so. But if she knowingly makes choices and commits to behaviour which puts her at risk, she does all of those things, bearing the risks.

Your reason for suggesting self defense:
1. Knowing self defense doesn't guarantee safety, but reduces chances of becoming a victim.
2. If women know self defense, they are at reduced risk of being victims.
3. Women have every right not to know self defense.
4. Women are only at risk at all of being victims because of the existence of assholes in our society.
5. Ideally, if there were no assholes, there would be no benefit nor need to know self defense, and they could be free to do as they please.

The exact same above works if you simply substitute "dress modestly" for "know self defense".

Touting cliches like "a woman has the right to dress however she wants without being sexually harassed" is about as productive to this discussion as saying "a person has the right to leave his doors and windows wide open without being robbed". Both are equally true - just not compatible with the non-ideal reality of sharing a society with morally depraved people.

Like · Reply · March 25 at 10:27pm · Edited

Mainul Hasan Seems like we won't be reaching a consensus anytime soon. "Dress modestly" implies that the victim was asking for it or something. It carries that stigma. We should spend more of our productive hours catching these depraved low lives and bringing them to Swift justice. And not making excuses for them .

Like · Reply · March 26 at 4:32am

David Rajaraman What it *implies* is subjective but even if not so, it's a gross misrepresentation of what I said - where I clearly iterated that " the offender is fully guilty and responsible for the crime". Taking precautions against crime doesn't imply an excuse for the offender in any other instance - why does it in this case? At best, you have a rather impressive straw man argument (this is a logical fallacy).

The objective premises for not "dressing modestly" apply equally to other reasonable safety precautions you accept. The argument by way of premises and necessarily following conclusions means you'd have to also accept that it's not advisable to take any other form of safety precaution against any other type of crime or mishap.
Eg: don't lock your doors. You're making excuses for robbers.
Dont wear your seatbelt. You're making excuses for dangerous drivers.
Don't wear shoes in a workshop. You're making excuses for people who leave their tools scattered on the floor.

I'm happy to accept what you're saying as long as you agree with all the other above equivalents on the same premises.

2nd asserting that chasing down criminals and bringing justice to them is mutually exclusive with taking precautions to reduce crime is a false dichotomy at best (another logical fallacy). But the idea itself is preposterous because bringing justice to criminals is a reactive solution after the crime has been committed, not a preventative one except in a far detached and indirect manner.

Educating the masses that they are to exercise self control no matter what a woman is wearing is correct and true. It's not guaranteed to change the minds of every carnal psycho rapist out there. For as long as they exist, any other means of preventative action is advisable.

Agree to disagree but I'd rather employ true premises and their necessarily following conclusions (the definition of a sound argument) than baseless cliches and emotion.

Like · Reply · March 26 at 4:07pm · Edited

Mainul Hasan you keep comparing modest dressing to the locking of doors of a house. while it is more akin to putting a blanket over your face if you are alone in your home, a false sense of security. a lot of cases of rape involve the victims being inebriated and victim being alone and outside. in the pursuit of risk reduction, more prudent precautions will be if you go out drinking go in a large enough group and self defense lessons which will help you keep your calm in stressful situations. chasing down the criminals is a reactive solution i agree because we cannot eradicate rape completely, there still will be cases commited by depraved souls. but showing that swift justice awaits anyone who commits such a heinous crime might hope to deter future assailants. and also help victims because they can have some sense of assurance that their pain will not go unnoticed.
i totally agree with you on the fact that educating the masses is necessary.
but i sincerely have to disagree with the fact that dressing modestly will have any impact on risk reduction.
maybe you dont imply that when you are saying it. but when when a lot of people say it means they shoildnt have been out and about flaunting their sexuality. i see the picture of a lollypop covered by ants where another "covered" lollypop remains ant free pop up in my newsfeed after a couple of days. people that are sharing them are clearly implying the one where the victim is partially at fault.

Like · Reply · March 26 at 5:51pm

David Rajaraman Is there *objective* experimental data or statistical studies to support the claim that a person is no less likely whatsoever to be a rape victim if dressed modestly? Note: we are talking about likelihood, not absolute guaranteed prevention.

Perceived sexual desirability IS one of many potential factors which can influence a rapist. Not saying it's the only one. Just because rapes have occurred in the absence of this factor doesn't mean that it is never a factor. That would be like saying a flat battery can have nothing to do with failure to start because there are also cars which fail to start despite having a good battery.

There IS experiment data (and your own personal anecdotal data, I'm sure) to support the notion that a persons clothing influences the sexual arousal of observers.

In light of the above, the claim is unsubstantiated and intuitively false.

Only one question is necessary to put this to rest:
Does the clothing of a possible victim have any effect whatsoever on their *perceived sexual desirability* to their attacker?

the answer is obvious from the FACT that clothing influencing the perceived sexual desirability of people is precisely how almost the entire marketing industry functions.

Let us not ignore facts, data, psychology, science and sociology for the sake of promoting a feel-good slogan.

Let us, instead, attack rape culture and condemn victim blaming, without suppressing honest knowledge and science, and legitimate sensible safety information.

The Death of the Driver's Car

"... I looked around and, not finding the automobile of my dreams, decided to build it myself." - Ferdinand Porsche

Why are sports cars always two-seaters*?
*Unless the rear seats can accommodate at least 2 average sized adults, it's still a two-seater in my books.

Many would say, matter-of-factly, that a usable second row is non-ideal for minimizing weight and hence hinders performance. This is true... but consider that some of the (so-called) *lightest* compact sports cars of today are heavier than practical, spacious pre-90's family cars.

Granted, that a lot more tact is needed to pack in all the modern safety gadgets into the same weight. Mazda was able to make their 2016 ND MX-5, even with all the standard modern goodies, within 20kg of their original (relatively) stripped out NA6 model from 1989. Clearly, the task isn't impossible. It's just that nobody can be bothered to actually do it.

If you're now yelling at your screen, "Quit your ranting and just go buy an old rust bucket!", you've completely missed my point. There is, always has been, and always will be, an abundance of people like me. People who aren't professional race car drivers or wealthy enough to afford a second recreational car. People who thrive on the pleasure of driving a fast and nimble car that's full of character; but is also practical to live with daily - something that won't make you choose between your family and your passion.

Yes, the size of this market is relatively tiny. The vast majority of car buyers are more interested in a comfortable mode of transport that will, as far as possible, drive itself. The heart-breaking reality for driving enthusiasts is that fully autonomous transportation is where the industry is ultimately headed.

There are simply no modern equivalents to real-world sports cars like the unicorn BMW E28 M5, or the endangered 4-door BMW E30. Compared to how scarcely available they are there is a huge demand for cars like these! Sadly, BMW is today an utter disgrace to everything the brand was until the early 90's.

Imagine, for a moment, if those godly machines were brought back into production today! That would still not solve our problems. There's a new design criterion for the sports car of the future - it must run on a more sustainable energy source. I was almost relieved when Tesla announced the Model 3. I wondered if this could indeed be the automotive messiah. But given how aggressively Tesla is investing in autonomous driving technology, building a true "Driver's Car" doesn't seem to be much of a priority for them.

This is where Porsche comes to our rescue with their Mission E. Driving enthusiasts the world over can be grateful that Porsche as a brand continues to uphold the design philosophy that they were founded on. Even when embracing new technology they've always shown a commitment to minimizing any compromise to the *driving experience*.

Of course it would be my greatest honor and privilege to be a part of that. But even if that doesn't happen, I can still follow in the footsteps of Ferdinand Porsche and "build it myself".

Does the Old Testament Law Apply to Christians?

The ten commandments was part of a covenant made between the Israelites and God. God says, (paraphrasing) "you are my people, I am your Lord, this is how I want you to live".

The new covenant is made between God and his people through Jesus. In this case "his people" are no longer exclusively Jews. Now, the new covenant comes with it's own "t&c"s but that doesn't necessarily mean that the old covenant is to be abandoned. The covenant made at Mt. Sinai with the 10 Commandments didn't abolish any of the the covenants that came before it (eg: Abraham's covenant of circumcision). BUT...

Through out the new testament, there seems to be this theme of the new covenant superseding and replacing the old. The old covenant is referred to with terms such as "done away with (Rom 3), obsolete (Heb 8), law of death (Rom 8)".

It is on this basis that old testament rules which were given under the old covenant are no longer applicable to us - sabbath keeping, food, clothing, animal sacrifices.

There isn't a consensus among all theologians about this particular understanding of how the new and old covenants interact with eachother. But I find the case for this position more convincing. It seems to make better sense of everything that scripture has to say on the matter, without cherry picking.

Yes, there is Jesus' sermon on the mount. he said he came to fulfill the law and not abolish it. In the old testament, the law was given and said to be "forever". The new testament says that "sin is lawlessness". If we look at only these in isolation (cherry pick) a good case can be made to say that the old testament law applies to us. But keep in mind that the new covenant (Luke 22, 1 Cor 11) had not been made until the last supper, when Jesus gives "a new command" (John 13).

To simply look to the old testament law as a binding set of moral rules for all humanity doesn't accurately represent the circumstances and context in which it was given. It was given as terms of a covenant made between God and the Jews. (Exodus 34, Deut 4, 9, 1Kings 8). The levitical customs too were given that way - as terms of the covenant. So IF the covenant is no longer in effect, if it has been broken, it's terms are no longer binding. In fact the wording of some of the above references seems to say that the 10 commandments or the law as a whole ARE the covenant.

First, let us look closer at Matthew 5.
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Does this mean that the old testament law is binding on Christians today? For the following reasons, NO!
- The new covenant had not been made yet when he said this.
- The context of these words were in relation to the necessity of "righteousness" in order to "enter the kingdom of heaven", a principle which is equally in effect under the new covenant.
- He says this as the introduction to when he raises the standard of righteousness above what the law required.

Overall it would seem that the dominant theme in the entire passage, right to the end of chapter 7, is not that the old testament law is binding on everyone, everywhere and 'every-when'. Rather, its purpose is to describe the immensely impossible to attain standard of righteousness which is necessary to avoid God's judgement. Jesus was making his audience aware of how they had fell short of righteousness by far more than they thought! He was priming them to appreciate the new covenant! He was preparing them to receive and understand the gospel! - more on this later.

Is the old covenant abolished or broken? These passages suggest that it is:
Galatians 3. Specifically: that the law was "added til the seed should come". Is there an expiry date? Yes. When? When the seed comes. Has the seed come? Yes if we agree that Jesus is the seed. So is it expired? Yes.
Jeremiah 31. Says the old covenant had been broken, which is why a new one was needed.
Hebrews 8 references Jer 31 and expounds on it.
2 Corinthians 3. The old law refered to as "ministry of death"
Romans 7 Parallels the new and old law to a woman's covenant with her husband. If the first husband (old law) dies, she is free from all obligation to that husband and can marry another (new law).

Unlike the old covenant which maintained the *sign* of the previous covenant - circumcision. The new covenant replaces the signs that came before it with Baptism (Colosians 2, 1 Peter 3). Circumcision was a sign of the seal of righteousness for Abraham (Romans 4). For us, our seal is the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1, 2 Corinthians 1).

In all these ways, the new covenant seems to mirror the old covenant. So if one were to ask what is the relevance of the old covenant to us, it sets up the context in which we are to understand the new covenant. That's how the new testament seems to present them when they are both mentioned together. Parallels and distinctions are drawn between the two.

Why not keep the sabbath but honour our parents? Actually, the case being made is that ALL of the rules under the old covenant are obsolete as they've been superseded by the new covenant.

The above is a more comprehensive than usual explanation of WHY and HOW certain old testament rules don't apply to us such as sabbath keeping. But that's only 1 of the 10 commandments, let alone the rest of the law. All the scripture we looked at above doesn't single out sabbath keeping. It talks about the WHOLE law being "obsolete" etc. It doesn't make sense to pick out Sabbath keeping when the text doesn't do that. So if the whole old testament law is inapplicable to us, can we then live as we please? Should we start stealing, murdering and committing adultery if we feel inclined to do so? THIS is the same objection that is addressed several times in Paul's letters.

In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul says that while he is free from "THE law" he IS under "Christ's Law". In Galatians, he instructs believers to "fulfill the Law of Christ". There is no consensus on what "law of Christ" fully means. BUT, clearly it is not the same as the old testament law. This law which WE are still to fulfill is not the old testament law. 

Just as everything else about the new covenant mirrors the old, the new covenant also has a better version of the old testament law. It could refer to one or both of these:
The call to "love" as the all-encompassing equivalent of the entire old testament law and any other moral virtue (Romans 13, John 13).
To live by the spirit and not by the flesh (Galatians 5, Romans 8)

So how are Christians called to live righteously, if not according to the OT law?
Romans 7:6 "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
2 Corinthians 3:6, Jesus "has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Look at what it says in 1 John 3:23-24. Notice that it doesn't mention the OT law anywhere. Instead, the reason why we honour our parents, love our families, not murder, not commit adultery, not steal, be honest, and ANYTHING ELSE that we consider to be morally virtuous is because of our obedience to the new covenant command, "love". (Romans 13, Galatians 5)

However, considering that the Old Testament foreshadows and is an inferior reflection of the New Testament, has it completely lost its value even as a reflection? Is there not a pattern of living discernible from Old Testament law that would not contradict Christ's law? Particularly considering that 'All the Law and Prophets hang from' the two most important commandments Jesus had for us?

"All the law and prophets hang on these two" are the words of Jesus from Matt 22.

Does this mean that just because something is there in the old covenant, it's morally advisable for us - thou shalt not wear clothes made of linen and wool (Leviticus 19)? Is the material of our clothes a morally significant matter?

Note that the Matthew 22 quote from Jesus saying all the law and prophets hang on the first two is something he said before making the new covenant. Not to take away anything from what he said, but it should not be taken to mean that we, under the new covenant, ought to be using the old testament law in its entirety as our moral compass.

The Old Testament (including the law) IS informative in that it contains so much revelation about the heart and mind of God that it would be difficult for us to act according to Romans 12:1-2 without taking seriously what the Old Testament has to say.

So is the OT law completely irrelevant to us? Not at all! The OT is relevant to us in that although it is non-binding, it is still informative. By "we aren't required to live according to the old testament law", we don't mean that we should live contrary to it but that it's not the standard we are aiming to live by. It's non-binding.

To better understand Matt 22, consider this. Take for example some of the non-morally weighted rules in the old covenant like not eating pork. Does this tell us that God is morally opposed to eating pork? Is it SINFUL to eat pork? We know from the new testament that it's not. But was it sinful for a Jew under the old covenant to eat pork? Absolutely, as they would be disobeying the God who they're supposed to love and value more highly than anything else (breaking the first two commandments).

It's highly plausible that one reason why God gave them these rules to live by is to make them distinctly different and unique to the idolatrous peoples who lived around them. It was so that they'd be God's UNIQUE people. And what He wanted from them was simply their obedience - which is the practical implication of keeping the first two commandments. He wanted them to treat Him as their Lord, King, and ruler, while all other nations had human kings, emperors, pharaohs, etc.

So here is what Jesus means when he says all of the law and prophets hang on the first two commandments. He meant that the purpose behind every rule that Jewish people had to observe, wasn't so that they could consider themselves morally superior than non-Jews, but so that they could live out the essence of the first two commandments. Note that he said this as a response to a question from a member of the pharisees and Sadducees, "What is the greatest commandment?". He was saying this to a group of people who were seen as the most morally superior people, because of how strictly they followed all the rules. This best fits in with the context surrounding those words of Jesus.

Recommended Resources:

A more comprehensive verse by verse video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HpPEdNOyK0&index=1...

To hear both sides of the debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdfeMkgqgrQ

Book: Should Christians Keep The Sabbath, Chris White
http://www.amazon.com/Should-Christians-Keep-The-Sabbath-ebook/dp/B00C5IGPCW