OK, if you want to look at it that way, it’s still the same basic argument, refusing to participate in the party just effectively increases the representation of the people you disagree with.

Consider two scenarios: one where you vote, one where you do not, all else is the same. In the scenario where you vote, the candidate that you vote for, that you least disagree with, has a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario. In the scenario where you don’t vote the candidates that you wouldn’t have voted for, the ones you most disagree with, have a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario.

Not voting is effectively voting for the people you most disagree with.

democrats win this upcoming election, does this mean all the people who didn’t vote had actually voted democrats?

That’s a different argument than what I was making. “Not voting is effectively approval of whoever wins.” related but not the same.

Do your own personal Instant Runoff. If you think that the third party candidate might win maybe vote for them. If they are basically guaranteed to lose, maybe vote for your next choice.

No self respecting leftist would be a member of the democratic party.

That is such a stupid mindset. In many states you have to be a member of the party to vote in their primary. If you are not voting in any primary then you are letting people that you disagree with decide who will be in the candidate in the election. And considering that not voting is effectively voting for the candidate that you most disagree with, all the leftists that refuse to associate with the democratic party are effectively voting for the people they disagree with.

The Phoenicians founded a new city in North Africa and called it ‘New City’ (Qart Hadasht), we now call it Carthage. The Carthaginians founded a new city in Spain and called it ‘New City’ (Qart Hadasht). The Romans conquered both of these cities, and found that having cities with the same confusing so called the second one ‘New New City’ (Carthago Nova).

I am aware of that, considering that the article I linked is a direct response to that claim. If you notice the article you link does not quote Biden, but an anonymous source, and when reporters asked Biden he said: “I don’t have any plans on one term.”

“No, I never have,” Biden said when asked by a reporter on Wednesday if those discussions were taking place. “I don’t have any plans on one term.”

He never had plans to only run one term.

Accepting of homosexuals so long as the never act on their feelings. Catholics accept anyone so long as they follow Catholic rules. That’s always been their position.

The pope never intended to express himself in homophobic terms, it’s just that he is so homophobic that it slips out sometimes.

I suspect that they knew it they would have to correct it, but did it anyway because the lie would be spread more than the correction.

If you are referring to the gemini ai model that identified a deadly mushroom as a button mushroom, then that is also google.

Was the emperor some kind of chicken? Gallienus is awfully similar to gallus.

Onan’s crime was greed not lust. He did not want to provide for Tamar or her potential children.

Yes, from a superficial viewpoint they are similar. And from a superficial viewpoint shooting a practice target is similar to shooting a person dead. It would be rather stupid to refer to target practice as murder.

It’s onanism in English. And it’s rather stupid to call it that because Onan didn’t masturbate, he used the pull out method to avoid getting his sister-in-law pregnant with his brother’s kid. (yes, I know that sounds weird but that’s the story)

I guess memes adapt to their environmental pressures

That should not be in any way surprising.

The word was coined by British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976) as a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.

Apparently I have to say this again. Those are MY opinions. The goal of me sharing my opinions point out a position that I suspected would not be accepted by the scouts, at least your in interpretation of their rules. Your response was that atheists that did not believe the same as me could be accepted, which was irrelevant to the point. And here you insult me. Congratulations, you have confirmed my suspicions.

The UU MOU demonstrates that they still discriminate. Any Christian denomination is automatically acceptable, for atheists they have to pick and choose saying “you’re one of the good ones”.

If a scout wishes to define god as thermodynamics, BSA accepts it.

OK, that’s irrelevant. Those were clearly MY opinions, a demonstration of how I refuse to label things with the term ‘god’, followed by the rationale for me doing so.

You are using a completely different, contradictory definition.

I am not using any definition of ‘god’, I am just saying that it has a definition, not any specific one just some definition, otherwise the term would be meaningless. And if I were to label anything ‘god’ it would be because that thing fulfilled the requirements for this unspecified definition. If I were to label something as ‘red’ it would be because it fulfills the requirements to be called ‘red’. If it did not fit the definition of ‘red’ I would not apply the label ‘red’. In the same way, I would not label something as ‘god’ unless I thought the label fit. If I were to label something as ‘god’ it would imply that there was something different about it when compared to something that I would refuse to apply the term ‘god’ to. And there is nothing that I would be willing to label ‘god’.

The UU memorandum of understanding is irrelevant. I am not a member, and I think most atheists are not either. People should not be required to join a church or a religion to join the scouts.

I don’t believe in any gods, and would never say that something was a god if I did not think it was a god. Consciousness is not a god, nature is not a god, the laws of thermodynamics are not gods. Labeling these things gods only serves to imply some sort of mystery thing about it when there is none, I would consider it lying to do so. Do you think they would accept me? I don’t.

If the religious aspects were truly left to the scouts and their families, outright atheists would simply be accepted, and there would not need to be a memorandum of understanding so that a specific organization could participate, because they would have simply been accept beforehand.

You are suggesting that it is acceptable to for scouts that do not believe in any god to lie and say that they do. Dishonesty goes against the scout principles.