Total posts: 468
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
They're aware of it, they know it's a danger people are talking about, maybe they read one article or something, but they don't truly understand the risk or what it does.
Yes, similar to how people say there are serious problems in Africa, yet are unable to emotionally connect with the gravity of the situation.
Certainly they haven't listened to Ann McKee talk about it or looked at pictures of CTE affected brains. I almost wish I hadn't, they're gruesome.
The visual has a profound impact on the human mind, perhaps to the extent of surrendering reason.
I know it's anecdotal, but I know many women who were for abortions, until they saw one performed. I know many people indifferent to transgenderism, until they saw a genital modification operation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
World history.
Are you able to give a summary of "world history?"
Created:
-->
@Buddamoose
What makes you think the realm being entered is any more reality than the one being left?
Interpretation. Believing that marriage is about "love", when it's a convoluted exchange of resources, makes a world of difference. Ramifications parallel cults.
But that is not the only necessary component. If "reality" entails an abandonment of love, for purely calculated exchanges of benefit, that doesnt sound like reality at all. That more sounds like running scared from traumatic emotional consequences if such relationships go awry.
The issue is the notion of "love": an evanescent lust coupled with nonsensical interpretations of said lust. At its core, sexual relationships are of transactional nature (most commonly: money and security exchanged for access to a vagina). This accurately explains desertion of marriages worldwide: the moment women are no longer financially/societally required/shamed to stay with men, they leave in droves. Hence, there is no "abandonment of love" because it never existed.
Feminism was as you pointed out, offering the kind of emotional security that comes with groupthink opposition to, and fear of men. "It's not my fault, its the patriarchy". That is a path that offers hollow meaning.But instead, by your judgement it seems, Women are running from the security of an eschewing of assuming responsibility for themselves, to another form of security, in avoiding vulnerability altogether
Firstly, female infantilisation is something worth running from -- I hope we can agree with that.
Secondly, I have no qualms with women forming relationships, I merely think they should be conducted in an honest capacity. Rather than feigning helplessness in order to extract resources covertly (female infantilisation), women should be honest about what they find attractive (alpha males, status, money etc.) In fact, pursuing such desires is tantamount to *more* vulnerability, given that she no longer relies on the safety of a beta cuck, but pursues the hard-to-please alpha male with an abundance of options.
Ignoring that a part of masculinity is in protection of others, yes, through aggression, but that is necessarily transposed with the capacity to be gentle with those they are protecting. This gentleness necessarily entails vulnerability, letting ones guard down.If the future standard is to be cold and calculating exchanges of resources for self-interest, then you are fmpov, merely removing much of the necessary component of vulnerability in romantic relationships. And if the end goal is meaningful(material and spiritual) co-existence, then such a course of action would necessarily preclude that.And then we will start reaping the rewards that we sow with children born of such relations, and the necessary societal failings that result thereof.
Not cold, just honest. If a woman enjoys a man's capacity to protect her, then she should pursue that. If a woman doesn't enjoy a cucked, weak beta male, then she shouldn't rope him into a marriage under the pretense she's attracted to him, only to extract his resources through misandric divorce and family court ten years later.
Vulnerability, in concordance with insane interpretations of lust (i.e. "love"), is woefully unsatisfying to both men and women, and one of the major concepts I advocating against in my thread. It is entirely possible that women can be "vulnerable" in their attraction to protection, without the fantasy of love.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
If men and women were equal, then why would it matter which you were? If they are not equal (a sane suggestion), what advantage would one have in stating his/her gender?To the owners of this forum who put that question in their profile questionnaire, yes.
I think if one ponders this question thoroughly, a seemingly innocuous request holds a plethora of underlying psychological bias, which is fascinating in an arena designed to be of the cognizant, rather than subconscious.
But I can see you want to keep that private, so I withdraw the question. No offence meant.
It's not necessarily that I want to keep it private, it's that it doesn't matter at all, and making it matter defeats the purpose of a debate site.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Does it matter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Yes, democracy fails, but it fails less than any other system.
What evidence did you use to reach this conclusion?
Created:
After lifting the humiliating shackles of Traditional Conservatism, and unhinging herself from the infuriating jealousy and irrational fear of men proffered by Feminism, she finds herself in the realm of reality.
She no longer desires enslavement to the cuckold husband, because she is responsible and capable of forging a path in her life. She doesn't see herself as a goddess, unable to pay her own bills and carve her own career. She doesn't see herself infantilised and incapable of responsible action -- far from a "do nothing bitch". She's ready to embrace attraction to the alpha male -- the one she's truly attracted to. She's ready to consider sexual relationships in the honest light of exchanging resources, rather than the nebulous and deceitful "love".
She's no longer forging a career purely to spite men. She thinks about the strengths of women, instead of destroying the strengths of man. She's not afraid of being feminine, but is ready to value masculinity. She's no longer having reckless sex to spite her absent father. She's no longer perpetually victimised by the emotional lacerations Progressive dog-whistlers inflict. She's ready to forge her destiny without seething at the shadow of men.
This is a woman in the aftermath of Traditional Conservatism and Feminism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Harikrish
For Democracy to succeed it needs an educated electorate. The people vote for issues that matter to them.
Would you mind explaining how this will fix all four of the problems mentioned in the OP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
Until you provide evidence for your assertion, this conversation continues no further.
Created:
-->
@linate
he says things that are racist, but that doesn't mean he is one.he says a mexican judge can't be neutral because he is mexican. he said obama wasn't born in the usa. the only thing basis in both cases that trump had to say anything was color of skin. it's an unjustified prejudice, even if he's not fully aware of it.what reasons do you have to think he's racist? not a racist?do you think he has no racist views?
This is further proof that the conception of "racist" is nonsensical, nebulous rhetoric.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
This is precisely what I am claiming.
As I've already stated, you need evidence for your assertion.
Note: a willingness to engage in casual sexual relations has traditionally been defined as a willingness to engage in sexual relations that do not occur within a marriage.
By your own admission, this is an archaic interpretation of sexual relationships, from eras wherein cultural norms were wildly different. Thus, your conception shouldn't be used in current day proceedings.
You have negated your own argument in solely using the term "sexual relationships". I am arguing that long-term relationships ought not to be exclusively aroused by initial sexual attraction, and that a couple should establish a friendship prior to becoming sexually involved with one another.
Lol you're obviously getting continuously friendzoned. Sex is a vital part of any intergender relationship, regardless of its length. Again, your archaic interpretation of sexual relationships doesn't resonate today.
Created:
Posted in:
Implicit in the conception of Pick Up Artistry/Pick Up Artists (PUA) is the notion that a man is in control of the male-female interaction, and that he can find true masculinity in courting women. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it could be argued that the PUA does not surpass the testosterone sapping slavery of a wage-slave cuck, in that both are subservient to gynocentrism.
You see, the notions of alpha and beta (and omega and the rest), whilst obtainable for men, are determined solely by women. Thus, whilst a PUA engages in a routine, "game"-laden ritual to court a woman, he is doing so in a way which he thinks she likes. Hence, despite PUAs claiming that they are leading women in an attractive display of masculinity, they willingly bow to the whims of the female mind.
Now, due to women being as comfortable as they've ever been (welfare, capacity to earn etc.), men providing resources isn't enough. This is where female hypergamy is sent into overdrive, and because these PUAs are desperate to enamour the female mind, male competition morphs. Instead of men competing in healthy ways which are a net benefit for society (science, academia, athleticism etc. -- things women are not particularly interested in), we're now relegated to bars and clubs, selling our souls to posturing, machismo and violence, all because that's where the women are and that's how I can validate myself as a "real man" (until, if I'm lucky, the next morning). This produces nothing of real value to society, and is deeply unfulfilling to a man (it's essentially a drug addiction).
So in PUA selling you "game" and techniques in which to conquer women, they're really selling you the chains of female nature's whims.
This is the fraud of PUA.
Created:
Posted in:
In the Western world, to state that you are pro Democracy seems redundant. It has become an accepted paragon of Western civilisation, much like free speech or equality. Despite the popular opinion, Democracy is a failed political framework. Chiefly, there are four main problems with Democracy:
1) Tragedy of the Commons -- it is unwise for the individual to spend time to researching issues, given the insignificant impact it has on election outcomes. This is especially true when other voters, be it entirely uninformed, lacking in I.Q. or ideologically brainwashed, hold precisely as much voting power as the complete opposite. Therefore, Democratic voting is contingent on individuals acting irrationally.
2) Bundled political issues -- too often is a voter faced with a choice of the lesser evil, due to political leaders (the two or three whom have a shot at winning) rarely aligning 100% with your own beliefs. For example, if you believed that animal rights was the only thing which required fixing, yet the politicians espousing your view were in favour of radical reforms, you have to choose between fixing animal rights and suffering political change you don't agree with, or vice versa. Hence, you never truly vote your preference.
3) Voting warfare -- as expressed in my thread here (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/107), politics is primarily about voting for the group (be it racial, political etc.), rather than ideas or policies. This leads to all kinds of worthless mud-slinging and emotional appeals, because the voting people are oppressed by appearances and results. Due to outright theft disgusting the human mind, people then create narratives, of which are purely designed (whether they realise it or not) to serve the interest of the group they've already chosen, under the guise of moral high ground.
4) Detritus is preserved -- for some people, the welfare benefits they receive, which are born from the hard work of capable people, are the solitary things which keep them alive. So, the person who is wholly incapable of any contribution to society (e.g. severe mental illness, 50 I.Q. etc.) will vehemently vote for ineffective, economically draining policy purely out of self-interest, whilst the people whom know this policy is dreadful won't fight it with such fervour, because they will survive regardless. This leads to an enormous bog in welfare spending, stifling an economy.
I am aware of variations on Representative Democracy, such as Direct Democracy. Whilst they may alleviate some of the problems above, they will exaggerate other problems.
Hence, Democracy fails.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Fair enough, but I'll note I had to make the clarification in response to your rather hyperbolic exaggeration of my position. I didn't anticipate that someone would interpret my statement in such a ridiculous fashion.
Hence my initial issue with a mere quote: it is horrendously vague. I'm glad I taught you something.
I'll make a note to lower my expectations of you in the future.
And of everyone else, seeing that mindbogglingly vague quotes aren't decipherable to a concrete degree, as we learned above.
Anyway, we've agreed on response to the OP -- I'm not here to engage in petty ego battles. We are done.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Imitation is the greatest flattery.An equally vacuous response.
Certainly rights are balanced and weighed and judged among competing rights and potential harms, but the genesis of all rights is a desire for them. While the demand alone isn't sufficient, it is certainly necessary. It's where all rights begin. Your question was about "rights" in general, not specific rights. The only thing all rights have in common is the desire for them.If you wish to weigh the pros and cons of giving AI specific rights, you'll have to identify which ones.
This is a far better articulation of your position, of which you should have provided from the beginning, but you're most welcome for yours truly guiding you to a better response.
Nevertheless, I agree with your stance, at least for the moment.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Cool.
What a vacuous comment.
Well, as I see it, the only basis on which rights have ever been granted is in response to mind articulating a demand for them. There is no other basis.
So a child, demanding the "right" for more icecream, should be given it, regardless of any context? Diabetes? Already consumed 28 soft serves? No one else having any yet, and this is the last serving?
Created:
-->
@drafterman
It's an accurate summation of my beliefs. I don't think we should deny rights to a mind capable of articulating a desire for them!
I'm not interested in a summation of your beliefs, and nor is any keen mind. We're interested in sustained reasoning and evidence first, and once that requirement is fulfilled, then we will concern ourselves with your summation.
Created:
-->
@drafterman
Whilst I do admire the poetic aesthetic of a concise quote, we're capable of far greater analysis and musing, especially given the sluggish nature in which this conversation takes place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Your last two comments are completely accurate.
Justice enacted by popularity and whims is no justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WarriorQueenForever
It's fascinating that someone writes an enormous, anecdotal, unreferenced paragraph, and expects people to take his/her opinion seriously.
Thank goodness these people are allowed to vote.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I accept your apology. I don't personally have anything against you, and nor do I think you're a waste of time. I know that you encountered some brutal things in your upbringing, none of which was your fault, and I admire the fact that you still have the strength to forge a path forward. I also think the people whom attempt to bully you for it (Imabench, Smithereens etc.) are weak and cowardly.
Just to be clear, I have a hair-trigger response to comments I don't find accurate. Whilst I regulate this mechanism irl (it's not prudent to fight every battle), I have no reason to restrain it online. This is one of the few places where a man can truly engage in rational discourse, without having to appeal to people's emotional heuristics constantly. It's nothing personal against you.
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
More credence to the tag of 'know-it-all'.I can tell you don't cook your own meals.
A kilo of low grade beef mince has far more fats and oils than you can metabolise in a day without building adipose tissue.
Why on Earth are you attempting to eat an entire kilogram of mince at once? Did you know that you can actually cut meat before you cook it? You later prod me by suggesting I have no conception of portion size -- highly comedic.
I get all the fat I require from vegetables and fish (which I eat a lot of for cultural reasons).
Are know-it-all-ism and brain-dead proportion sizes cultural, too?
Please excuse my cultural inexperience. I didn't realise that the mentally retarded idea of destroying the fat in meat, and then buying more food to get nearly identical fat, was cultural.
When I simmer a single meals worth I can fill half a cup with just fat. Just because it's monousaturated doesn't mean I can just drink it and call such a massive consumption "healthy."
Did you ever consider leaving the fat in the meat and not cooking as much? I suppose you must have, given your know-it-all status.
Know your portions, learn to cook.
This is a comma spliced sentence, but since you're a know-it-all, I suppose you're intentionally making grammatical mistakes.
Anyway, I don't want to interrupt the hours of cooking you have to do, given that you like to cook and partially destroy kilograms of meat at once.
Off to your cooking duties, know-it-all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't even understand this question because being badass is itself a masculine trait that I myself happen to be quite high in.I guess it's going to be a huge array depending what you define exactly as the feminine version of badass.I'd say this though: the most badass women were likely gangsters and grandmothers attached to the mafia and gangs etc. They would have run things behind the scenes and NEVER gotten famous. This is common in Asian mafia like the Yakuza of Japan and the congolmorate of South Korea, the females actively enjoy letting their male allies take the limelight (I think it even fulfils them in a feminine way).Women were built to support badasses who align with their moral compass and their personal needs and wants. Men were built to be badass and seek out support from females who will align well with them, especially emotionally and sexually (as opposed to economically or intellectually).This is like asking who were the most supportive men/males in history. We are not fundamentally built to support and the feminine men who were the best supporters likely hid away as it didn't fulfil them all that much.
Precisely.
The intentional misalignment of gender roles, of which are products of sexual dimorphism, plagues us with cerebral unreality.
Created:
-->
@Smithereens
When I cook mince with low grade beef I'll often simmer it to draw out the fat. I don't have to do this with higher grades, so if they can offer low fat meats I'd be willing to pay up to about $4-5/kg more over the normal ones I buy. It would be healthier in addition to saving me time in cooking it.
Beef fat is high in calories (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods/beef#section3), contains a large percentage of monosaturated fat (which is healthy for your heart), and reduces heart-disease risk (https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a19536669/fatty-foods-with-health-benefits/).
Given that money is of importance to you (seeing that you're mentioning it in your comment, you're 20 and still at university), why would you waste these healthy fats, and then pay more money on other things to receive the calories and heart-healthy fats?
Once again, know-it-all, you've written a profoundly stupid comment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Varrack
Right...explain to me how we carry on the species without sex? How we obtain energy throughout the day without food?
Asexual reproduction is a possibility, although I'm doubtful this could be obtained through epigenetics (given the genetic distance between our sexually dimorphic species, and asexual reproduction). Perhaps drastic change in human biology, accelerated by robotics and medical marvels, could make this a distant possibility.
Depending on your definition of food, perhaps humans could develop photosynthesis, wherein we do not require a traditional meal. Perhaps we could evolve the process and merely require sunlight as energy. Perhaps we could re-organise our bodies to produce energy without any food.
You haven't demonstrated a reason to eliminate these needs whilst keep our species alive.
They're inefficient, as opposed to not needing them. This is a profoundly basic concept -- I'm not sure you understand the ramifications of this thread. We're dealing with idealistic futuristic proposals.
No. We survive just fine with hunger -- I'm not sure why you view as so limiting that we need to eliminate it for the arbitrary goal of being "free".
You continuously misunderstand the incredibly basic concept: not needing to do something is better than having to do something.
Why don't we take it a step further and eliminate the need to have clothes on? To live under a roof? To breathe oxygen?
These are great ideas.
I'm not sure how I'm committing the is-ought fallacy
Clearly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
Are you claiming that this willingness to engage in casual sexual relations is the intention of the site's users? Or, are you claiming that this is an unintended consequence of attempting to spark long-term relationships? The latter seems an intuitive conclusion, but the former requires evidence.but the reality is that they will and do use it to engage in casual sexual relations
Flirting with people in large numbers, which is essentially what occurs on all dating sites, is in itself a form of sexual profligacy.
This is horribly ignorant of how sexual relationships are aroused. Flirting gauges receptiveness to further sexual interaction. One cannot, believe it or not, skip straight to marriage and sex, after saying hello.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Considering our evolutionary past, this cannot be the case. All sexual pleasure (or any instinctual behaviour) extends from the fact that it encouraged the passing of one's genes. If not, then it wouldn't be reinforced with instincts and/or positive affect.Sex is not something tied just to reproduction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Varrack
I challenge the premise that the above desires are limitations.. We need those desires in order to keep surviving as a species; otherwise, we would die out quickly. To "escape" those needs, we'd have to eliminate why we have them to begin with -- which would require overcoming mortality. Until we can do that, there's no way we're getting rid of those carnal desires anytime soon.
This is can is-ought fallacy. You're assuming that we need to engage in these things to survive purely because we currently do, whilst the OP talks about removing said needs in the future. Hence, your definition of "mortality" is fallaciously rigid.
Specifically addressing the idea that these desires are limitations, would we not be more free if we were able to forgo hunger, in order to survive? Regardless of whether it is a necessary limitation, it is a limitation nonetheless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
You, and the women who made the aforementioned comments, are equally as troubled as one another. Promiscuity is wrong, regardless of the age of the person or the person(s) who they decide to have sex with.
I initially gave thought to clarifying the distinction between a hookup website (Tinder) and a dating website (OkCupid), but I thought that distinction was readily apparent. Clearly, for some people, it is not. OkCupid is not a casual sex/ONS website. Taken from the website itself:
"On OkCupid, you're more than just a photo. You have stories to tell, and passions to share, and things to talk about that are more interesting than the weather. Get noticed for who you are, not what you look like. Because you deserve what dating deserves: better."
Whilst sex is an integral part of a relationship, the fact that OkCupid is looking for people to connect via who they are, shows that it is more interested in its customers forging long-term relationships.
Created:
Posted in:
In an age of feminist delusions and an omnipresent glut of 'truth', reality about sexual attractiveness has never been cloudier.
Google searches about the nebulous 'women's sexual peak' will spew 30-40 years of age, nebulous due to a seemingly underlying assumption that women are most attractive and sexually active around these ages (the latter perhaps true).
A "study" has found that women are most attractive at 30 years of age, start to show signs of ageing at 41, and stopped looking sexy by age 53. It is interesting to note that the article in which the study is presented has Anne Hathaway, relatively unattractive with short hair (but that's another topic for another time) (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9943900/Women-at-their-most-attractive-at-30-men-at-34-survey-says.html).
These claims are about to be crushed.
From a Jezebel article (of all places), data derived from the dating site OkCupid (i.e. the ages of people trying to date each other), found that women, regardless of the man's age, were most attractive between ages 20-24. Whilst men ages 20-30 were willing to give women older than 35 some play (poor souls), this tolerance disappears once a man enters his 30s. This is not some "study" wherein the metrics are vague and non-specified. This isn't some feelopinion. This is raw, empirical data (https://jezebel.com/mens-favorite-ages-are-20-21-22-and-23-a-data-dive-1731660984).
Yet despite the raw, empirical data, the comments section on the Jezebel article is rife with hysterical anger (I'll leave you to guess from which gender and what ages). Some comments that made me chuckle were:
"I know its just sociological and men are conditioned to be that way, but for fucks sake."
"This is depressing."
"Twenty something year olds I AM SO SORRY that old dudes are contacting you. Eew, you have to deal with that. I’m in my mid thirties and NO ONE is contacting me. It’s great spending Saturday nights shampooing my cat."
"Yup mid 30s as well. I find a lot of guys who want sex but zero that want anything more (that’s nothing new as I was divorced with a child by 23 and most men didn’t want to actually date me because “single moms only are looking for money and a dad for their kid”) I finally gave up with the dating sites a few years ago."
"I feel like a lot of guys like chicks in their early 20s because they’re young and stupid."
"Yeah I have a theory about guys who consistently date much younger women. First, I think they’re not very sexually confident and want someone who is inexperienced and won’t be able to judge them. Second, I think they dislike women who are intelligent and opinionated, and want someone who is young and impressionable and will be less likely to have strongly developed personalities. Finally, I think they’re immature and therefore can’t find anyone their own age willing to date them."
I cannot stick my penis in your 'opinionated' personality. I can, however, stick my penis in a tight, youthful vagina, and hence feel great pleasure. You might not personally like the reality of sexual attraction, but reality doesn't care for your cerebral nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Greyparrot
@keithprosser
Excellent post.+1
Thank you, Ethang5.
An alternative view is that race is overly-significant in American society in general and voting patterns reflect that. if one's race was not an issue in people's day-to-day life it would not affect the way they vote.
It's certainly over-significant, however one must question whether it's genetically derived, whether it's purely cultural or a mixture of both. Even with white guilt and tolerance being rammed down white people's throats, they still have bias towards their own race. Prima facie, this would suggest that, in part, there is a genetic component in racial bias.
I think traditional petty tribalism is overshadowed by the current one nation tribe movement. 1 tribe instead of thousands of tribes.
This view is debunked by the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nd24007
Perhaps, albeit I query whether they could be condemned as thoroughly as NFL -- statistics are a necessity.
Created:
Posted in:
Few greater exercises in futility can be found than political conversations. Right now, on the website you're using, a rapid accumulation of views does little in pacifying the innate political leanings of people. However, this does little in persuasion, as we'll see below.
To bolster this conception with evidence, a study of 2,355 twins found that when it came to voting Conservative (or not), 57% of the variability could be accounted for by genetics alone. UKIP, Labor and the Greens party votes were genetically accounted for by 50% (https://theconversation.com/do-our-genes-tell-us-how-to-vote-study-of-twins-says-they-might-40038).
This genetic expression in voting patterns is also expressed in analysis of Conservative Blacks. Despite being Conservative, Black people *overwhelmingly* voted for the Obama, the Black Democrat candidate (at a nigh 100% rate).
Observing other American data, we can see that *all* listed races (White, Black, Asian and Hispanic) said that race was the most important factor, in regards to a personal identifier. The kicker: this thrashed American nationality and political ideology (http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2017/11/color-trumps-ideology.html).
Not only do genetics provide innate political boundaries within people (i.e. no amount of dialogue, statistics or rhetoric will convince them otherwise), but the ones who are convinced are, the majority of the time, persuaded by an innate, racial tribalism. Hence, the Tabula Rasa conception of trying to convince people with logical arguments, is unreality.
If humanity is interested in progressing, it needs to find ways to overcome the fatalistic genetic component politics.
Created:
Cultured meat is essentially meat grown in vitro, as opposed to being collected from carcasses. Clearly, this has the advantage of avoiding the slaughtering of animals, which is arguably an ethical concern.
Until recently (2017), this version of meat has always been too expensive, being well over $300,000 just three and a half years ago (albeit, that seemed to include the cost of setting-up the lab).
However, due to developing technology, the meat was able to be produced for approximately $11.
Whilst this is still 9-10 times more expensive than slaughtered meat, this inspires an interesting question: at what price would you be willing to switch to Cultured Meat, if at all?
Created:
Posted in:
Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, informally known as American Football Disease, is a condition caused by repeated minor concussions, and results in the brain stretching and tearing. Psychologically, people suffering from this disease are 6 times more likely to commit suicide. Memory loss, early dementia and depression are all associated with the disease. Due to these psychologically problems, victims have an average life expectancy of under 60 years (far below the American male average of 76.9 -- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otN0qb8Srrw).
If NFL is thoroughly damaging to humans, and alternative sports are readily available (of which are less injurious and quasi-fatal), then why should this be preferred?
Created:
Posted in:
In the sense of transforming humans to escape their evolutionary instinctual limitations (which lead/leads to things like a violence, material greed, hunger, sexual desire, desire to dominate and desire for fame), would merely epigenetics allow humans to free themselves from these restrictions, or would perhaps an infusion robotics (likely physically altering the brain, thus not epigenetic and gravitating towards a "post human" label) be preferable, or perhaps none of this is possible?
If we were to free ourselves of such limitations, would our I.Qs increase (since they no longer have to account for non-cerebral instincts), or perhaps they would decrease (due to decreased complexity in the human psyche, therefore not requiring a brain capable of unravelling such complexity)?
Perhaps there would be striking physical differences to human's outward appearance.
Is it possible that the adolescent ideal of 'everyone just getting along' is a possibility, just one that requires, at the least, tweaking humans.
Telically, are epigenetics capable of instigating a radical transformation of the human essence?
What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm not acquainted with the situation with Hari and DDO, but I can say that this Smithereens person you're arguing with has already shown that he enables/engages in troll behaviour.
For example, I've seen Smithereens try to double down on facts. Initially, he claimed Australia was a "majority secular country". I took two minutes to check Census data, in order to prove him wrong (for the record, Australia is roughly 60% Christian). He ended up saying that I have the "maturity of a toddler", I'm an "edgy teen" and that I'm a narcissist (lol). That's one of many examples I have. (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12?page=3).
Personally, I think that extends from his know-it-all attitude, wherein if he is proven wrong, he seems compelled to create a mess. It's not surprising that, if you did encounter troll behaviour on DDO (whether from Hari or whoever), that Smithereens would be defending such behaviour, given how he conducts himself here.
Created:
-->
@Lunatic
That's an interesting question.
I think masculine men enjoy the challenge of intellectually attacking a woman's worldview, whilst women like to be challenged, too. Although, I think in terms of long-term relationships, polar opposite beliefs are going to destroy the relationship.
Not that I bother with dating anymore, but I did enjoy fiery, intellectual battles with smart women.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@vagabond
I wonder can you define what constitutes a christian?
I think it's up for debate.
From purely a personal experience basis, I've heard a lot of Christians say that mere belief in Jesus is enough to be considered a Christian, and some say that's enough to get into Heaven, too.
Expanding into armchair research, this popular article says that, "If you believe in Jesus and try to follow him, you’re a Christian" (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/revangelical/2014/09/06/what-makes-someone-a-christian.html).
This site reckons that, "A true Christian is a person who has put faith and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ, including His death on the cross as payment for sins and His resurrection on the third day" (https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-a-Christian.html).
This source says that, "the word literally means "little Christ" signifying that one is like Christ" (https://www.nuverb.com/christian.html).
Finally, this article says that, "According to the Bible, there is only one thing that makes a person a Christian, and that is faith in Jesus Christ", but then goes on to say that defining what constitutes faith is difficult (http://www.blogos.org/organicfruit/what-makes-a-christian-a-christian.php).
So, after doing some quick research and combining my personal experience, I can conclude that belief in Jesus is basically what constitutes a Christian. It's more debatable that in order to be considered a Christian, a person needs to believe in Jesus' resurrection, be like Jesus himself and follow the Bible (as to what degree seems to vary). I don't think anyone, besides know-it-all Smithereens, would suggest that being a Christian is contingent on your Church attendance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Just a heads up about know-it-all Smithereens. Please don't read his ill-informed opinion about Australia. The fact is that 60% of Australia is religious (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2024.0), and thus it's certainly not a "majority atheistic country" (verbatim his words). Now he's trying to double down on the fact he's wrong by arguing that not going to church means you're not Christian (as if he has any say in what constitutes a Christian).
Seriously, he's been wrong in nearly every post I've seen, constructing outright lies like Australia is a "majority atheistic country".
He appears to be a typical, know-it-all kid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If Oz is anything like the UK, most people are indifferent to religion - it simply doesn't play a role in their thinking or their lives.
Do you have a source for this?
Someone who believed in Jesus and angels when they were 5 year old but have spent the next 30 years of their lives thinking about football, their family, work and what is on TV (but never thinking about 'god') might well be a 'nominal Christian' and check the Christian box on the form, but they are 'functionally atheists', never going to church or really believing in eaven and hell.
This is a reasonable objection to the Australian Census data, if you had the data to show it.
Just to be clear, the problem I had with the know-it-all is that he determined (for God knows why) that Church attendance determined whether one was Christian or not (it's obvious to the dullest that he is doubling down).
In the western world, Christianity had hijacked 'niceness'. To most westerners 'being religious' means no more than 'being a nice person with good manners'. At least it was like that - the last few decades have seen the rise of hard-core religionism. It has made people think a more about whether they should tick the 'Christian' box rather tan doing it automatically as not of any significance.
Again, do you have a source to support this?
Created:
Posted in:
It will be interesting to see how Michael handles the impending drama. There are a few nefarious characters lurking, and they're probably not who you think they are...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
By technicality, I'm very wrong, most people here call themselves religious.
That's all you had to say, instead of doubling down on an embarrassing mistake (i.e. not being able to read a Census statistic lol) and then trying to derail the conversation with an irrelevant, passive-aggressive digression (obviously still reeling from the intellectual thumping I gave you there).
You are the know-it-all we roll our eyes at, Benjamin.
Shoo.
Created:
Posted in:
As men become increasingly disenfranchised with society (see MGTOW), their genuine issues are being met with little but derision by most women. Barring individuals like Cassie Jay and Girlwriteswhat, who are arguably in it for the attention/money, honest discussion about men's issues, from my experience, is met with one of four responses:
1) NAWALT (not all women are like that)
2) Be a man
3) Work hard [for women]
4) Stop whining
For example, from 2009-2014 in the UK, 97% of workplace deaths were men (http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2015/03/03/97-employees-die-work-men-2009-2014-figures/).
Where is the media hysteria about this? Where are the conversations about this? Where are the feminists campaigning for equality now? Please, find me a source where you have droves of men and women discussing this, much like they would discuss feminist issues (e.gs. rape culture, the wage gap).
What could explain this apathy?
Personally, and this is yet to be armed with statistics, I think this extends from men's place in sexual reproduction. You can birth 50 children every 9 months with 50 women and 1 man in your tribe, yet only 1 child with a tribe of 50 men and 1 woman. Unless the man brings some kind of utility to the tribe (such as physical strength, which is why woman are attracted to it), there is no reason for the tribe to keep him alive, whereas a (fertile) woman is inherently valuable. This is why these alarming statistics don't register many cares throughout the world. We're biologically programmed to care less about men than women, unless the men are useful. Women are human beings; men are human doings.
The fact that workplace death, and many other statistics (male homelessness, family court bias, inequality in teacher rape convictions, child custody disparity etc.) are largely ignored by larger media, suggests a rather uncomfortable truth: men, and their feelings, are disposable. If we are to agree that this is the case, and I think there could be debate on this claim, then we reach the conclusion that it is futile to argue MRA/MRM stances, simply because women (and society at large) don't care about men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
I live in a majority atheistic country with a secular government.
"Australia remains a religious country, with 60% of our population reporting a religious affiliation. However, the proportion of people reporting no religion, including people with secular and other spiritual beliefs, increased to 30% in 2016 – up from 22% five years ago." (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2024.0)
Unless you want to argue that Australia has, in the past 2 years, exploded with irreligiosity (which will be quite hard without Census data), then you're wrong (again).
You're quickly becoming Dart's know-it-all kid who is often wrong.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You're either trolling, too stupid to comprehend your inconsistency, or blind with emotion. There's no way you could have processed what I said, comprehended the accusation and responded within 2 minutes (as you did, seeing the timestamps).
In any case, you're no longer worth my time here.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'll make the inconsistency clearer:
A. You said that, "I am of huge opposition to the word 'should' being involved in law."
B. Then you said that, "animal rights maybe 'should' be EQUAL to humans but aren't."
C. Then you said, "[you] would go further to give them more rights than the average animal if they show potential to contribute to human society well".
D. One of the last things you said was, "their bodies are so contributive that in my eyes some disabled and/or lazy humans are ridiculous to be considered deserving of more rights than the said animal."
If you say B, in the context of A, then you've conceded that there should be no discussion on animal rights. Yet you continue to argue in C and D that we *should* change the amount of rights animals get, given how some contribute more than humans.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Great.
Now would you like to address your inconsistency suggested in that post?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
I don't have a sufficiently broad recollection of people around MLK's time whom would be suitable replacements (it's not the kind of information that's valuable).Well, what orator would you replace MLK Jr with?
Secondly, I think you underestimate his ability. Maybe not all of his speeches were original, but nonetheless MLK Jr was able to draw crowds. Preachers aren't able to to that.
1) Churches are only so big.
2) He very likely had massive backing by powerful entities.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Are you going to respond to my questions about what you say? Or are you you going to continue to spout a new assertion with every response?
Created: