by Maverick4u2c August 06, 2023
Being romantically involved with more than one person at one time and all involved parties are aware and accepting of it.
by ApricotFields May 30, 2024
When you’re so fucking smart that you accurately answer two questions at once with one calculated “What?”.
i was writing this but lost too many brain cells and will come back to this once i’m strong enough, Plural Version of Whats
by 20inchrim May 24, 2022
Extraphysical Pluralism is an extraphysicalist philosophical view where there are a lot, or even infinite, substances between physics and extraphysics, where both, physics and extraphysics, are just two extremes or two main groups of all kinds of substances that might exist at physical and extraphysical level, it also sees physical and extraphysical as being relative concepts that depends of the reference and it also states that it might be a lot hard to detect different types of extraphysical phenomena and extraphysical life, such as the interaction between physics and extraphysics are a lot complex for humans understand and that there are a lot of simplifications about extraphysics and its relation and interaction with physics as well. Extraphysical pluralism is considered opposition of extraphysical dualism and extraphysical monism, and it seeks to create a pluralist and relativist approach on extraphysicalism and extraphysics as well.
"Extraphysical pluralism is a good way for we understand extraphysics as well, but it does not exclude extraphysical monism and extraphysical dualism, both are really good for the study and the understanding of extraphysics as well."
by Full Monteirism April 16, 2021
A "We are the world"-Esque delusion that is both undesirable and impossible.
Hym "Pluralism requires the religions to be transformed into something they are not. If the religions are resistant to the change that pluralism requires will inevitably be disempowered. Either by the state or the communication networks. It's at that point you have a hierarchy of religious dogma, backed by the state and communications networks, and it's going to elevate the religions that more closely align with your progressive sensibilities above the religions who do not. What you are suggesting is nothing more than liberals controlling the religions with soft power from the outside in a way that allows them to deny their own culpability. What happens to the Muslim fundamentalists who think gays should be thrown off buildings? What happens to the Christian fundamentalists who object to abortion on religious grounds? They both take a backseat to the other religions that allow your liberal bullshit pluralism to dictate (from the top down) which religions can accrue power. Your pluralism IS the precursor to the hierarchy you condemn. And that was my initial criticism of the Atheist pluralists. 'The religions would be fine if they believed what I believe. I should be the God. As long as the religion is promoting my progressive politics then it's fine.'
Hym "Pluralism requires the religions to be transformed into something they are not. If the religions are resistant to the change that pluralism requires will inevitably be disempowered. Either by the state or the communication networks. It's at that point you have a hierarchy of religious dogma, backed by the state and communications networks, and it's going to elevate the religions that more closely align with your progressive sensibilities above the religions who do not. What you are suggesting is nothing more than liberals controlling the religions with soft power from the outside in a way that allows them to deny their own culpability. What happens to the Muslim fundamentalists who think gays should be thrown off buildings? What happens to the Christian fundamentalists who object to abortion on religious grounds? They both take a backseat to the other religions that allow your liberal bullshit pluralism to dictate (from the top down) which religions can accrue power. Your pluralism IS the precursor to the hierarchy you condemn. And that was my initial criticism of the Atheist pluralists. 'The religions would be fine if they believed what I believe. I should be the God. As long as the religion is promoting my progressive politics then it's fine.'
You want the moral authority for yourselves. You're trying to dress it up as this benign thing and it isn't. So no. No pluralism. The only solution to religion is to create a system that is impervious to and unaffected by believe. You can have your little incest cult and you can have your liberal politics but I, as an individual, do not have to lend any credence to your religion, don't have to do what your God says, and to discriminate against me or transgress upon me for doing so is a violation of my religious liberty. We need to get this subjective prescriptive behavior out of people's lives and turn society into an input/output mechanism where people can contribute independently from and regardless of their beliefs and receive output commensurate with their contributions. So, if THAT is what you mean by pluralism, then fine. But it doesn't sound like it. Maybe I'm missing something. Additionally, focusing on Hindu voices when speaking about Hinduism is just a way of preemptively undermining dissent against Hinduism. I can just as easily say that we should prioritize dissent."
by Hym Iam February 03, 2025
by mbiama October 23, 2009