The problem is the abundance of assholes using selected parts of the Bible to manipulate others while conveniently ignoring other parts of the Bible that contradict them.
This has absolutely nothing to do with contradictions or lack thereof, though. You can just as easily cherry-pick something that has no contradictions.
That’s non-sequitur.
I think revenge only has value as revenge if it comes from the victim.
I’m not sure if it does even then…there are so many accounts of people taking revenge and it not giving them any sort of actual ‘relief’ or closure long-term after all.
The difference is [the profit you make under socialism/communism] wouldn’t be at the expense of others
How is that possible? Isn’t “profit” defined as value you get in excess of the value of the thing you traded for? Isn’t profit “at the expense of others” by definition?
If you’re a White Republican/MAGA/Christian Male, I’m just going to assume you’re a pedophile now.
So if everyone who’s over 7 feet tall is male, by your logic, everyone who’s male is over 7 feet tall.
Hopefully that makes it obvious just how flawed this reasoning is.
The probabilities are just too high.
Mainstream media is the last place you want to learn probability from. It’s the reason that over decades of violent crime rates decreasing, the public is led to believe that it’s been increasing that entire time.
Have you considered that the media you are (or allow yourself to be) exposed to, plays a part in that?
As an example, this took literal seconds to find, and it’s an article from this month:
A North Carolina state House member has been charged with sex-related crimes involving a teenager earlier this year, court records show.
Six-term Democratic state Rep. Cecil Brockman, 41, of High Point, was arrested Wednesday on two counts each of statutory sexual offense with a child and taking indecent liberties with a child, according to a magistrate’s order detailing his arrest.
I bet you’ve never heard of this person, or ever saw this article, right?
Before I explicitly looked, I hadn’t either. But it’s not that it was hidden, really, just that it’s not the data the algorithms put in front of my eyes, without me having to go seek it. Don’t underestimate the impact these algorithms have on what you’re made aware of, and how that controlled exposure can shape, or warp, your sense of reality.
I’ll never forget that graph that showed the comparison of how much violent crime had decreased over the years in the US, juxtaposed with public perception of violent crime rates literally rising in inverse proportion over the same period of time, thanks to mainstream media sensationalism. Ever since that day, I’ve tried to keep myself from making assumptions about how common something is, based on how often it’s reported on, especially when it comes to controversial/shocking subjects like these, as those are the ones where there is the most temptation for an outlet to sensationalize.
Is this kind of absurd hyperbole really productive?
Come on, not all singers molest children.
I feel like the fact that he was a church minister is much more relevant information for the headline. Who gives a shit that he sang a song at a Trump rally once, seriously? Clickbait slop.
cis he/him
insert ‘I’m gonna pre’ compilation
I didn’t say the mention was disingenuous, I said the comparison was.
a guy that brought his Charlie Kirk flag
‘what the fuck even is a Charlie Kirk flag?’
Well…can you tell us? You’re the one who saw it, lol.
Did you really tell someone else that they need a bit of mental gymnastics to not make an assumption?
If enough people assume something about you, it’s true
Great life lesson for the kids.
It’s a bit disingenuous to compare an annual cost with a one-time expenditure, isn’t it?
Can’t help but notice you didn’t quote him saying any of this.
Ridiculous stuff like this is what keeps you from being taken seriously, and makes it harder to win over voters. You guys are acting like you enjoy losing elections.
So where in there did Trump call Hitler a “good king”, call Jews “dishonest”, refer to anyone as “evil watermelon people”, or call anyone “closet f*ggots”? You know, the things being directly attributed to him here.
Also, being a chat room, none of it came from Trump’s mouth either, but who cares about accuracy, right? No bad tactics, only bad targets. /s
the credit report disclosure clearly indicates that our score took a hit because we don’t carry a balance.
Are you paying your cards off before the statement cycle ends, resulting in your statement reading $0 every month? “No recent revolving balances” means that, as far as the credit reporting agencies know, you haven’t been using your card at all for 3+ months (emphasis added)[1]:
“No recent revolving balances”—another way to say your credit cards are all paid off—sometimes appears as a FICO® Score risk factor. To be included in a credit score calculation, accounts need to show activity over time. By making a small purchase each month and then paying the balance in full, you will demonstrate that you are a good credit risk. The balance on your billing statement is what is usually shown in your credit report. Even though you’ve paid the balance in full, your credit report would show the balance, indicating activity in your account and helping your score.
You should let the statement cycle end with the balance of whatever you used it for, and then pay it off, anytime between that day and your due date. As long as you pay it off no later than your due date, you’ll still pay no interest, but paying it off before the statement ends prevents the agencies from even realizing that you used the card at all, because the agencies can’t see your actual credit card usage activity. They see only:
I also have a plus 800 credit score, but it would be higher if I made a habit of paying the bank lots of interest income.
No, it wouldn’t. Interest paid is not a factor at all—the credit reporting agencies literally have no way of knowing what portion, if any, of your statement balance is interest, they’re only provided the bottom line total statement balance.
Also, if you’re over 750, any further increase is ‘gravy’ anyway, almost no lender has a tier higher than that. The highest ‘breakpoint’ I’ve ever seen is 780. Even if what you said was accurate, ‘I’m over 800 but it could be higher’ is a distinction without a difference.
And this is only an ‘adverse effect’ insofar as, after that amount of time, you start to be considered similarly someone who doesn’t have those credit cards at all, since as far as they know, you’re using them the same amount as such a person, lol. ↩︎
So all available reporting says my credit score went down when I paid off my loans and has remained in this new lower state for months since, but the secret real number used to decide my fate maybe didn’t.
There’s no maybe. I already explained how it works. The only part of it that’s ‘secret’ is the minutia of the score tabulation, to make it harder to game. Loans closed in good standing (i.e. you paid them off) are part of your credit report for 10 years.
Get the fuck out of here with that. Credit scores are purely a value used by lenders to determine how much money can be extracted from a consumer.
This is demonstrably bullshit.
Someone who maxes out a credit card, and then only pays minimum payments, and always makes them late, is, via interest accruing and late payment fees, making the lender basically the maximum amount of profit possible. And yet doing this will result in a garbage credit score, because using every penny of your credit limit is very detrimental to your credit score, and not making payments on time is extremely detrimental to your credit score.
Meanwhile, take me, someone who never pays a cent of interest, because he pays off his card every statement cycle (and on time, naturally), and because of card rewards, I’m the one profiting, the lender is literally the one paying me, and ‘yet’, my credit score is in the 800s.
So how do you reconcile that with your assumed truth quoted above? It’s very hard to understand how anyone can arrive at the conclusion you did, while also knowing (as I assume you do) that late payments simultaneously hurt your credit score and increase profit for the lender, just as one example.
It goes down if you’re delinquent
As it should—the whole point of the score is to rate your reliability in repaying what you borrow.
it goes down it you pay things off early without racking up all the interest they wanted
False. You will never be worse off after paying a loan off early than you were before you took out the loan. Again, I haven’t paid a cent of interest on my credit cards in over a decade, and I paid off the only car loan I ever had, really early, less than a year into it.
it goes down if you don’t run enough of a balance on your credit cards.
Also false. Higher utilization is BAD for your credit score, not good. You’re saying literally the opposite of what’s true, do you realize that? You might want to google ‘credit score myths’ and find an article on bankrate or nerdwallet to educate yourself, you’ve been massively misled about this, honestly.
It doesn’t protect consumers
It gets good borrowers like me lower interest rates, and higher credit limits.
it barely protects lenders
Pretty sure the lenders would heavily disagree with that, lol. For very obvious reasons, anyone who’s considering lending someone money is going to be very interested in what happened the last X times that person was lent money.
it’s purely used to determine how much can be extracted from a consumer’s bank account.
Still false the second time.
You’re assuming that the entire document has a single message, which is absolutely not a given. Simple hypothetical:
If the Bible said nothing more than these things:
And you were someone who was on board with the first two but not the third, it’d be cherry-picking to call yourself an adherent of the Bible while citing your belief/agreement in/with the first two while ignoring the third, even though none of the three things above contradict each other.