Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
well, one of the key points is that the cat and the geriatric are not physically inside your body
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A cat has more rights to life than a human fetus. Our government serves cats clearly.
animals are property and should be treated as property
until an "animal rights" amendment is added
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
there would be a majority on the Supreme Court that respected the law and the constitution, which clearly is silent on abortion.
nobody ever argued that "abortion" is explicitly protected under the constitution
the argument accepted by the court was "a right to privacy"
specifically regarding "birth control" - which was extended to include "abortion"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
2. I do not consider this a W. I am pro life, however, our government should have no say in what a person can do with their bodies. It is simply not anyone's decision besides that person. To deny person that liberty violates the freedoms promised in our constitution. I would much rather have a government that let things happen that a government that is actively restricting peoples liberties
well stated
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I think a elected official's pay should be partially tied to how well their constituents do compared to past performance, like an end of year bonus. Though it might create shit incentives. I don’t know.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I get what they are trying to do, trying to look rich by buying themselves something rich.
it makes them look like idiots
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Supercars(such as Bugatti Chiron, etc) are not deserved by just "rich" folks who only collect cars and at most drive them on streets and local highways.
there is no logical reason to spend $3,300,000 on something that serves the exact same function as a honda civic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Murder is not wrong because it is murder, but because amounts are removed of the value of that person.
Human value is measured by the financial loss of their surviving family members.
For example, if someone dies at work, a "wrongful death" lawsuit can be filed against those presumably responsible.
This is not an "accusation of murder".
The lawsuit for "wrongful death" can ONLY be filed by a close family member who has suffered a financial loss as a result of the death of their relative.
In the case of an abortion, ONLY the mother or the father of the unborn should be able to file a civil "wrongful death" lawsuit against the physician who performed the procedure.
And this liability could easily be mitigated by asking anyone seeking an abortion to sign a waiver of their rights to sue for "wrongful death" (very specifically for the unborn in question).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
generally you're going to get more comments from people who disagree with you than from those who agree with you
which leads to a sort of confirmation-bias (sample-bias)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
i personally wouldn't say, "mostly it's Trump supporters, anti-woke people, etc. talking about cancel culture or whatever,"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Richard Dawkins does not worship or profess belief in gods.True.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
every culture is a type of cult
some cults allow critique
some cults encourage critique
some cults require critique
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
pointing out the absurdity of the "two party system" is always a good time
Created:
-->
@Danielle
The NAP is not a philosophically sophisticated or useful metric of morality.
What (in your personal opinion) is a good example of a philosophically sophisticated and or useful metric of morality ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
this might even "explain" "war" (as some sort of "heat exchange")
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though from the ultimate negentropy scrapers point of view, any cosmic energy source will do?
absolutely
the "ultimate goal" will be (EITHER) some sort of "dyson sphere" (OR) some even more direct and efficient form of energy extraction we have not currently conceived of
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So put this into some sort of bigger context.
historically, "the winner" has always been the best negentropy scraper
the ottomans
the romans
and in the future
AGI will figure this out and focus exclusively on energy extraction
it will, in all likelihood, ignore humans altogether once they are no longer a threat to it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
the most efficient negentropy scraper will destroy all competitors
Created:
Posted in:
Because your trusty revolver's gonna save you from military grade drones, machine guns, tanks and next level weaponry that you don't even know exists yet because it's not been revealed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Likewise, to say that Richard Dawkins "simply lacks belief in gods" is deliberately deceptive.
And also FACTUALLY ACCURATE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Good discussion so far. Just wanted to add my thoughts in response; I do agree with points for seperate categories, I just don't think they're being weighed appropriately. If it were me I'd give 4 points for arguments, 1 point each for spelling/grammar, sources, and conduct. So even if someone loses on everything else, they'd still win based on the argument. That way only the closest of debates would be decided by the other categories.I think the other three categories should still be encouraged, a simple Pro or Con vote fails to do that.
100% THIS
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Is it really "foisted"? Or created by (some) atheists who don't substantiate their affirmations?
theists tend to project the claims made by SOME atheists onto ALL atheists
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
lack
/lak/
noun
the state of being without (or) not having enough of something.
verb
be without (or) deficient in.
Source: Oxford Languages
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Therefore, it would be unfair to categorize those people who believe with certainty that bigfoot does not exist as a subset of the people who simply lack belief in bigfoot.
a non-believer is not necessarily an anti-believer
an anti-believer is always also a non-believer
THEIST = T
ATHEIST != T
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The formation and laying down of reserves of energy for later extraction.
negentropy scraping
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Lacks a belief which affirms,
lacking a belief in bigfoot
very strongly implies a lack of positive belief (a lack of bigfoot worship, a lack of bigfoot hunting, a lack of membership in clubs that believe in bigfoot)
and does not imply (although it also does not conflict with and or exclude but is in-fact a prerequisite of) a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
False and demeaning to strict Atheists like Richard Dawkins who don't lack belief,
Richard Dawkins does not have a belief in gods.
Richard Dawkins lacks a belief in gods.
Richard Dawkins does not worship or profess belief in gods.
Richard Dawkins lacks worship and profession of belief in gods.
Richard Dawkins does not have a tomato for a head.
Richard Dawkins lacks a tomato for a head.
This is not "an insult".
These statements are consistent with Richard's public statements on the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
What is a "lack of belief" in juxtaposition to "active DISbelief"?
it's the difference between "not adopting a belief" and "belief in the impossibility"
for example,
i do not have a "positive belief" in bigfoot (i am not a "bigfoot believer") but i cannot DISprove bigfoot (because the claim is unfalsifiable) so i do not say "there can be no bigfoot" (i am also not a "bigfoot denier")
this all has to do with the burden-of-proof that theists try to foist onto atheists
more precisely than "lack of belief" atheist should be understood as simply "not a theist"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Does miscommunication = logically incoherent?
not necessarily
a good example of a logically incoherent concept is "infinite"
another good example of a logically incoherent concept is "free-will"
people generally believe these are comprehensible ideas
and people use these terms and exchange information containing these terms that may or may not contain perceived "miscommunication"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@amandragon01
When someone claims probability then I ask how they determine the odds they are using.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The Human Rights Campaign condemned the passage of legislation, H.B. 322, out of the Alabama State Senate, that will ban transgender students from using bathrooms and other school facilities that align with their gender identity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Does it 'matter if one can hide candy they didn't buy from the movie theater under their coat? Movie theater 'still makes money by not allowing outside food sources.
strangely, it's not against any law to carry a package of candy in your pocket
and movie theaters do not currently require a full-body scan and or pat-down and or strip-search
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
'Most of the time sex is easy enough for people to tell by appearance, attire, voice.Women usually look like women, and men like men, even with their clothes on.
people don't realize how often they're mistaken about determining someone else's gender at a glance
for example,
i believe that all toupées look awful and are always obvious
this is clearly sample-bias
because many toupées look perfectly normal and are not at all obvious, but i can't know that, because i only notice the awful and obviously bad ones
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Some people are androgynous, but I don't think that's the same as a transexual.
i agree
but how can anyone know the difference without a dna sample and or a strip-search ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I'm disagreeing with your disregard of social conventions and norms.
and i'm asking you, how a woman who objects to someone they think looks like a man, is supposed to know if that person actually is a man (without a dna sample and or a strip-search) ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It's about men claiming to be women, and women claiming to be men,
and i'm trying to point out
that gay men already go to the men's room
does that make you uncomfortable ?
how would a woman entering the men's room
make you any more uncomfortable ?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Don't be obtuse. You know the people you see in dreams are not actual consciousness.
about 90+% of the "internal dialog" you imagine "other people" are having "in their own heads"
is you projecting
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.What does that mean?
it means that men men can be honestly mistaken for women women (mostly by conservatives)
it means that women women can be honestly mistaken for men men (mostly by conservatives)
and their refusal to admit this
demonstrates a fundamental and fatal error in their worldview
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The video is satire, but C'mon, look at the difference in PT standards between men and women.
why not simply make height and weight and the ability to carry a supply pack a specific distance the criteria ?
or muscle to fat ratio
or demonstrable skill at a specific task
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
All individuals are external
do you ever dream ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It would depend upon what credence one gives to the notion of predeterminism.
or indeterminism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The definition of ATHEIST in the strictest sense is perfectly clear: "Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). " and Double_R is clearly arguing that the dictionary must be corrected for exclusively ideological reasons.
There are many different types of "christians", THEREFORE the dictionary definition of "christian" is broad in order to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.
It would be "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" if, for example the dictionary defined "christian" by characteristics only held by SOME "christians" (like, for example, "professing a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith").
There are many different types of "theists", THEREFORE the dictionary definition of "theist" is broad in order to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.
It would be "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" if, for example the dictionary defined "theism" by characteristics only held by SOME "theists" (like, for example, "professing a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith", which would inarguably qualify you as a "theist").
There are many different types of "mammals", THEREFORE the dictionary definition of "mammal" is broad in order to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.
It would be "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" if, for example the dictionary defined "mammal" by characteristics only held by SOME "mammals" (like, for example, "professing a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith", which pretty much guarantees you are a "mammal", I mean, I don't know of any historical examples of a "non-mammal" that "professes a belief that the angel moroni appeared to the prophet joseph smith").
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Why would I argue in favor of any change by specifically saying that change "is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" Does that sound like an argument for modification to you?
When you say ["lack of belief"] "is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" (AND) "lack of belief" is ALREADY part of the standard definition of "atheism" (THEN) you are arguing AGAINST the standard definition of "atheism".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Why people would want a separation of sports by sex, seems clear enough to me.
would you care to reveal this "reason" to me ?
Created: