Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
we seem to have identified an ontological disagreementyou seem to believe that all mammals are somehow innately and fundamentally categorized as "male" and "female" and anything that either can't or won't reproduce is a malfunction of either "male" or "female" and some medical examination should presumably be made to figure out which is which (for what purpose is a complete mystery)on the other hand,
Not at all. Given that we don't categorize all mammals into "men" and "women," the distinction I outlined is strictly for adult human males and adult human females.
i believe what someone looks like naked and or their preferred reproductive function (if any) is absolutely none of my business and if someone wants to be called "a man" then that's what i'll call them and if someone wants to be called "a woman" then that's what i'll call them AND if someone wants to be called anything else, they're going to have to let me know.
I can respect that. But that does not mean that the standard on which the descriptions "man" and "woman"are based is necessarily subject to individuation. Of course, standards don't have to matter in individual interactions. And I would agree that what one looks like naked or how they express themselves sexually is a private matter. And I would likely indulge anyone who prefers to be referred to in a particular manner, despite my not feeling obligated.
each person gets to choose their pronouns as an extension of their name
I wouldn't necessarily put it that way. I would state that each person who participates in an interaction or relationship with someone else can dictate the terms in which they are willing to continue said interaction or relationship. So for example, if I were to state: "from now on, I wish to be referred to as 'she' rather than a 'he,'" that is my prerogative, just as it would be your prerogative to state: "Screw you, I refuse to acknowledge you as a 'she.'" Of course, we'd subsequently decide whether we'd continue or discontinue our interaction or relationship if pronouns are a deal-breaker.
telling someone they are choosing the "wrong" pronoun is like telling someone they're pronouncing their own name incorrectly and you somehow know better.
I disagree. We'd first have to determine "wrong" by which metric. If one maintains the description of men and women I outlined earlier, then telling someone they've chosen the "wrong" pronoun if the pronoun is inconsistent with the description they've maintained isn't necessarily a show of "one knows better," (or maybe it is?,) given that subjective and objective pronouns like, "he, she, him, her" refer to one's sex. Though perhaps, it would be nuanced to replace "wrong" with "inconsistent." But as I said earlier, individual interactions and relationships don't have to accept or acknowledge accepted standards or norms. Is it "wrong" morally/personally? Not in the very least.
anyway, i'm not offended by someone who wants to be "a man" or someone who wants to be "a woman" or anything else, (i'm certainly not going to check for myself) and contrary to what the internet wants you to think, they don't usually call the cops if you somehow guess "incorrectly"
Such a thing would be impractical to police.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
iff they were "normal"
Yes.
ok, so, there are no "beautiful and unique snowflakes" ?
There are. The distinction I outlined earlier is meant neither to bolster nor condemn an individual's quality or value. My understanding of reproduction merely affords the creation of these distinction merely along the lines of how one's sex characterizes one's role in reproduction. It bears no more value to me than that.
cloning technology
As easy as it would be for me to shoot down the notion of human cloning, and its success, I suspect you and I both know that there's a lot information on the matter that hasn't been subjected to either public awareness, or public acceptance. So touche. Technology will eventually compel us to eventually revisit our accepted notions and standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Democrats threaten to tax the rich millions of times every campaign cycle. (and sometimes they do it)
And that's just as wrong.
And yet, where are the retaliation lawsuits of the rich vs the government? Nonexistent largely.
It's more inexpensive to either not retaliate, just move, or headquarter elsewhere. It's part of the reason, California, for example, is subject to frequent flights from the rich, leaving the tax burden to those whom the Democrats of their state frequently claim they're serving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
That the OP attempts to frame the whole 1A violation controversy as unique to DeSantis’ actions should be an insult to everyone’s intelligence in this forum. IMO, DeSantis is just demonstrating that two can play this game…
Except, it's not "two can play this game..." As I understand it, even though Disney threatened to withdraw political and financial support, DeSantis, at least at its face, is an extension of Florida's government. Whatever game Disney was playing, they still operated within their capacity. DeSantis retaliated and reneged on an arrangement Disney has had with the State of Florida since before he was born. And if one were to believe all the jargon and hoopla about government, then DeSantis would be in gross violation of his duty, especially in matters where constituents dissent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
my question is specifically regarding (someone who never participates in that "role")why do you feel compelled to assign "reproductive roles" to the millions upon millions of people who don't ever reproduce ?
Because of the billions upon billions who do reproduce and have reproduced. It's language which serves to standardize. And it doesn't necessarily exclude those who don't reproduce. It's more so, in a given situation where one were to reproduce, one's role would be... So sterile men, and barren women, women who've received hysterectomies, or men who've received vasectomies, dismembered, castrated, etc. would still be "men" and "women" because despite their incapacity to carry out a successful reproduction, their roles in reproduction under conditions absent of such aberrations would still be the same--though, it suffices to state that standards and norms have presented qualifications--i.e. "sterile" and "barren."
presumably your "grandparents" have reproduced at some point, and thus have presumably adopted (if not fully embraced) the "role"
They had no choice in the matter. They had a choice in having sex. They had a choice in deciding whether to reproduce. But the "role" is dictated by the function of human reproduction. That is, my grandfather could not have adopted "to gestate" and my grandmother could not have adopted to "inseminate" especially in service to a successful reproduction.
and beyond that,why on god's green earth, would anyone (other than perhaps a medical practitioner) actually NEED to know which of your "grandparents" is XY and which is XX ??
Need to know? I suppose no one really needs to know. But one would know if I referenced them as my "grandfather" and "grandmother" as opposed to my "grandparents."
does the state need to know this information ?
No.
do my co-workers need to know this information ?
No.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
I agree.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Internet anonymity and poor nutrition are primarily responsible for the production of dicks.
Haha! Nice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm talking about the legal argument.
As a dispenser of law, a government can dictate the parameters by any arbitrary method, affecting the legal argument. Did Governor DeSantis "make law which disrespected Disney's establishment of religion, or prohibited their free
exercise thereof; or abridged Disney's freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of Disney's people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances"? Yes. Particularly the "abridgement of free speech" in imposing a penalty (taxation) for political dissent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
is a turkey-baster involved ?
Nah, they're old school. They barely look at each other during (at least, that's what I've gleaned from my grandfather's reports, which I get biweekly.)
how can you pretend to assign a "role" to someone who never participates in that "role" ?also,not every human "attempts reproduction"
How am I "pretending"? Have I confused or manipulated the descriptions of "men" and "women" in a manner contrary to accepted standards or norms? While not every human being has sex, or has a sex to reproduce, their "sex" is typically characterized by their roles in reproduction--whether they participate in reproduction or not. That's the reason for my example with my grandparents. Even if they don't attempt to reproduce, or they're past an age where they're capable of successfully reproducing, merely mentioning "grandfather" and "grandmother" is tacit information of who would inseminate and who would gestate. And since they have successfully reproduced, one would be hard-pressed to confuse which one was the "adult male" and which was one was the "adult female."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the metric of a free speech violation is any government seizure, then every government seizure is a constitutional violation.
I would replace "constitutional" with "moral" since amendments subject "the constitution" to referendums on legislative opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Let's put it this way: if I were to tell you that my friend sam and my friend rory wanted to attempt reproduction, which one would attempt insemination, and which one would attempt gestation?(trick question, they're identical twins, but they can still "attempt reproduction" all the same)
If they're both pubescent/post-pubescent males (absent of aberrations,) they can only attempt insemination. (I suppose they can inseminate each other, but that wouldn't be reproduction.)
If they're both pubescent/post-pubescent females (absent of aberrations,) they can only attempt gestation. (I'll leave this one to your imagination.)
Have you decided on your response to my grandparents' attempt? (I told them about it, and they're waiting for you.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
many humans never participate in the reproductive process (including caring for the children of relatives and or non-relatives)how can you pretend to assign a "role" to someone who never participates in that "role" ?
Let's put it this way: if I were to tell you that my grandfather and my grandmother wanted to attempt reproduction, which one would attempt insemination, and which one would attempt gestation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
About 9% of men and about 11% of women of reproductive age in the United States have experienced fertility problems.do you personally consider these (33 million american) humans neither male nor female ?
No. Their incapacity to reproduce is an aberration. And note that I stated that their "roles" in reproduction are delineated "primarily" as insemination and gestation--taking into account sterile men and barren women.
not to mention those who are beyond their reproductive years
Hasn't changed the "role."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
One doesn't have to endorse or even accept Disney's position to acknowledge that their free speech was curtailed by Governor DeSantis. One could argue that their not being taxed for the last 50 years may have been a "privilege" (though I still wouldn't accept that not being robbed is a "privilege") but on the other hand, it could just as easily be argued that what the Disney parks have done for central Florida, and the state in its entirety, would more than make up for these "delinquent tax payments." Even if one argues, "well, other companies in Florida get taxed, why shouldn't Disney...?" the arrangement Disney has had with Florida was still dissolved merely by a difference in political opinion. And it's not uncommon for States to extend tax exemptions to companies/corporations that are deemed essential to their economies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
There are species of fish that, depending on their sizeand wieght, they can transform back and forth between male and female.There are species of a flatworm in oceans, that have one or two penis, and which ever flatworm stabs the other one first, the one being stabbed first gets pregnant.There a few all femaleonly species , that pop-out exact clones of them selves. There is no evidence of all male only species, and certainly no all male species that pop-out exact clones of them selves.X is more complex the the y for two primary reasons: 1} mathematically there exist more lines-of-relationship, 2} more chance for synergetic relationships that more likey to occur with a larger set of relationships. We know from lab experiements, that when asked a series of questions, womens brains tend to be more active in both hemi-spheres of the brain.
Pardon me:
Athias Post #10:
Men are adult [human] males whose role in reproduction is delineated primarily as insemination.Women are adult [human] females whose role in reproduction is delineated primarily as gestation.
Woman is the most complex entity of Universe, putting aside scenarios of two women, one woman and one man, or a who Earth or solar system or finite Univrse.The 2ndayr symbolism for man and woman should be as follows and not the old venus mirror vanity symbol and mars shield and spear.1( * * ) as complex bilateral consciousness2} Woman as closed triangular set .... /\ ......... and with internalized two ovaries or eyes, hemi-spheres set etc of bilateral \* */ tho I dont have mechansim to close the top line here,3} Man as open triangular set *Y* whereas the testes are externalized, ears, eyes two hemi-spheres bilateral set,4} when man symbol is placed inside of woman symbol, we get a birds-eye-view of the minimal 3D structure of Universe, the tetrahedron \Y/. LINKThere exists, generally speaking, three X chromosomes for every y chromosome in Universe. Xx-Xy so No wonder men feel so inferior ;--)
What does any of this have to do with what I stated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what do you make of those who have no reproductive capacity ?
Aberration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that our sensory ability allows us to perceive which provides the basis of imagination.Or are you suggesting that external reality is merely a concept?.....Not that I would whole heartedly disagree.As all incoming is converted to basically the same......Though I still think that there is a distinction to be made.
The point which I've emboldened is key. Since it would be impossible to control for that which is independent of our "conversions" what possible reason or meaning can we give an "external reality"? Do I believe that "external reality" is merely a concept? Yes--an irrational one.
I would further suggest that metaphysical objectivity is a contradiction of terms....In terms of, when is a thought process not a thought process?
I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm finding it difficult to be impartial about that witch coven known as Disney and all its conglomerates--in this case, the Disney parks in the Orlando area. DeSantis's action were clearly retaliation against Disney's public support for LGBTQ issues being taught in grade school (not surprising since Disney Media including "ABC" has been pushing LGBTQ imagery for years.) With that said, should a company be able to regulate itself on its own property and make public statements and even withdraw support without being robbed? Yes. So did Governor DeSantis attack Disney's free speech? Yes, he did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Men are adult males whose role in reproduction is delineated primarily as insemination.
Women are adult females whose role in reproduction is delineated primarily as gestation.
It's always been that clear-cut to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Is this any different from one's perception or one's senses?Well, imagination is the internal development or modification of data, that produces a wholly internal conclusion, which may or may not have the intention of being factually representative of an assumed external reality.
Fair enough.Though we do have a tendency to incorrectly attribute the word Imagination with a more fanciful, mystical quality.Which I would suggest is perhaps why you misinterpret my references to imagination.Not suggesting that you are being fanciful.But that my observations relate only to cognitive processes......In so much as we are always prisoners of our brain and it's function.
No one can actually prove the existence of an external entity that is separate from the universe.
So arguments which attempt to inform metaphysical objectivity are impractical?
And I think that we have a basic understanding when it comes to the concept of love.
That's more cultural than it is scientific.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, that is what the rich do to the poor (apart fromt he honest and generous ones) and would do more mercilessly if it wasn't for minimum wage, welfare, food banks and a few other things like public education.
Elaborate.
Please stop using other words that you feel are what 'tax' is and use the word 'tax' in that sentence, so that we understand what you are referring to.
How else would one express the seizure of funds and/or other property at metaphorical gun-point (i.e. the threat of deadly force being codified into law)? Yeah, I'll stick with theft, robbery, and burglary.
I'd say 'common sense'
In other words, you don't know.
This really is a case of 'I wasn't asking you'.
I'm good that way. I answer without you even having to direct your questions at me. Isn't that convenient?
Created:
Posted in:
Too many presumptions, including the presumption that "time" is more than just abstract logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How do you know this?I guess ill go use my SNAP card and hit 7-11 and buy some soda and snacks out of "desperation"Be back in 15 minutes.
The irony is in the presumption that those who game the system are "doing it for a good reason" while those seeking to extract themselves from said system, will indulge "their baser instincts" without said system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
@ADreamOfLiberty
I am a centrist (center right at the moment, but I fluctuate between left and right) but will answer with my thoughts. I do want to start by asking where you get the idea that people on the right are opposed to food banks though (as I have not heard of that accusation).I was wondering the same thing.
Sorry, this was meant for TheMorningStar.
Created:
Posted in:
Force is necessary to enforce the will of the populace (in democracy) or leadership (in autocracy) upon those that wish to circumvent the rules of the system.
In other words, my ideals grant me carte-blanche to conscript your time, labor, and property into my service while I place you under duress.
Fraud is committed by the rich to tax-evade severely, regularly and at large.
There's nothing fraudulent about avoiding theft, robbery, and/or burglary.
The poor-welfare fraud is mainly being used out of desperation to cope better.
How do you know this?
So, which fraud disgusts you more?
The second one, hands down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't oppose any charity, only theft. I don't believe any significant number of people oppose a purely voluntary welfare system.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I am a centrist (center right at the moment, but I fluctuate between left and right) but will answer with my thoughts. I do want to start by asking where you get the idea that people on the right are opposed to food banks though (as I have not heard of that accusation).
I was wondering the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
I am a huge supporter of food banks (I agree with the left-wing that in the ideal endgame they aren't needed but I am a fan of them for now in all societies that need them) and am curious about the core opposing stance that right-wingers have to everything from welfare through to charities like food banks.
This is deceptive. You're grouping "charity" and "welfare" while eliding their distinctions.
If somebody is so poor they can't eat, they can't have the energy to do a good job at work, decreasing their productivity towards the nation's economy.
Not eating =/= less productivity. Kyrie Irving's 39 points in Saturday's game against the Celtics is a testament.
This means even a sheer sociopath should not mind people sparing some food and sanitary products
Why would a sociopath concern him or herself, if we were to entertain the veracity of your assumption, with someone else's productivity? Aren't we disregarding the description of "sociopathy"?
to food-bank style charities to help out those with their backs against the wall,
Once again, your statements exhibit deception.
This 'they are lazy' concept is bullshit. The vast majority of the severely poor are not lazy
There's no way for you to know this.
they are perhaps ill-informed on money management that are now
By the very same token, there's no way for you to know this, either.
doomed due to that but they need help at times to even cope and have breathing room to feed themselves and/or families.
There's a difference between "help" and "conscription into the service of another."
I ask to you, in your ideal solution to poverty
The solution to poverty is acknowledging that there's no solution to poverty.
without moving towards social democratic benefits, welfare etc
Deception. Once again, you're grouping "social democratic benefits," "welfare," with "charity" without distinction.
how does the society eliminate brutally severe poverty where going severely hungry and without basic sanitary products is necessary for the poor to be able to afford their bills?
Don't tax (rob) them; remove labor restrictions including the minimum wage--I mean working for two dollars an hour is a lot better than being legally unemployable; remove the central bank; private charities, etc. And everything I mentioned is "welfare-free."
Food banks are supposed to cover when the welfare system is falling short on certain families, this question is about both and why the right-wing oppose them.
Wefare systems will always fall short.
Created:
Posted in:
Sex (General)
Panda Sex
Capybara Sex
Badger Sex
******************--******* Sex
Cheap Sex
Puerto-Rican Sex
One-Legged Sex
No-Legged Sex
Constitutional Sex
Funny Sex
Imaginary Sex
Atheistic (QUANTIFIABLE) Sex
Kantian, Aurellian, and Stoic Sex
The Sports Mechanics of Sex
Gardening
Created:
While I would say the "syllabus" is a bit much, I agree that you're not "all talk." Within the framework as it applies to this website's formal debating, you're actually quite competent. And while I was tempted to joke, "who's going to coach you?" I do think it's a good idea if you're in fact sincere. It's a great way to contribute to a site one presumably holds dear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
My point was that atheists apply their own bias and theists don't.Isn't that just an example of bias as described in my previous comments?
No. Because this is what I stated:
Athias Post #29:
My point wasn't that atheists apply their own bias and theists don't.
You replaced "wasn't" with "was." (Note: my post you attempted to quote is unedited.)
point of reduction relative to internal experiences, and faith in an assumed experience beyond that which is perceivable.As opposed to:A point of reduction relative to internal experiences only......Though with an understanding of the experience that is imagination.I would suggest that Poly has a tendency derived from experience and reduced to a point, whereby she generally overthinks things. Especially things such as science and theism.
Once again, you make it a point to single out "imagination" when scrutinizing internal experiences, and especially as it concerns internal experiences in juxtaposition to presumed "external" experiences. In this context, I don't think Polytheist_Witch is overthinking anything--just expressing ontological aphorisms.
I love my wife....Scientific application could come to a reasonable conclusion about this.
Not really. Scientific application can attempt to quantify "attachment." Science application can attempt to quantify "(sexual) attraction." Scientific application can even quantify brain imaging which demonstrates a correlative stimulation in particular parts of one's brain in response to certain events, notions, feelings, etc. But "love," the concept varies in definition, in cultural ritual, because it isn't quantifiable.
Of course, LOVE is a general term that is used to describe a wide variety of internal responses to a wide variety of perceivably external stimuli
What "external stimuli" can one perceive that can be controlled for as "external"?
And of course we can also apply the same general term to imaginary unperceivable external stimuli....That is to say, internally generated stimuli.....A GOD or GODS for example......Imagination as it were.
And what aspect of one's experience DOES NOT necessitate, as you put it, "internal generation"? For example, when one touches something physical, do you think that it does not require an "internally generated image/concept" that not only rationalizes it, but also gives it meaning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
I'm 60% sure this website is hosted in Russia.Before Mike started using Cloudflare, it was hosted at a data center in Russia.He might've moved to another IP address/hosting before moving to Cloudflare though, so like 60%.
So, in other words, you're not sure. And that means, you don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
Cloudflare is a proxy that protects against DDoSing, he is not literally running the servers of the website there
Non sequitur. This is what ADoL meant by tunneling. Cloudfare provides access to the servers, encrypted notwithstanding, and Cloudfare is a U.S. company. This undermines your nonsense statement that this website is owned by and ran in Russia.
To prove this, if you do your so called advanced search, you would find the proxies spread through brazil and netherlands too at times,
This does not at all prove that the site is ran in and owned by Russia.
meaning this website has a secure proxy protection layer to its servers.
Call the cops!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well no, the way it works is if your server (whether host or proxy) is within a country they can come down on you, order you to shut off, and arrest you if you happen to be a citizen or present.So USA & California could order cloudflare to stop serving. Russian Federation (if the host is there) could order the website censored or removed. It's about who can show up with guns.USA & California can show up to cloudflare data-center with guns. Russian Federation can show up to a physical location in Russia (and now parts of Ukraine) with guns.
This is nothing more than conjecture. Other than the presence of a yandex "script," on what are you basing your "if it's in Russia" hypothetical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You uh, don't know the difference between tunneling and hosting do you?
As a matter of fact, I do. (I knew what you meant when you opted to say "routed" rather than "hosted.") Nevertheless, it's inconsequential as the listed server for this website is run by a U.S. company.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That isn't so easy to confirm, it's routing through cloudflare.
Which is headquartered in San Fransisco, California (United States)--immune from Russian law.
The metrics JS is from russian yandex locations: https://mc.yandex.ru/metrika/tag.js
Yes, yandex is one of the server-side scripts used by this web site in addition to the British India-Ocean Territory's "sentry." Please outline what a scripting language has to do with a server's location?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The offender either emits sound waves or produces a visually perceivable narrative.The offended detect sound or light waves, convert signals into data, and then create their own offense for their own purposes.Alternatively they could just not bother to respond.I would therefore suggest that people actually enjoy being offended.
In other words, being "offended" is ultimately one's own responsibility? I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
The user resides in Russia, or so they claim.
Well, said user has claimed this:
Debateart.com Post #57:
PS: I left Russia half a decade ago so I may not have the best grasp of the situation.
And since this website wasn't around half a decade ago, it's quite clear that no one has made such a claim to you.
The user therefore has the entire website's server data and functionality dependent on Russian law.
Anyone with decent browser extensions or the inclination to conduct a google search can determine that this website's servers aren't located anywhere near Russia.
Is that okay with you or do you not comprehend that? This website is owned by and run inside of Russia.
I comprehend that you're propagating racist bullshit to draw attention to yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#NOTARACIST
Haha!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I did get too worked up without warrant.I stand by my furries example for why race isn't just about what you do but rather inherited genetic traits (or at least the idea of them). Yet, I fallacious straw-manned your argument and poisoned the well. Yeah, absurdity, but I way separated your case from the obvious intent of your case was wrong of me. For that I am sorry.
Your apology is appreciated and accepted. And I'll extend one as well, because I did use your statement as a catapult to rebuff RationalMadman's sarcasm. It wasn't initially intended for you or any sentiments you expressed in particular; it was only meant to demonstrate the lengths said member is willing to go through to attention-monger. With that said, I apologize for dragging you into this, and the snippy statements which followed.
Created:
Posted in:
anyone can claim something they feel strongly about like, "mosquitos are teh pure evilz"but such a claim is extremely difficult (and very likely logically impossible) to quantifyi would suggest that "amoral" might be best applied to (apparent) "actors" who demonstrate (once again, apparent) "moral blindness"and or alternatively, NOT specifically proven to have (EITHER) "moral" (OR) "immoral" premeditated intentions
Exactly.
any system of justice that relies on "motive" or "intent" in order to render justice is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft
Completely agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
that seems like an astronomical leap
Right? I'm not sure how such a conclusion could be rendered based off of my statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You're getting into an area of deep absurdity playing a semantics game.Russia is huge, with a massively diverse genetic landscape. That some people dislike the choices of the dictator, to you means someone is racist. We clearly have vastly different grasps of the English language.Furries exist all around the world. They share culture and traditions with each other. Your definition would define them as a race.Likewise since I reject Neo-Nazidom, your definition would define me as not part of the race I was born into since I don't murder nor endorse the murder of people for perceived genetic differences.
Hold on...
That some people dislike the choices of the dictator, to you means someone is racist.that seems like an astronomical leapI'll admit I gave into hyperbole.
It's a relief to know that you have some awareness. It wasn't my contention AT ALL that someone's being "racist" because they dislike the choices of a "dictator." (Technically, Putin isn't a dictator.) My contention is that RationalMadman's proposal that a unified stance as members of debateART be made against the Russian-Ukrainian conflict solely because the creator and owner of this website lists his (her?) native language as "Russian," albeit attention-mongering, is racist. That's all there is to it.
I'm not even going to venture a guess as to how you likened this contention to your not identifying with your perceived "racial group" because you reject "Neo-Nazidom."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
it becomes a question of motive (which i abhor)for example, in the classic television series "red dwarf" one of the main characters is a strict "rule-follower" and yet, somehow accidentally causes a radiation leak that kills the entire crew (1,167 souls) - - i believe most people (consensus reality) would still consider this person a "moral" individualin another example, someone like bernie madoff is NOT (directly) responsible for the gruesome deaths of 1,167 earnest and well-meaning individual humans, and yet, - - i believe most people (consensus reality) would still consider bernie madoff to be an "immoral" individualthere is a rather ridiculous legal standard that is salient to this specific pointtechnically, a "psychopath" and or "sociopath" is someone who can't tell the difference between (what most people consider) "moral" and "immoral"i have absolutely no idea how anyone is even hypothetically expected to substantiate such a claim
Generally, I'd agree with you. With that said, if you are to subject some one's or being's actions to moral analysis, can the subject of that analysis still be characterized as "amoral"? You stated non-human actors are technically amoral, regardless of their activities. So it would stand to reason that how we morally measure these activities would be independent of said non-human actors' being amoral. That is, one wouldn't state, Being X is responsible for "Bad" action Y and therefore Being X is amoral, because we've already determined that Being X is amoral for reasons independent of its activities. *NOTE: I understand this is contingent on the description of "amoral" and thus perhaps you can understand my demanding explicit descriptions from members like Double_R and RationalMadmans, against who my interrogation is really geared.
it is exceedingly difficult to imagine any such being as perceiving humans as anything other than insects or really probably more likely zooplanktonhow much "empathy" do you have for the millions of unique creatures found in a barrel of seawater ?
Be it from me to dispute the infallible wisdom of Dewey (haha.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'll get right to the point.Ad hominem attacks are basically inevitable.So, I'm proposing, for maybe a week, at random, all DebateArt usernames and icons be shuffled.
Love it. It's like a metaphorical domino mask at a cocktail party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
presumed nation of origin (and associated genealogy) seems like a textbook "genetic component"
I haven't seen so much circumventing since the Monica Lewinsky psy-o... I mean, scandal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You can dislike every aspect of it for a host of reasons
My disliking it is irrelevant, as would be the reasons.
but unless a specific perceived genetic component comes into it, then it's not racist.
Is that how racism is defined? I thought racism described prejudicial sentiments toward individuals by reasons of race and/or ethnicity, where ethnicity is a social characterization which groups individuals based on similar cultures and traditions--e.g. ones which would be found in a nation such as Russia. But you're the boss...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
P1. God is omniscient and omnipotent.P2. Bad things like child rape, and malicious murders occur.P3. God is either responsible for the occurrence of child rape and malicious murders (i.e. being the cause of all events), or indirectly responsible through inaction.C. Therefore God Doesn't Exist.
No, it isn't.
Double_R Post #15:
If God is the all knowing all powerful creator of everything then everything that happens is in accordance with his will. This means every child rape, every malicious murder, everything, is in accordance with his will. That makes him amoral by any reasonable standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
It's not racist to dislike racists. Additionally, it is fear over a valid cultural issue which is not passed down genetically.And yes, Russian aggression against Ukraine is racist. They previously ethnically cleaned up to 8 million Ukrainians.If you were looking closely at the head shapes of the two, to declare that makes one better, then you would be committing racism.
Is it "racist" to create a thread proposing that members of a forum collectively submit a unified stance against the Russian-Ukraine conflict solely because the native language of the member responsible for the conception and inception of said forum is Russian?
Created: