Total posts: 3,192
-->
@Greyparrot
Just like Jan 6 was staged. Did you see the story about Pelosi hiring a film crew to follow her around on Jan 6? How can you believe the entire event was not scripted?
Oh, you don't have to do much to convince me. I argued as much against Double_R as it concerned the subject, and 3RU7AL even provided video of police officers letting the "insurgents" and "insurrectionists" inside.
Created:
-->
@badger
As I have already stated, we cannot be studied debunkers on every topic.
Why is that anyone else's concern but yours?
It illustrates a practicality in ad hominem.
You may find use in it in your personal life, but it does not affect the assessment and evaluation of fact.
I can count the legs on a bird myself.
Can you? Are you suggesting that facts can be determined independent of one's presumed "authority" on the subject?
Where it came to deeper facts on bird kind
First, why are you modifying facts with "deeper"? Second, it is not a question of the extent of one's knowledge, but how one determines fact. Just like one's "authority" in ornithology bears no influence on your ability to count the legs on a Sparrow, one's "authority" does not affect the assessment and evaluation of fact.
Isn't.
Yes, it is. Your contention has nothing to do with logic; just personal preference.
Again, it illustrates the danger in this so-called fallacy. Throw out authority in favour of studied idiocy.
Non-sequitur.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
There are still some of y'all unvaxxed? C'mon, it is just a needle. If you are afraid, just go to a therapist!
It's been nearly three years, and a series of variants, and we still haven't succumbed. It's almost as if the human immune system is naturally resilient on its own, and following decent hygienic practices can stave off most infections. But I suppose this all is just a tall-tale from a trypanophobe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
I still think that a belief that doesn't inform your actions is essentially useless. There isn't a specific thing I think solipsists should believe based on solipsism, but if there is literally no change, then it isn't a true belief.
How should solipsists behave in contrast to those whom you've judged to believe "reality is actually real"? How would one recognize one's subscription to solipsism in one's actions?
Created:
-->
@badger
Which is perfectly legitimate. Only a crazy doesn't realise that.We can't be studied debunkers on every topic. If you've got a history, you've got to work harder for your "facts".
I believe you two would be referred to as "suckers" in the business.
The credibility/integrity of a source may dictate whom you personally trust, but in no way does it affect the
assessment and evaluation of fact. The only exception of which I can
think is if the source is speaking directly to the content of his/her
mind.
First off, I made no appeals to authority.
No, but you are defending it.
I applied a "boy who cried wolf" kinda moral.
Which is a nice folkway about not lying. Doesn't help your case, though.
Lunatics can be dismissed out of hand on the basis of their being lunatics.
If
a lunatic tells you that Sparrows are bipedal, and an ornithologist
states that they're not, do you believe an ornithologist just because
he/she is an ornithologist?
Even so, appeal to authority is not a real fallacy.
Yes, it is.
That quote is about anyone who thinks appeal to authority is an actual fallacy.
Citing anecdotal quotes will not help your case.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @oromagionce again, attacking the source without disputing the facts
--> @badgeralways attack the speaker and never the content
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
at war with a cabal of Satan-worshipping elites who run a child sex ring and control the world.
But the global elite ARE a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who have infiltrated virtually every aspect of modern society. Though I do not believe that Trump is "at war" with them. He's part of the dialectic. Every story needs a villain. As for Pelosi and her husband, I suspect they are most likely assets, and I'd bet this event was staged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Is that why you lost 3 of your 3 debates? Your logic was lower than a zombie or totally absent like it is here.
You didn't read through those three debates, did you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Are there unicorns in your "perspective"?
Yes.
How does your belief in solipsism affect your everyday life? I genuinely am curious.
If your belief in solipsism actually does change how you behave, then it isn't useless, but every person I've met in real life that claims to believe in it (admittedly only 3) behaves exactly the same as I would expect of someone who thinks reality is real.
I'm going to address these two simultaneously since your premise operates on the misconception that solipsists don't believe "reality is real." Solipsists believe "reality is real"; solipsists just believe that reality stems from the mind and is controlled for with a logical necessity--i.e. as you mentioned, "cogito ergo sum" a.k.a. "Je pense, donc je suis," a.k.a. "I think, therefore I am." If what you consider physical or "real"--even your brain--can be characterized as noumena, then I repeat my question:
Can you control for the experience you have of your own brain, and the universe in which it functions, absent of your imagination?
What part of your experience, material or immaterial, can be controlled for independent of your mind?
To answer your question directly, my experience hasn't changed at all in the advent of my subscription to epistemological solipsism. Philosophy offers perspective; it's not a Stargate... or is it?
They are polite to strangers, care about politics, climate change, all stuff that under solipsism does actually exist.
Your understanding of solipsism is that it espouses impropriety, apolitical sentiments, and apathy toward climate change? How did you form such an impression?
As far as I can tell, it's like saying "blergle is true." They have a belief in there head labeled that, but it doesn't lead to anything.
Where would you have it lead?
It doesn't inform other beliefs and isn't informed by any.
Not even Platonic/Subjective idealism?
It might as well not exist
But it does.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Well proof is half of the battle. Good sources are always better than shitty ones.This is why primary sources are always the best. You can't just write off a primary source.
I wouldn't go that far. I'll illustrate:
"Needs" a source, excluding that both parties are privy to the same information:
The unemployment rate according to government metrics has hovered above 3% for the last 20 years.
"Doesn't need" a source:
The minimum wage creates unemployment.
There are certain subjects argued where understanding the subject is contingent on grasping the rationales, and applied logic, and others where information is submitted to create symmetry between both parties in discourse. When someone for example states, "provide me a source that the minimum-wage creates unemployment" this indicates to me, at least, that the person is seeking to engage appeals to authority--e.g. like asking for a source for "F = Gm1m2/r2." It's tantamount to, "let me see someone else explain it." Don't get me wrong, sometimes that can be helpful as not everyone is good at providing explanations. But in my experience, it's just routine to those who overestimate "sources."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Solipsism is almost always a hypocritical belief. Under solipsism, people say something along the lines of, "only my mind exists, everything I think I know is false/unknowable." But then they go on living their life essentially the same. They use clocks to make appointments on time. They look both ways when crossing the street. They tie their shoes when they see that it is untied.
I'm not understanding how this is hypocritical?
Rest assured, if I thought the entire universe was inside my own imagination, I would devote my efforts to making some major renovations (hallucinate a better "reality").
One can already do this. It's called, "perspective."
I say almost always hypocritical because I'm sure some people have taken the belief seriously in their personal lives, but they aren't the ones arguing it online.
Hello, I'm Athias. Nice to meet you.
If one's belief in solipsism doesn't affect what they anticipate observing, then all they have is a belief in their head that says "solipsism is real", completely disconnected from their other beliefs. These "floating beliefs" are completely useless.
Useless in what context?
For me, solipsism can't be disproven; assuming it is true, then all of my scientific knowledge of how the universe behaves is in my imagination, and may not tie to how the universe that my brain actually exists in functions.
Can you control for the experience you have of your own brain, and the universe in which it functions, absent of your imagination?
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Well I mean people in real life do that too, so wouldn't it be helpful being on here to see it in real life and combat it?
It's been my experience that many debaters do not read their own sources, let alone understand them. And one's more than capable of verifying sources in person. For example, I was once debating my cousin a few years ago over the matter of police shootings and the disparity among so-called races. He was under the impression that so-called "black" people would overwhelmingly fall victim to police shootings. I provided him a "source" which contradicted this impression. I expressed little resistance in providing him this source because I know my cousin--I know he'll read it in its entirety rather than just glimpse through it. Whether it's online or in person, eager debaters are eager debaters.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Have you all found that debating on this site has helped you all become better debaters outside of the website?Are you able to demolish all your friends in debates and stuff? Do they all assent to your superior skillz?Or has this website not really transferred over into the real world?
Hard to imagine, but I'm actually better in person than I am online. I've been debating since I was a small child, and if you knew my family, you'd understand the reason. My family, friends, and I have virtually debated everything of which we can think, and yes that would include some of my more controversial views like anarchism, Project MK Ultra, age of consent, Luciferianism, etc. Don't get me wrong, I respect the integrity this site intends to instill with its format, but there are members who neglect that the format is in no way a replacement for one capacity to reason. I cannot describe the extent of my vexation when I see arguments with high prospects reduce to "source battles." I'm not suggesting one should just accept one's talking out of one's ass, for lack of a better term, but sources should amplify an argument, not replace it. I like debating in person because there's no "talk to the source." It's my capacity to reason and apply logic vs yours.
If I can be a bit braggadocious, I'm like Samuel L. Jackson in that '94 film, "Fresh." Think of any debater--and I do mean any debater--they may be more accomplished, and more renown, but "put the clock on them; put the show on speed, and I'll chew their ass up."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Does the leaderboard MEAN anything?Not really. All it means, at least it seems, is how willing or ambitious one is to gain points and to achieve that by any means.
We have enough people grinding wins enough so that it is needed in order to gain a considerable position on the board but also enough people NOT grinding wins despite also being good(such as 3ru7al, whiteflame, Bones) so that we don't just look at the leaderboard.
Exactly. Well stated. I'm not surprised many members look to the leaderboards to determine who the "best" debaters are, but by my estimation--and this is my opinion--there are just three in the top 10 who are adept at constructing coherent arguments (e.g. oromagi's being at the top isn't just for show given that he's really good.) I've come across members who neglect the other sections besides "Debates" and are oblivious to the adept debaters in the forums like 3RU7AL, Greyparrot, Danielle, etc. who may avoid the regimental style of the Debates section, as it concerns discourse, merely out of preference.
In fact, we probably arrived at a point where we can conclude that the top debaters noobsnipes for sure. Top 10, maybe nah; top 3, I think the answer is affirmative.
I agree.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
@Shila
Your image looks feminine
Which image is that? The obviously male character which serves as my avatar, the origin for which I've explained before?
and you come off as remind.
Don't know what this means.
If you cannot handle strong criticism of your piss poor positions, you should consider excusing yourself from any debate/discussion then.
I have no qualms handling criticism of my "piss-poor" positions. However, what I will not tolerate is a lack of decorum and respect. The irony of this statement is that I did in fact excuse myself in the advent of regressive back-and-forth, for which you'd subsequently call me "an intellectual coward."
I’m insulting the lack of intelligence and ignorance (stupidity) of the positions argued, not him “personally”
Define "idiot," "coward," and "ignoramus," because I believe you do not know what they mean.
seeing as I don’t know him “personally”
Which is the reason you can only "try" to insult me, not actually insult me.
Anyway, as I've stated, I have no intention of resuming my engagement in discussing this subject with you. So, carry on mouthing-off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You were corrected by Shila that zedvictor4 already said. “Slavery might or not be better for the slave.”But you did not read his post correctly and asked him, “So when you state, "better," "better" for whom?”Already stated in zedvictor4’s post. Slavery might or not be better for the slave
Okay, Shila.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Why are you trying to define TWS1405’s behaviour instead of simply asking him to stop insulting Athias?
Correction: he's trying to insult me, under the pretext of his impressions of sound, logical discourse. I've already stated my intention to no longer engage him in any discussion on the subject, so it matters not how much he mouths-off.
Most of your posts end up in circular reasoning around a play with words that you have very little comprehension of.
There's nothing "circular" about 3RU7AL's reasoning as it concerns calling TWS out on his ad hominem arguments. It's rather simple:
CRITIQUE = RESPECT
NAME-CALLING = NO RESPECT/DISRESPECT.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
CRITIQUE = RESPECTname-calling is not a critique
it's just strange to find so many "debaters" who try to defend their own ad hominem attacks
personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argumentyou're missing that last part
your "scathing-critique" in [POST#35]contains a few naked declarative statementsand personal opinionssprinkled with uncreative insultsnone of which add up to a "sound-argument
Your continued denialism and inability to admit you’re wrong = intellectual cowardice.
if you honestly believe your opinions are "objective"i do so wish you the best of luck
Well stated, and thank you.
Created:
When did Athias become a "she"?
Created:
-->
@Vader
My intention for my vote with Airmax was not to relive the days of DDO,
I don't deny that you guys had other motivations, but let's not disguise the fact that many of the reasons cited in his favor was because of how he "was"--and I place particular emphasis on that term--on DDO, and not how he "is" on DART. Perhaps, "reliving the good ol' days" may come off as insulting, but I don't intend it as such. I've already stated that I understand wanting to bring him into the fold, but charging him with the task of increasing this site's popularity when he has expressed little interest in this site already (I'm aware he rejected the moderator position on this site) was biting off more than one can chew. Could it have been predicted that he would go AWOL? Well, we're not psychics, but some of us were calling it from the very beginning given the suspect entry. He expressed no prior interest in DART before, and a few weeks before being inducted, was to convince everyone that he would stay around? I suppose there's no use in crying over spilled milk, or resorting to "I told you so," since it's pretty clear electing him president was a mistake in hindsight. And I sympathize with those of you who voted for him and were let down by his dereliction. Because those of you who regularly frequent this site, I don't question your intentions in wanting what's best for DART.
Have you considered my proposition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You mean Athias’s post was addressed and corrected by Shila.
You didn't correct anything. You merely pointed out the discreet options in zedvictor's use in "or." I focused on one of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Slavery might or not be better for the slave.
If a slave wants to be a slave, then a slave is not a slave because the capacity to which one is a slave is dictated by a slave, which contradicts the concept of being a slave. So when you state, "better," "better" for whom?
That would depend upon the slave owner.
Benevolent slave owners would make for a better slavery?
Do you think that today, slavery is better for the young girl who is forced into prostitution by Eastern European thugs.
Wouldn't that still make her a slave?
Not all slaves were black.
Yes. And not all slave owners were so-called, "White."
And not all slaves were/are put to work on sunny sugar plantations by jolly slave owners.
Some are forced into prostitution by Eastern European thugs.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I will take that as your concession that you know you are wrong and have resigned from the debate/discussion.
I didn't bother reading the rest of your argument. But trust that this is no concession. There's a difference between not wanting to indulge a regressive back and forth, and conceding an argument. If you cannot maintain a respectful decorum when addressing my responses, then I exercise my prerogative to disengage any discussion with you. Have a nice day, sir.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I was somewhat more disillusioned with some of the reasons for the votes cast by some of the members and moderators. Member(s)/Moderators were citing Airmax's moderator experience for a role that did not include a moderator's capacity. I can understand wanting to bring Airmax into the fold in a reduced capacity, but for one who has expressed little interest in this site--DART that is--his late bid, at least in my opinion, was nothing short of a nepotistic attempt to shoehorn him in. There are many reasons to which one can allude for DDO's past popularity: (1) fewer online debate platforms, (2) higher attention spans, (3) a younger membership who had little to no work and/or family obligations, (4) members having little to no prior experience with other members before joining the site, so forth and so on. I honestly think it's a fool's errand to try and recreate DDO (though I understand the irony in that DART is essentially a recreation of DDO.) Perhaps the focus of the site's brass should be placed more on member satisfaction and not alienating members on abstract interpretations of the rules. As opposed to seeking out an old friend and stating, "make our community popular, again," the site can focus on expanding the scope of options members here can control how they interact with others. I think there is no one more fit to advise the moderators on these aforementioned prospects than 3RU7AL.
Created:
-->
@Avery
Ha!You're just shocked I was able to determine your political ideology so quickly!Consider me flattered <3
Not really. While I don't advertise my political ideology, I don't hide it either. There's nothing in my initial post that screams anarchy, so I suspect the only way you could've deduced it is if your familiarity with my political ideology predates the registration of this "Avery" account. You've already tipped your hand, and it's up to you whether you continue to indulge this pretext and attempt to gaslight others into believing this ruse.
This thread isn't about the validity of Anarchy (I'm aware that I brought it up first, too)
You're only making my point. You brought it up. I didn't.
The more prudent approach is to yield to police officers and let them do their jobs. You can always sue after-the-fact.
Yeah, that's prudent. Let police officers accost you and supplicate the State after the fact for money they steal from you.
Besides, police officers are in the right the vast majority of the time.
How do you figure?
Wow.Well, at least you're honest.
Yes, I am--or at least, I endeavor to be. I don't create alternate accounts and submit my statements under the veneer of someone different.
I'm surprised you're still alive with that attitude.
...because?
Sounds like original sin...
Does it?
UNDERSTOOD.
Alright, corporal.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I’m going to sleep right now, got past a few lines of your reply and all I can say at this point is…You are an IDIOT!!!
Wow, a demonstrably capricious, I guess we can use the word, "debater" resorts to ad hominem statements to convey discontent with an opponent's contention. What a concept...
I’ll shred your ignorant retort in the morning over coffee.
Perhaps you should ease up on the caffeine. And attempt to "shred" as much as you intend, you'll receive no response from me. Have a nice day, sir.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Non Sequitur
Define non sequitur. Because, I believe you don't know what it means.
This thread is about criminals on the street and how cops are treated by not only them, but the general public as well. It has NOTHING to do with politics and who is or is not running the so-called "government."
This thread may be about what you described, BUT THE POINT I ADDRESSED is about the latitude afforded to criminals in a "stateless society."
Both she and the officer lived in the same apartment complex. They were in the parking lot. It was NOT "her own property."
I stand corrected.
Knowing she lived in the same building, the officer attempted to serve said warrant. During which Turner became hostile, belligerent, combative and resisted lawful arrest.
Which was instigated when the officer attempted to "lawfully" arrest her.
she has no right to act in such a manner, especially towards a peace officer.
Except in defense of her own person when a "peace" officer is attempting to detain her.
She was the threat, not the officer.
Unless the terms in which she was renting her apartment were nullified, and the landlord wanted to evict her, the officer was still the threat.
You clearly know nothing about the law, constitutional law, and the laws governing the authority law enforcement officers possess when enforcing said laws.
There's a difference between knowing about the law, and arguing in defense of them. I AM NOT arguing in defense of them.
A lawful arrest is NOT "a violation of one's person and sovereignty."
Yes it is.
Period. Fact. Period. So, NO!
Ordnung Mein Fuhrer!
No one has the right or prerogative "to seek the end of all acts of aggression" in such a case as this.
Because?
God! You sound like one of those nut job sovereign citizen clowns.
"Sounds like" is not an argument.
Another non-sequitur.
Define non sequitur. Because I don't believe you know what it means.
Everyone knows that 99.90% of the time anyone with a badge IS a law enforcement officer. Imposters are far, few and between.
So you don't ask police officers for their badge numbers and confirm that they are who they say they are?
FFS! Another non-sequitur.
Define non sequitur. Because I don't believe you know what it means.
She is asking about existing as a human being, being physically present.
I suppose your guess is as good as mine was.
Police officers may be employees of the state, but they are not "enforcers" (i.e., mercenaries) of the state.
Non sequitur. No one said anything about "mercenaries." Do you see how the term non sequitur is properly used?
They are CIVIL SERVANTS!!
They most certainly are not. They are obligated and loyal to the State.
Big eff'ing difference!
No need to euphemize.
And there are millions upon millions of victims of crime, especially violent crime, that would wholeheartedly disagree with your last, albeit asinine, assessment.
I neither entertain nor indulge ad populum arguments.
Created:
-->
@Avery
If you maneuver your eyes to the left-hand side of your screen (don't go too far), there are picture boxes and a word above. That word above is my name.
That's obviously not the point. The fact that you would glean "anarchist dreams" from my statement alone, especially considering that "Avery" and I have never had discourse up until this point and that your profile suggests you've been here a bit more than a month--not to mention your familiarity with DDO--leads me to suspect that you are aware of my politics--politics which I do not advertise on my profile. In essence, I'm accusing "Avery" of being an alt. account. So, who are you?
You might like living in a stateless society.
I most certainly would.
Criminals get to do whatever they want!
I'd rather have criminals "run free" than run government.
Thank you.
It's almost like anarchy always falls into some organized state...
The threats of aggression from neighboring governments--particularly Western governments--had nothing to do with that, right?
It's not. Despots and tyrants don't countenance criticism.
Despotism and Tyranny typically characterize governments and their leaders, not anarchy.
You would change your tune or it would be your swan song.
Swan song it is.
Oh you're right.When people are on edge, that gives them the right to grab people's weapons.My bad.
When being threatened on their own property, they most certainly have the prerogative to effectively end said threat.
I'm curious: do you think it would be okay to assault or even kill a police officer for attempting to arrest you?
The attempt to arrest or detain is a violation of one's person and sovereignty. So yes, one has the prerogative to seek the end of all acts of aggression to which one is subject.
What about asking for I.D?
You don't ask police officers for their badge numbers and confirm that they are who they say they are?
What about existing?
Police officers are enforcers for the State. The State is an institution defined by its capacity to coerce. So yes, their existing constitutes a threat.
Where do you draw the line?
STATE = IMMORALITY.
Created:
-->
@Avery
If you don't like the concept of police, go live in CHAZ or Somalia. Go do that and experience how wonderful your anarchist dreams are.
First, who are you? Because it's protocol that I share my "anarchist dreams" with those who've been here at least two months. Second, where I live does not at all qualify any objection I sustain against an organization of aggressors. Third, what the hell is CHAZ? Fourth, Somalia has a federal government.
It's super easy to mouth-off about police whilst behind a computer screen in the comfort of a lawful society.
I would also presume that it's super easy to mouth-off about the police whilst not being behind a computer screen in the alleged discomfort of an unlawful society. What is your point? Presuming that I would change my tune living under different circumstances displays that you have absolutely no idea what serves as the basis of my contention.
In what circumstance would it be okay to touch an officer's weapon?
Under what circumstances does one not expect the other party to be on edge when flaunting their weapon in a dispute?
Who instigated this violent interaction?
The officer.
Why are we pretending to ignore that what this woman did was illegal, dangerous and threatened the life of the officer?
Why are we pretending that every officer is not an extension of state aggression, and the ends that they seek in any dispute is compliance and submission, not resolution?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I was not chasing any DDO nostalgia. I joined DDO during its death throes.
I wasn't talking about just you. There were several number of members here who expressed favor for airmax solely based on what he had done on DDO--not to mention his relationship with the moderators. None however at the time could speak to what he had done here because he had barely participated on this site since his joining.
Had no clue who that guy was
Does that not speak to the integrity of your vote?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
Neither is "worse"; they're both terrible.
Created:
When one party has an unencumbered privilege to exercise the use of deadly force using their discretion alone on someone else's property, then their actions will receive my condemnation. She probably shouldn't have reached for his weapon, but police officers are sanctioned aggressors who flaunt their capacity to kill; hence, their not concealing their weapons knowing they can and often instigate escalation in particular circumstances.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I refuse to allow Airmax to be ousted.I voted for him knowing this was the likely outcome.
Then you have done the office a disservice.
He, by all objective measures,
There are no objective measures.
was the best libertarian leader in history. Look at his laissez-faire treatment of every issue he has and has not encountered! Pure genius on his part
He may have been all those things on DDO, but here on DEBATEART, he has done nothing. Perhaps the office would have been better served if those who voted for him weren't attempting to recapture some DDO nostalgia, and instead focused on making THIS SITE the best version of itself.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Correct me if I'm wrong but a simple majority is enough to overturn the President's vetoes anyways, right?So if this is the case, then isn't the position of President kind of overrated? He oversees duties, but ultimately the moderators have the final say in what goes on, not the President. What is stopping a coup of Moderators against the President's wishes? And what is the process for moderator removal if they are being a bad actor?I am not trying to plot the removal of any moderators whatsoever. I am just asking after reading the President's duties in relation to moderator ones.For instance, the moderation section states:"Mods have complete discretion in the enforcement and interpretation of the site rules, with all exceptions stated in these terms. Mod decisions are final and not subject to appeal."What if a situation arose where a mod was acting rogue? Or what if the chief mod goes rogue? What happens then?
Both 3RU7AL and I brought this up to SupaDudz during last year's campaign. The president's job is essentially an advisory role, which has no authority or leverage to dictate moderator actions. I still don't understand the reason to this day there are still those who are overestimating the function of this office.
Created:
I still believe "she's" Harikrish or a chatbot programmed by Harikrish. Go to the religion forum to see my reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
It means you don’t know Asian children.
I will neither confirm nor deny this. But what relevance does it have as it concerns the subject of this thread?
Soon as you advised him, he got banned.
Unless I advised him on his posts on the subject of pedophilia, then I don't see how I'm even remotely responsible for his getting banned. I don't know much on the circumstances that lead to his ban, so I won't state much on it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The mixed race people and non-black non-white people would matter actually.
I'm not suggesting that they don't matter in a sociopolitical or philosophical sense, only that as far as the comparison is concerned, you can compare so-called "blacks" to anyone or everyone else. That is, in a "five to one" comparison, so-called "mixed-race," "non-black, non-white," and so-called "white" people can comprise the "one" in that comparison, when grouped together. Now if you want to expand the scope of the comparison, then the ratio can adjust as the comparison does.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
There are three issues here:
- The word 'over'with the 45k
The number was 45,222 in 2020 (correct me if I'm wrong.) I would presume she would have gotten this number from a google search.
The word 'more' likely being probably erroneous as Shila probably meant 'as' likely.
That doesn't matter much. I presumed Shila was making a mention of trends ceteris paribus.
That ethnic and racial mixes and identities other than caucasian and african or Caribbean blacks exist.
This wouldn't matter much either, given that all other so-called ethnicities, racial mixes, and identites, can all be grouped together in the comparison. They can all represent the "one" in a "five to one" comparison.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Er...4 × 9 000 = 36 0001 × 9 000 = 9 00036k + 9k = 45k
Rationalmadman, when Shila states that so-called "blacks" are "five times more likely," you have to ask, "five times more likely compared to what?" Now if we assume that Shila was using so-called "whites" as a reference in this comparison, which is a fair assumption, given that she mentioned and related the total amount of so-called "white" related deaths as a result of a gun-related incident with her erroneous computation, then it necessarily suggests that if we were to maintain that so-called blacks are "five times more likely" to die as a result of a gun-related incident, that for every ONE so-called white person who dies, FIVE so-called blacks would likely die, too.
Your suggestion RationalMadman suggests that so-called blacks are "FOUR TIMES" more likely to die, NOT FIVE. Read Shila's statement again: she said, "Blacks are five times more likely to be killed by guns" NOT "The total number of gun related deaths represents five times the number of so-called white people who die as a result of a gun-related incident."
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
4*9k = 36k45k-36k= 9kHis mathematics is correct except you are correct that other racial pedigrees and mixes exist, meaning he has overlooked something.To make clear what he did:45 000 ÷ 5 = 9 000this established the amount that would be multiplied by 4 for the black deaths if only pure whites and pure blacks exist.5 ÷(4 + (4 ÷ 4)) = 11 × 9 000 = 9 000The error made was statistically assuming he was dealing with a population that consisted either of whites or blacks, exclusively.He also ignored the 'over' but that helps him out, not hurts him, given the other error.
No.
Shila stated so-called "blacks" are five times more likely to die by gun-related incidents. This suggests a 5:1 ratio. Assuming of course that death by gun-related incidents can be distinguished solely among so-called "blacks" and so-called "whites,"--that is, for every so-called "white" person who dies as a result of gun-related incidents, five so-called "black" people join. (It can't be zero, because every number times zero is zero.) We must also take into consideration that numbers in a ratio are contained. So let's use Shila's erroneous number, 9,000 to illustrate this point. If there were 9,000 so-called "white" people who die as a result of a gun-related incident, and we maintain that so-called "black" people are five times more likely to die as a result of a gun-related incident, then that would suggest that the deaths of so-called "blacks" would amount to 45,000 (i.e. 5 x 9,000.) Assuming again, that only so-called "blacks" and "whites" die in this sample as a result of gun-related incidents, that would suggest a total amount of 54,000 people dying as a result of a gun-related incident, which as you can tell is inconsistent with the total, Shila herself, cited.
Another way this can be expressed RationalMadMan is with this simple algebraic equation: 5x + 1x = TGRD (TGRD = total gun related deaths.)Where 5x represents the total number of so-called "black" deaths as a result of a gun-related incident and 1x represents the total number of so-called "white" deaths as a result of a gun-related incident. Now let's input our numbers once again:
1x = 9,000.
Therefore x = 9,000.
Enter x-value into equation:
5 (9,000) + 1 (9,000) = TGRD
TGRD = 54,000
INCORRECT.
But WE KNOW the total gun related deaths, so let's use our equation again:
5x + 1x = 45,000
6x = 45,000
x = 7,500.
Even though it's redundant, let's input the x-value again:
5 (7,500) + 1 (7,500) = 45,000
37,500 + 7,500 = 45,000
45,000 = 45,000
CORRECT.
Now, let's make sure that 37,500 is FIVE TIMES the amount of 7,500, which we know when added together sums up to 45,000:
7,500 (Multiplier) = 37,500
Multiplier = 37,500/7,500
Multiplier = 5.
CORRECT.
Rationalmadman, I'm actually quite good at math. When I told Shila her math was incorrect, I already performed the arithmetic--not that it was particularly difficult. The problem with your rationalization Rationalmadman is that your operations are more consistent with one who would state, "four times more likely," not five. I hope my explanation clears things up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You don’t seem to know Asian children.
What does that matter?
We get that from your advice to Best.Korea.
You mean your erroneous inference?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Not sure why you are defending spanking. At the same time respecting assertiveness in the same person.
I'm not defending spanking; not even a little bit. Did you read my statements at all?
Created:
-->
@Shila
There are over 45,000 gun related deaths in America 2020 data. Blacks are 5 times more likely to be killed by guns. That still leaves 9000 white deaths by guns.
Your math is incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Cartoons are for children. Are you children?
Everyone is someone's child. And while anime are cartoons, like any work of fiction, they spark the imagination; they spark interest; they spark emotional entry. Your rationale is flawed. If one were to watch a political show, which is for the most part "fiction," how would that speak to one's age, or as you implied, "maturity," as opposed to watching "Black Lagoon," for those of you who know is an anime with themes which I'm fairly confident most parents would not want their children watching?
If you don't like anime/cartoons, then you don't like them. But don't fool yourself into thinking that it's because you're more "mature" than those who do. Your statement in and of itself is a testament to that.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Why not let 3RU7AL serve in the interim since he was runner-up, provided that it does not affect his chances to run for the 2023 Election?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
There was me thinking that you were a 92years of age Polynesian academic,
I'm not a 92 year-old academic. I've actually wagered a personal intifada with modern academia.
and here you are hanging out with Kanye and the boys.
Yeezy and I don't run with the same circles. Do you have any thoughts on the videos I submitted, or statements I've made in this thread?
Created:
-->
@coal
I am embarrassed for you.
So? Relevance? Why do believe it necessary to state to me how you feel, rather than address the contention I provided?
I am disinclined to talk in circles.
Suit yourself. Have a nice day, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Is this the same Athias?
One and only.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I mean. Svali was also saying this stuff back in the 00s. Few believed her then.
Few are believed, now.
Created:
-->
@coal
You laid your cards on the table, in your reply. I wasn't even talking about you in my post above.
That's the beauty of an open forum: anyone can respond to anyone for any reason. You don't have to be "talking about me" in order for me to respond to you. I submitted a response to your statement because I reject the position you took.
But you acted as if I was.
No, I didn't. I used my own experience as an anecdotal counterargument to your anecdotal argument about the experience you allege your Korean friends have had.
The beginning and end of what you wrote reduces to "Nuh-uh!"
I argued more than just a contradiction to your argument. Read it, again.
Yet, having offered no more than that, you responded as if you had affirmatively disproven what I wrote.
It is not my obligation to disprove your statement. If you're going to attempt to convince anyone that your conclusions should be accepted, then it's your obligation to substantiate your arguments in accordance to agreed upon metrics. You made several nonsensical claims which included, but aren't limited to:
- KNOWING THE INTENTIONS OF BEST KOREA'S PARENTS
- KNOWING BEST KOREA'S AGE AND THE QUALIFICATION YOU ALLEGE IT BEARS ON HIS STATEMENTS
- ALLEGING THAT GETTING SPANKED RESULTS IN BECOMING A DOCTOR, ENGINEER, OR ACCOUNTANT.
I don't have to disprove this. You have to prove/demonstrate/establish/substantiate your claims as the claimant.
Therefore, I have nothing to say in response.
You have nothing to say in response because you've yet to exhibit a capacity to address the substance of a statement, instead resorting to arguing ad hominem.
The tone and tenor of your response
Given that the letters on your screen produce no sound, I'm going to dismiss this as nonsense.
reflected a tendency to interpret neutral situations as threatening, minor disagreements as overwhelming and an overall tendency towards anxiety, irritability, lack of emotional stability, self consciousness, introversion, stress (particularly from the inability to contend objectively with disagreement), projection (particularly from your response above, wherein, for example, you referenced "disagreeing with [my] unsubstantiated arguments").
More dime-store pseudo-psychoanalytic gibberish.
What I am doing does not even approximate psychoanalysis.
Oh, you don't have to attempt to convince me.
I am not a psychoanalyst
You've made that much clear.
This is just basic observation and inference drawn from it.
Claims of "observation" that concern things beyond your epistemological limit result in logically incoherent inferences.
Created: