Total posts: 816
-->
@Double_R
Our medical capabilities are a little bit better today than they were in 1918.
And yet, a preventable pandemic wasn't. Sounds like Faucci's hands are not exactly bloodless.
Too bad our politics do not not fare so well, either.
1918 - Wilson - promised to not get us into war, and failed.
2021: Biden - promised to get us out of a war, and failed.
Americans left behind enemy lines in both cases.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You've entirely missed the point of the post. It's not ab0out Hillary; the story6 could have been ab out anyone.
The point was how Politifact handled it, and how poorly they substantiated their assessment that the story is likely not true - by claiming she is still active tweeting. I could be Hillary tweeting, my friend, since who tweets on someone's account ain't necessarily who they say they are. Identity, as you have noted yourself, online is nebulous, so let's not be hornswoggle that Hillary's proof of life is a tweet. That's the irony of today's so-called journalism - the subject of my post.
However, continue your praise of Hillary by all means. Someone has to continue flying her flag for her.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Created:
One of the reasons I highly distrust anything on YouTube - I do use it to listen to music, but I don't use it as a news source - is this story presented by some whacko media outlet. You look for it if you're interested. I'm not going to cite it. It doesn't deserve the notoriety. Just use the topic string as a search string - you'll find it.
My issue is not so much how absurd the original story is; even though I oppose Hillary every way from Sunday. Such nonsense is just that. Give the poor woman a break. She's a loser. Fine. Many are, many aren't.
My issue is how Politifact, for example, responded. No, I'm not going to cite that one, either. You find it. Google is a known entity, isn't it, but is it reliable??
Politifact reached the same conclusion I did: highly improbable. However, it was their justification that has exemplified the dying dinosaur journalism is. According to Politifact, Hillary has been active on Twitter since April. I looked. "She" is.
Is a tweet from someone really evidence of their existence? Really? God help us, we believe cyberspace more than concrete reality. It isn't journalism, alone, that is in its death throes. The human capacity of rational thought is an endangered species.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Your dialog in the theater line of the loud man behind the two girls reminds me of of a weekend dialog I watched, as a child, between my older brother and a man, a neighbor, who came to our door one evening to lodge a complaint. My brother had a few friends over for a party, and I, the younger brother - I was about ten - was the typical younger-brother-pest.
My brother had music playing on the stereo. When the doorbell rang, my brother went to the door, thinking more guests had arrive. I followed.
The man said, "I have a heart condition and I don't appreciate your loud music."
My brother: "I'm not playing it for you." He shut the door.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I just wish the SPES stopped there, and dismissed all the tiers. It's rather confusing. Seems you've defined the matter well enough in your #167. Why can't the policy be that simple? It's the total reason why I voted against it.
What is the current vote tally, by the way?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Good question. Deserves an answer. So, why isn't that answer forthcoming? I suppose that leads to the more basic question: does a topic originator "own" the thread? I've been told as such by some jealous members. If we truly believe the Forum is a open expression of ideas for and by all, and as long as a post is cordial to that ideal, with moderate respect for one another, I don't see how it is rational that the initiator of a thread can dictate who may and may not post an appropriate comment, or what content that comment contains as long as it meets basic decorum. "Appropriate" being a term any reasonable person can decipher, unless we're all considered three-year-olds, which is not the inference given on the DebateArt homepage.
I hope someone of oversight on this site will offer you a legit answer and not just a dismissal.
Well, it appears SupaDudz has responded
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Being the source, we need not take it as factual.
Created:
Posted in:
What if, as Homo sapiens was exhibiting a trend toward taller specimens, we had the medical technology close to our present level, and thought that increasing height was a disease? Or that developing variant appearances [hair color, skin color, various conditions of facial features, etc] were evidence of disease conditions? I think the matter of whether Covid, in all its variant expressions, was a natural phenomenon or contrived is a useless exercise to argue. Sooner or later we'll know. In the meantime, it is a real condition, it is causing death in spite of vaccines - which is no reason to assume vaccines are not effective, because, clearly, while not 100% effective, and what is? - it has a greater probability of positive effect than negative - so, while we're a captive audience, why not just live our normal lives with appropriate precautions and stop thinking anyone has the answer for everyone?
Or, as noted in an other post, I look forward to Faucci's new suggestion: wear a mask as a diaper. The typical mask has the predominant design features to accommodate that mode of apparel.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
End-date-for-humanity 2232.
curious that you cite sources for all points but this. Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Very pleased you have entertained yourself. Now tell me how that's different from premature efactulation?
Created:
Posted in:
It might not be easy to articulate what a disease is, but we like to think we would at least all know when we saw one. Unfortunately, this is problematic as well. Notions of health are highly context-dependent, as human diseases only exist in relation to people, and people live in varied cultural contexts. Studies in medical anthropology and sociology have shown that whether people believe themselves to be ill varies with class, gender, ethnic group and less obvious factors such as proximity to support from family members.
What counts as a disease also changes over historical time, partly as a result of increasing expectations of health, partly due to changes in diagnostic ability, but mostly for a mixture of social and economic reasons. One example is osteoporosis, which after being officially recognized as a disease by the WHO in 1994 switched from being an unavoidable part of normal ageing to a pathology (WHO, 1994). This has consequences for sufferers' sense of whether they are 'normally old' or 'ill', but more concretely for their ability to have treatment reimbursed by health service providers. Another well-known example is homosexuality, which has travelled in the opposite direction to osteoporosis, through medical territory, and out the other side. After being redefined during the nineteenth century as a state rather than an act, in the first half of the twentieth century homosexuality was viewed as an endocrine disturbance requiring hormone treatment. Later its pathological identity changed as it was re-categorized as an organic mental disorder treatable by electroshock and sometimes neurosurgery; and finally in 1974 it was officially de-pathologized, when the American Psychiatric Association removed it from the listed disease states in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (Bayer & Spitzer, 1982).
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I don’t recall the last time the flu did that.
You may not recall, but the history is clear and all it requires is asking a few questions.
The 1918 H1N1 pandemic, aka, influenza. Flu.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Compare
You are just a poor functionally illiterate soul trapped in a world of your imagination... You're not worth my anger, but you have my pity.
Post #58
with
It's really a choice between clear process documentation (which can still be refined), or fly by the seat of their pants decisions as they go.
Post #14
and it appears someone needs to have a more clearly defined policy before adopting its proper attitude?
And you wonder why those of us who oppose the ban policy as proposed are confused and don't see change as necessarily improvement?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Unlike your fake news, the Left don't directly lie in theirs.
You seem to have some wild expectation that I watch fake news. I don't watch news, period, anymore. Things change, my friend, having naught to do with identity, by the way
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Thank you very much
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Tell it to RM; he's the one attacking my identity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
It will not be tolerated here
To treat dissent by censure is the sure sign that you're afraid of something atheists represent. What is it and why are you afraid of it.? It is, after all, just dissenting opinion. Does that mean you're afraid of ideas with which you disagree? And you allege to already be the president of this outfit? Sad state of affairs. I'm therefore doubtful of whatever confidence you have in theism, and of whatever platform you stand on as a candidate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Personally it's getting old being a target for close-minded one-dimensional thinkers who parade themselves as intellectually superior.
Isn't a target targeted by close-minds likely to be missed? Being one-dimensional, they're likely to hit themselves.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
@Mesmer
fuck x 109
Of a 738-word performance, 15% of all words singularly repeat 109 times. I agree with Mesmer, the only reason I mention you, my friend. None of the rest of this applies to you, but to the author of this useless post. Each one deminshes the author sufficiently to peg a relative illiterate.
We get, it, bud. There is such a thing as excess, and it has been over-accomplished, but is that the flag you're going to wave? Really? Isn't there a certain lack of satisfaction from premature efactulation?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
pretend I'm a different age
Isn't that what an avatar is all about? I said in my profile, it isn't about me, because little of it is reality at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, they are good at talking bullshit.
Who isn't?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
thanks for welcoming us, but we will not reciprocate by welcoming you to the religion sectiom
The self-appointed tzar of the religion so speaks, expressing the smile of Jesus on her face, but she's no Clint Eastwood, with or without the 44. Jesus did say he came by the sword, after all, so, there's that. Takes a bit to noodle that, but it happens to be true. That said, I posted in the string the tzar began that atheists were welcome on the string, because, in a forum, just because one starts a string does not declare ownership of it. After its launch, any post is open season for reply by any member. As it should be. So, why is this person lobbying to be the president so intent on being divisive? Kind of like another president I know of who campaigned to raise taxes, and was allegedly elected, anyway. Not to mention that the tzar already declares to be the president, too. A bit despotic in my book.
Created:
That, and why are so many people who espouse one or the other, or both or neither so bent out of shape when others present dissenting views to their own? What is it? Why is it that some of us cannot bear the competition of ideas, and find their only salvation in censorship, as if that will eliminate the variant idea? One need not censor. In fact, the only result of censorship is failure to maintain a conversation, particularly because a matter of disagreement on one point is not a qualifier to dismiss someone on all points. That's called war, and that accomplishes no good for anybody.
Created:
Posted in:
How curious that allegedly tolerant people find dissenting views a threat to their existence. Why? Of what are you afraid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Until someone comes along who ties shoes better than anyone ever has. Kind of like replacing the buggy whip with a carburetor.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Good thing not all of us 0share the same talents. Boring place, otherwise. But I never said I don't share that one, so, maybe there are things that slide by you. Doesn't matter, anyway, so,, no big deal.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@drlebronski
No imagination figment of an online presence has real existence, anyway, regardless of username, so, what's in a name? We merely use tools as disassociated extensions of reality. Those extensions are not reality, pure and simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
educating the debater is done in the feedback section of a proper rfd
What feedback on sourcing, legibility. or conduct if a voter doesn't vote on any of them, and, thereby, leaves no commentary in the vote?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
The ability to directly assign points for sources, legibility, and conduct.
However, the way the system is designed right now, if a voter opts to not vote on S, L, C, there are still points assigned, and if there are points assigned, there must by justification for them according to the policy.
It is considered opted out if not commented upon.
That's a policy based on assumption. Nope, not adequate. If it is a code issue, whoever writes code ought to address it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Does pot come from coffee grounds? or tea leaves? Learn something new everyday. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
All atheists get it in the end? I think not. Didn't know we had tzars. I think we don't, but, that is a figment of imagination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Jesus is being metaphorical.
Is he, now?
Consider: What are the two great commandments? To love God, and to love our fellow man. One can neither love God, and hate our neighbor, nor love our neighbor and hate God.
Consider: What is evil? Any thought or action that is contrary to God's law. Yes, thought, too, as in committing adultery in one's heart, even when everyones' pants and skirts remain zipped.
Can one be evil and love God? No.
What does one do to love God and follow Christ? Do as Christ taught.
Consider: Matthew 10: 34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." That's no metaphor. That's literal.
When, in one family, one member denies the Christ and does not keep the commandments, seeks no forgiveness, and embraces evil, is it right or wrong for other family members to love the errant mom, dad, brother, or sister, but reject the sinning? No. That's how the sword plays in Christ's hands, and should in ours. Teach that errant member the way to repentance and let them choose. Families will be cut by the sword, and some remain righteous, and others do not, or the family will all embrace the ways of evil and they are all cut off from the Lord. We cannot sacrifice our souls at the expense of loving a person's sins along with the person. That's a hard choice, but its either we embrace the kingdom of heaven, or we don't. There's no middle ground.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Just wondering by what authority this ban is engineered. Of what are you afraid from atheists? Is your advocacy of theism in that much doubt that you must censor atheists? Real big of you. Real courage.
Is Wylted president of DebateArt by personal fiat? I didn't vote. Did the rest of you?
I hereby declare to all atheists: This is a free forum. State your case as you always have.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Theoretically, the process of moderation ought not differ from the published policy, SPES or whatever. But I'm saying the proposed process of a tiered banning system is too cumbersome, which opens up opportunity for variation; it does not reduce it.
For example: A company is trying to define precise process instructions, and decides that the Materials Dept ought to have purchase order duplicates in several other depts, Engineering, Production, Accts. Payable, etc, and each dept is to have a specific color of the P.O. That's similar to the detail of SPES. Who cares what color each dept gets as long as it gets a copy of the P.O.? Who cares what tier an infraction is in? Define the infractions and a penalty for them. Period. Set a repeat maximum regardless of type, and permanent ban the offender. And why should a role such as the suggested president be allowed any bans? Dumbs down the system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
My Qu'ran is a slightly different version than yours. 8:12 "I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike of their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers." Actually, this consistent with Matthew 10: 34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Censorship has far more evil attached to it than freedom of speech. For example, the offense created by freedom of speech ought to be addressed by more reasoned, convincing argument, not by censorship. Censorship is the snap-judgment of taking offense, and is seldom a reasoned response. Censorship is too easy when there should be honest dialog. Much harder, but much better applied than censorship to keep the dialog going. Censorship shuts down dialog. Who learns from that?
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
The added detail to banning policy serves to belittle the intent to manage the site. It should be much more simple than a tiered system. It's been over-thought making me think you're trying to manage three-year olds. Not the age group I necessarily want to engage. Just my personal opinion. Let others describe their opposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Otherwise, what makes the current four-point any different than winner selection?
My final question, cited here, remains unaddressed.
If voting should have educational value to the debater, win or lose, and I believe it should, then the other three factors currently optional are too valuable to remain optional. The policy was much better before making them optional. Apparently, my opinion my be in the minority, and this site may not truly be dedicated to use by intelligent people who should never be beyond enlarging education.
Created:
Posted in:
It appears by the Voting policy that two voting systems exist: a four-point and a winner selection.
The four-point system seems flawed because three of the four voting factors [sources, legibility, and conduct] are optional, whereas argument is considered mandatory. So what makes four-point a different voting system than winner selection if 75% of the vote is optional, and yet a secondary flaw: points are still awarded even if a voter opts out of voting on the 3 optionals. And how does a mod know whether the voter intended to opt out of the optionals, or simply did not justify their vote? Yes, both debaters are given the points, so it appears to equal out, but why do they deserve any points at all if the voter opts out of voting?
Either add a column to the voting summary page for the voter to opt out of any of the three optionals, so no points are awarded, or eliminate the optional feature and mandate a justified vote on all four factors. The current system makes no sense at all.
Otherwise, what makes the current four-point any different than winner selection?
Created:
My vote on #1 was a no, and I retain that decision. I find it curious that so much verbiage is used on a subject that is, after all, a simple discipline of social control that ought to be more easily self-regulated. After all, there is already a stipulation that members be at least 13 years old. B y that age, people ought to be more inclined to be cordial to one another. The refinement of banning duration based on specific violations results in the appearance that members can be much younger than 13, when social graces have not been taught and embraced. Treat us as adults should expect to be treated, or increase the minimum age of membership, and make the conduct rules even more simple with harsher treatment of violators. Either we are adults, or we are not. Simple: bad acting is bad acting, and should not have to be coddled with brief bans to punish abusers. Make bans permanent if a member acts like a spoiled three year old.
As for #2, a community president can have a ban in the last year, but not two or more? We're supposedly talking about a position that is exemplary membership. Any ban ought to disavow a member from holding that position. Again, treat us as adults should expect to be treated. Some on this site appear to be over 30, but act like the zero is dropped. But then, I voted "no" on this one, too. I just don't see the need.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
1. No. Don't see the need to complicate the discipline process already in the CoC.
2. No. Don't see why a separate position from Chief Moderator is needed. If another mod is needed, add one, but I see the C.M. already filling the role that a president would have.
3. No, not as defined. Since the Hall of Fame is not a listed item in the Help Center that I see, maybe it just needs to be added as a description of what it is and how it works in the Policy section.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
By your numbered list:
1. Trump is no longer the president. Get over it, already. Nothis watch anymore, so just shut it.
2. Yes, 20 years of drift from the original goal to find who was responsible for 9/11. So, let's not get wrapped around the issue of why we were there in the first place because that was achieved. So, Obama team got him. So, why didn't obama get us out, which is the issue, now. Getting out, but doing so poorly, we look like fools to the rest of the world; even the third world. Biden's "get out" was a total failure. Total, because, contrary to promise, he did not get all Americans out. FAIL.
3. Back to #2. Still going to try to excuse Obama? Fail.
4. Back to #2? Again? Same question: why didn't Obama get us out, with mission accomplished, as he, himself, said. Trump never should have had to deal with this issue.
5. Trump's deal included teeth: keep the deal, or we don't leave. The Taliban failed to keep to the plan, which was, by the way, to get non-military Americans
out first, then equipment and weapons then the military. Biden scrubbed that plan for his better plan: pandemonium. Fail.
6. Biden wiped the slate? He sure did, baby with bathwater. Fail.
7. Fox News. Haven't noticed the shift in Fox News, have you, because that complaint is a broken record. Besides, I don't watch Fox. Apparently, you do.
8. Tell me what legislative purpose your alleged investigation has. No, Congress does not use that mandate anymore for its investigations. It thinks it's DOJ.
9. What's a hdea? Seems important to you, but the rest of us are moving on.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
One of the many faults in current so-called education.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So, when the Orange Guy said that American civilians should have been removed before the military left Afghanistan, and the weapons and equipment should have been removed before the military left Afghanistan, which was his plans, you laughed? Seems to most rational people that such plans had merit, but not to Biden. And you agree with Biden? I'll refer you to the sources I referenced above. Takes all kinds in politics, I guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There is true religion. There is true science. There is true philosophy.
All those disciplines have false disciplines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Sure, if not knowing who he is - or, Jill - is great, and that floats your boat, good on you. I obviously disagree, and I do have some left-wing media support.
Created:
When we can actually demonstrate value to cryptorealestate - what is that since cyberspace is already taken? - I might treat it as a penny stock. Until then, I stick with real, not cryptoproperty.
Created:
-->
@Mesmer
Absolutely right!
Generally speaking, greater income is the result of higher education, and high school, alone, just doesn't cut it, anymore. Not to mention that the true education level out of high school has declined in the U.S., somewhat coincident with the left thinking they knew more about education than the educated. At one time, one of the major results of a good education was represented by the level of American innovation compared to other countries, demonstrated by the US owning the majority of new patents on an annual basis. But, we no longer own that plurality, and haven't since two years into Obama, and it has declined since. Might have something to do with Obama saying, then, that "there comes a time when you have made enough money." Funny thing, he bought a Martha's Vineyard mansion only after leaving the Presidency, when, before his presidency, he complained that he was just an ordinary guy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Social justice, so called, has become something altogether different that it may have been understood say 100 years ago, because 200 years ago, 230 years ago, plus, to be more accurate, it was different still, as understood by Jimmy Madison and his essay/experiment in practical government. So, to which version do you adhere? The BLM version? Just since that's the latest version, and we seem to prefer, socially, to currency? I still trust my friend, Jimmy, because his version spoke to better angels in us. That justice is not nearly so demanding that it be meted out by force, and particularly because it depended on evidence, and not street justice by selfie.
Created: