Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you have any evidence it was Trump and not FBI leakers from the SCIF that ruined case evidence? You do know Trump has no access to the SCIF, right?
It's not being held in a SCIF, the materials were given to Trump's attorneys.
"Defendants shall only have access to Discovery Materials under the direct supervision of Defense Counsel or a member of Defense Counsel’s staff. Defendants shall not retain copies of Discovery Material," the ruling said."
We don't know who leaked the documents but we do know they leaked almost immediately after they were turned over to the Trump team, and let's not forget the FBI had to get them from somewhere so someone else more than likely retained copies of them. To accuse the FBI of leaking them is baseless and defies Occam's razor.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Why would I do that?
Are you kidding? Just think of the benefits. You could satisfy all of your sexual desires without having to meet someone else, take them out to dinner, meet their parents, buy them a valentine's gift, etc. You could enjoy yourself without any obstacles, all you have to do is make that choice. Why wouldn't you?
Choose to be a plumber. Then tomorrow change your mind
I can choose to call myself a plumber. I can also choose to study to become a plumber. I would still need others to pay me for my services before I can honestly say that I'm a plumber, that's not my choice.
Is there any part of this example you found analogous?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
@Vegasgiants
The body just doesn't “do it” all on its own. It reacts to external stimuli via how the mind perceives it. It’s in the mind. It’s a choice.
Yes I chose. Around age 11. And I kept that choiceBut some people choose and then later chose differently
Choose to feel sexual attraction towards your pillow. Then tomorrow, change your mind back.
Let me know how that goes.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
WebMD is spreading disinformation. There is absolutely zero evidence that a person's genes cause them to be gay.
Please cite where they made this claim, I apparently missed it.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I suspect that, at least in part, car/motorcycle preference can be explained by genetics. In particular, there will be psychological traits (e.g. need for safety = car; preference for freedom = motorcycle) which map onto a stereotypical car/motorcycle preference. But that's just a suspicion. We already know that things like political beliefs are heritable.
Unless you believe it's all determined by the soul (which has its own problems), on some level, everything comes down to our genetics.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, the disagreement is about when it is appropriate to use proxies like that....They are part of a family of secondary (proxy) inductive pseudo-arguments that are fallacies in the context of debate....Now you may feel this forum qualifies as a situation described by "limited information in time critical situation" but you're on a debate site so it doesn't.
We're in the forum section, this is not a formal debate. If my argument was "X is true because WebMD says so", that would absolutely be a fallacy.
That is not nor has that ever been my argument.
Your entire critique is once again, a complete strawman.
What I am presenting is as an inductive argument to strengthen the position that sexuality is not a choice. Just how much it strengthens the argument is in the eye of the beholder. The point of putting it out there is to see where the OP goes with it and take it from there. That's how productive rational conversation works. We take it one step at a time to see where we end up and/or differ.
If the OP says WebMD is untrustworthy, we can either talk about why he believes that or move on from the point altogether. If he wants to dive into scientific studies, we can do that as well. But either way, putting out a piece of information to advance a conversation is not a fallacy.
It's like hearsay, if you have time to get to the original authority you don't multiply error by using a proxy.
It's not about time, it's about how much effort should be put into any given discission. In a formal debate you are expected and ultimately judged on putting out complete, valid and verified information. This is not a formal debate. I have also never interacted with the OP before, so I don't know what he'll say or how seriously to take him.
Moreover, there is always going to be more information out there, we live in the information age. If the idea is that more information = 'more research is needed to make an assertion', we would never communicate, we would just sit here researching until we are qualified experts ourselves.
That's an absurd standard just to have a conversation and share viewpoints.
Priests study for a lifetime, in fact Occam was clergy I believe. Is it the simpler explanation that all these people who study and debate constantly are wrong about god?
Priests are not studying God, they are studying a book that claims there is a God.
If the question is about what the bible says, a priest is a valid proxy.
If the question is about whether God exists, that's a question best addressed by science. Priests do not conduct scientific experimentation, so they are not valid proxy's for that question.
It's always the simpler choice for those content in ignorance to trust. You do not belong here with that attitude.
That's not the attitude I've expressed anywhere on this site. Learn to read.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Name an argument you have made that I haven't responded to
I have argued multiple times that sexuality is about arousal, which is purely a physiological reaction to external stimuli, that's not a choice. I have asked multiple times for anyone here to provide a single example of where a person can choose to make themselves aroused, not one person has touched that challenge.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
WebMD is not a recognized science agency. They do zero peer reviewed research and are a for profit web page
So... What's your point?
Just name the experts they cite
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You have said nothing that supports sexuality is a choice with scientific evidence
Because my position is that sexuality is not a choice, which is a negative and therefore not subject to science on any practical level. I think you need to spend some time learning how science works cause you appear to not understand the basics.
I have however, given you multiple rational arguments which clearly demonstrate that sexuality is not a choice. Is there a reason you refuse to engage in rational argument?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
as we use Occam's razor to determine what is most reasonable.in the absence of evidence...
No. Occam's razor is the position that the best explanation is the simplest one which explains all the available data (aka evidence).
Any absence of evidence cannot be used to form a conclusion, therefore you can only work with the evidence you have. The disagreement here is apparently that the say so of an expert cannot be used as evidence by any rationally thinking person and therefore should be a priori discarded. That's absurd for reasons I've gone into ad nauseum, and our entire criminal justice system which uses expert testimony all the time clearly disagrees.
fallacies are implied inference; and your useless link dumping implies support for a conclusion
It absolutely does imply support for the conclusion. If WebMD says sexuality is not a choice, that tells me as a rationally thinking person that a group of qualified experts weighed in on the subject and this is what they have found. That doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean that the claim is at the very least credible, and it means if the claim is wrong it goes against the lifetime of study these folks have engaged in.
So applying Occam's razor, the simpler explanation is that sexuality is not a choice, because all I have to assume is that their studies and experience have yeilded an accurate understanding of reality. Assuming sexuality is not a choice means that these folks are either lying, or do not understand the feilds they are working in, which now means we need to question how they got their licences, how they are practicing, etc.
The latter is clearly the more complex explanation.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You make an affirmative declaration that gay is not a choiceNo scientific agency agrees with you
Because that's not how science works. Science is not a thinking agent using reason and common sense to form a conclusion. It's a feild of discipline that makes no declarations other than the results of testable and repeatable experimentation that can be subjected to peer review.
Again, have you read any of my posts explaining why we can easily say it is not a choice? Would you like to challenge the validity of anything I've said?
Some people used to hate snickers and now love themAttractions change
Yes, they do. That still doesn't mean they changed by choice.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Can you name a scientific agency that says homosexuality is not a choice?
No, because no one has made that determination since it is much harder to prove a negative as my earlier source already explained.
Do you have a point? Does the failure to prove sexuality is not a choice mean that it is a choice? Have you read any of my points explaining why it is absurd to come to any conclusion other than sexuality not being a choice?
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
Are there more categories? Like midgets or is it only gender qualified?
Some people are into midgets, there's a market for everything. You'd be surprised how prevalent sexual fetishes are.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Nothing wrong with conducting a survey; that's data. There is something wrong with acting like the analysis of that data is reserved for a priesthood.
And you demonstrate yet again that your entire opposition to everything I'm saying is based on one big strawman, because you don't listen.
No one is claiming the opinions of experts should be treated as gospel, what I'm saying is that the opinions of experts should be weighed for what they are as we use Occam's razor to determine what is most reasonable.
If you want to sit and sort through multiple scientific studies every single time you hear about a new discovery or anything you've never heard before be my guest. Most of us don't have that time nor care enough to do so. But if that's your standard for what you are willing to tentatively accept before you share your input with others then you need to be consistent and follow that same standard every single time you argue for anything.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I can be pretty certain that being born with green eyes was not a choiceThe science is nowhere near that clear for being gay
No, it's not. But what does science say on why some people like blue while others like red? Why do some people like Snickers while others prefer Kit Kats? Just because science hasn't figured that out doesn't mean we're reasonable to assert that any of these things is a choice. We are beholden to our physiology.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
I noticed you said this a few times. Are you saying that the determining factor in the gay thing is that a man is aroused when another man touches his dong?
Arousal is the basis of sexuality, to deny what arouses you is to deny your sexuality.
If you are a man who is aroused by women, you are straight. If you are a man who is aroused by other men, you are gay. If you are aroused by both men and women, you are bi. You can choose to not live in accordance with what arouses you, but you can't choose what arouses you.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I've explained to you why you're doing it (social reasoning) all wrong in detail before.
WebMD is not social reasoning, it's an organization of qualified medical experts whose purpose is to provide credible information to the general public.
You haven't explained why it's wrong for any non medical expert to tentatively accept the information it provides, what you've done is conflated the negative connotation to the word authority with expertise as an excuse to hand waive away any information you don't like.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Even your evidence uses seems to be important or allows the possibility
What it stated was that it is very difficult to prove a negative, so until we're able to do that the possibility will always be there. But the possibility of something does not make it a reasonable position.
People who claim it can't be a choice do so out of political agenda not science
If they're speaking in absolutes then yeah, that's not scientific. Most people are not talking in absolutes, they're just stating the obvious.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I haven't read into much of the homosexual literature, but I don't understand how a self-deleting genetic expression (i.e. homosexual sex engage procreate) would be so prevalent amongst humans. In an evolutionary sense, it should be selected against because homosexual sex can't procreate, thus the genes won't be passed on.
There is no evidence that homosexuality stems from a gene that can be passed on, or at the least that it's not something carried only in certain groups which could be selected against like height or skin color. Personally, I just don't see it as any different from asking why one person likes cars while another likes motorcycles. Pretty sure no one would suggest there's a gene for that.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I used to fuck pillow when I was a kid. Not really much fun.
It would have been more fun if you chose to be aroused. Next time choose differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
how do you account for the fact that every gay child born came from straight parents?Good question. Because they choose to be gay.
Then there is no need for gay people to go out and groom, thier "lineage" will continue as it has for all of recorded human history.
Your argument refutes itself.
what if I said I was born to dislike gay people? Would you tell me I was a bigot then?
You can say that all you want, you are still definitionally a bigot.
It would be a silly argument to make however, we know that hatred towards certain groups is learned, no one is born with that. Certain conditions causing psychotic type beliefs and behavior can be genetic, that's not one of them.
Sexual attraction meanwhile is preceded by arousal, which is not a choice. If it were them pornhub would be obsolete.
Oxford dictionary of perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.It is okay for a man(male) to be attracted to a woman(female). That's how it started from any creation or evolution background.
The creation standpoint is irrelevant. If your position is ultimately based on the bible then we can end this conversation and instead turn the question to why you consider the bible a credible source of information.
Evolution on the other hand, has no intention nor opinion on this subject. Gay human beings have been around as long as documented human history and undoubtedly longer. You can also find gay activities taking place all throughout the animal kingdom. Such behavior tends to not be the norm because species which primarily engage in such activity are far less likely to survive. That's just a fact of the universe, not a violation of some intended purpose.
You can if you wish, go down the survival path and argue that homosexuality is a threat to human survival, but that path is again, self defeating. It may have been valid centuries ago as we battled the elements of this world before modern technology, but at this point the expansion of our species is depleting the planets non-renewable resources and outpacing it's renewable ones. That's not sustainable so it could very easily be argued that more homosexuals at this point will actually be necessary for the survival of our species.
It is corrupt and it will soon reach to all areas of sexual perversion. Incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.
This is just slippery slope paranoia.
There is absolutely no connection between being attracted to the opposite sex and being attracted to family members, children, or animals. You believe this because you have been conditioned by society to think gayness is wrong and a perversion, and have therefore grouped every other form of sexuality you consider wrong and a perversion into the same camp.
You like women but you don't like little girls, and nothing about that seems strange to you. Yet another woman also likes women just like you do. Why would she be any more interested in little girls than you? There is no reason. The same goes for men liking men, just as your wife likes men. The same goes for you liking women but not female dogs. We can do this all day.
You see no issue drawing these lines with people who are like you but when it comes to people who are not like you you throw all of it out the window and presume the worst. And because of that presumption you and everyone else like you unjustifiably makes, these people end up living their lives in the shadows or endure a daily onslaught of hatred leading many of them to commit suicide.
That's what bigotry is. That's the very reason it carries such a negative connotation. You are the walking embodiment of everything wrong with our society.
Where would you draw the line of inclusion?
At consent.
Children cannot consent to sex. Your dog cannot consent to sex. Your kitchen table cannot consent to sex. I draw the line with anything other than two consenting adults. Well, you can go on and fuck your kitchen table if that's your thing I guess, I won't judge.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
lol leave it to you to jump right into the muck of authority pokemon. Have fun.
WebMD? Would you be more convinced if I quoted Info Wars?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
If you actually care to read on the issue...
"As Bailey et al. have noted,Footnote35 this evidence is amenable to differing interpretation. On the one hand, it can be confidently said that a minority of people develop a homosexual orientation as adults for reasons that might largely be referred to as “nature” rather than “nurture”. That is, genetic, hormonal and intra-uterine influences seem to be important, and social environment, during childhood and adolescence, does not influence adult sexual orientation. On the other hand, the lack of good scientific evidence to the contrary allows the possibility of continuing to claim that social environment, whether in family or wider society, may influence adult sexual orientation. It is always harder to prove the negative than the positive, and in general the science appears to support the former interpretation more soundly than the latter. Those who do adopt the latter account generally do so for non-scientific reasons."
I doubt you have any interest though, I don't really because the very notion that sexual attraction is a choice is just stupid. Sexual attraction is preceded by arousal, so if you claim attraction is a choice than arousal is a choice. And if that's the case then perform the following experiment... Decide to become aroused by your pillow. If it works, then you don't need to be in a relationship. You don't need to take anyone out on a date, you have all of your sexual needs met right before you. Half the world's problems would be solved right there. I wonder why people don't just make that choice.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
No scientific agency says homosexuality is not a choice.
"Experts agree that sexual orientation isn’t a choice and can’t be changed. Some people who are homosexual or bisexual may hide their sexual orientation to avoid prejudice from others or shame they may have been taught to feel about their sexuality."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
What makes you think that you are not the bigot and you are actually supporting the bigot view? Why am I the bigot for thinking that gay is perversion?
Let's start with the definition of a bigot:
"a person who is intolerant or hateful toward people whose race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., is different from the person's own."
I am not gay and clearly you are not either. Yet I am tolerant of any individuals freedom to be gay while you are not. That means you are the literal example of a bigot while I am the literal example of it's antonym. Basic English.
But beyond plain English, your position that gay is a perversion reduces to utter absurdity. Being gay simply means that a man is sexually attracted to other men as opposed to women. If being attracted to other men is perversion than every straight woman on earth is also perverted because they are as well, attracted to men. And there is no reason why being sexually attracted to men is perverted but not to women, so that would qualify as well. But by this point the definition has now expanded to anyone who is sexually attracted to either... Which means any sexual attraction at all, rendering the term completely meaningless. Your claim is therefore, logically, inherently, self defeating.
It is none of those things to say that sexual perversion is good.
You are the one pretending that gay = sexual perversion, not us. You entire opposition is just one big strawman.
Gay men don't want to have sex with women. Lesbian women don't want men. Therefore, no kids can be produced. The lineage stops. So in order to have the gay agenda grow, they need to convert another child to propagate the gay agenda.
Please explain something to me... If this is what it takes to "continue the gay lineage", how do you account for the fact that every gay child born came from straight parents?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
NBC DESPERATELY Defends We're Coming For Your Children Chant, Accidentally CONFIRMS They're Groomers
Is there a legitimate point you heard anywhere in this video?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
So you will gladly and boldly brain wash my children to accept your views and then call me a bigot for not accepting it? Wow.
The view we're trying to steer your children away from is bigotry. So yes, if you don't accept it that makes you a bigot by definition.
By the way, convincing someone with reason, empathy and common sense is not brainwashing. The fact that you cannot tell the difference would seem to say alot about you.
You all are so disgusting to be willing to try to convert my children because you can't convert me.
Not everyone is penetrable with logic, that doesn't mean you give up on those who might be.
BTW, you do know why they have to groom children right? It's because they can't reproduce, so they have to recruit.
Can you please explain how this statement makes any kind of sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How exactly are they supposed to hold an election under those circumstances?For comparison, America did not declare martial law and suspend elections in the middle of its Civil War.
That doesn't address the question. The circumstances in these two scenarios are very different.
As usual, you are quick to criticize while having no interest in a real discission over whether your critiques are valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Can you give me 2 examples where an opinion you have wasn't fed to you by mainstream media?
Not interested. If I've given you an opinion, it's my opinion. Whether someone else shares my opinion is beyond my control and I couldn't give a shit less who does or doesn't agree with it.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason certain news is considered "mainstream" is because there are lots of people out there who agree with it?
No one is defending this, read my posts.Many are, genuinely. I can show you if you want. Some were in the very parade in the article you sarcastically replied to TWS posting.
Show me where in my post I defended the behavior or individuals you listed.
What's the problem then?
No child dresses slutty merely because they saw a drag queen do it. If they decided to copy the drag queens style the impulses were already there. Perhaps instead of blaming the drag queen, you should ask yourself why the child found that particular style appealing in the first place.
But if the kindergarten and later school(s) you send them to surprise-attack them with drag queens coming to read them books about gay intimacy (full tongue kissing and touching in it) and giggle and the children are scolded by the teacher if they find it weird or offputting, it conditions them to conform and see that as the way to be.
Show me where this is actually happening. In real life.
Do you support showing porn to children? Where do you draw the line and why do you draw it?
I draw the line in probably most of the same places as you do, although I'm probably a little more lenient because I don't believe in shielding my kids from the world that they will in fact be exposed to in time.
Especially in today's world of information, you can't shield them from life, trying to will only alienate them from you as they venture off on their own. I'd rather they be exposed to things while they're still looking to me for guidance, cause we all know once they hit their mid teens that's over.
With that said, no of course I wouldn't support kindergartners being read books about gay intimacy, but I'm also not ok with the political right pretending that this is some wide spread phenomenon happening all over the country in some left wing conspiracy to turn your kids gay. There's no evidence of anything like this, which is what makes it so obvious that generally speaking, this is a political movement ultimately based in fear and bigotry.
We don't have to jump off the deep end. Just as I support the black lives matter movement and would argue we're not all being treated equally, I can also recognize that the narrative of the police as some evil white supremecy gang itching to kill black people all supported by anecdotal evidence of some white cop shooting some unarmed black guy - is absurd and not reflective of real life. We don't need to paint everyone with the same brush.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
How can you not think what they say is what they mean? They want to either make my kids gay or at least think its okay to be gay. IT'S NOT OKAY.
I do think they meant what they said, and what they said was that they're coming for your kids to make them caring individuals who believe in justice and equality for all. The song literally ends with "we'll make an ally of you yet". That's the point of the song, if you actually cared to listen to it which you clearly did not.
Go ahead, show me the lyrics that prove your point. And if you do, take note of how the part that you undoubtedly cut off refutes the part you provided.
Yes you can convert someone into being gay. If someone can be afraid to come out of the closet and run their whole life as a straight man, then a man can be pulled out of the closet and be intimidated to be gay. You do know there were closet gays back in the day before it was allowed and lived normal lifestyles with families and all, right? How did they have hetero relationships? because they chose it.
Being gay is a sexual preference. You can't intimidate someone into a sexual preference. You can intimidate someone into living a certain lifestyle against their wishes. Amazingly, that's literally what you're advocating for.
So clearly, you believe it's better to convince a boy who likes other boys that he has to marry a women that he won't be happy with rather than to just let him be whatever he wants to be and be happy. That is truly sad and pathetic, and that is the very point of this song.
So yes, we're coming for your children. We're going to teach them that it's ok to accept others for who they are. We're going to teach them it's ok to be who they want to be. We're going to teach them that the world is better when people are allowed to live their lives how they see fit without being ostracized from society.
If you don't like that, tough shit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Stop always blindly leaping to defend anything that your media tells you is what you ought to defend.
You can drop the stupid "stop believing whatever you're told" game. I have my own opinions, in my experience it's normally the people who peddle this BS retort who don't and project their inability to form their own opinions onto others.
Drag queens and guys in bdsm whipping asses etc are literally interacting and convincing children to strip down and dress up in that stuff too and embrace it as normal.
No one is defending this, read my posts.
You can convert them to dress sluttier (younger they are, more impressionable) by dressing slutty yourself as most drag queens do and being an influence.
If you're child decides to dress slutty just because they saw a drag queen do it, the problem in that child's life is not the drag queen.
You might want to make sure they never see an R rated movie either.
You also can convert them to think that if they feel slightly out of place for their typical gender's behaviour, that they are therefore not that gender, by poisioning their mind with the idea.
This is just ridiculous. Raise your child, if you do that this kind of idiocy is not something you would need to worry about.
The problem is not the LGBTQ community, it's parents so insecure in their ability to raise their own children that they fear any crazy idea getting to their child's head will send them down a chaotic tailspin of absurdity. It's truly pathetic.
It's the same thing with CRT. Your children are going to be exposed to all of this during their lives, earlier rather than later. Perhaps instead of trying to shield them from the world you'd be better off to focus on preparing them for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
the media and govt are the greatest enemies of the people that exist. They are nothing but divisive hate factories that make the common man hate one another.
The media and government are nothing more than a reflection of us. There's a reason political ads are mostly negative, because that's what works. People don't go to the polls out of optimism, they go out of fear.
If this really is your issue, and you really do despise the hatred and fear mongering within our society, curious to know whether you vote moreso for democrats or republicans...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
They are coming for my children to convert them. This is not satire. They are so bold to tell us what they intend on doing and we cannot stop it.
Did you even listen to the words, or just the chorus? Are you really that unaware of how ridiculous the "they're coming for your children" narrative is viewed by the left? Your absurdity is what makes this so hilarious.
Do you think it stops just at being okay with the gay lifestyle?
Yes, it absolutely does. You can't convert someone onto being gay. Sexuality is not a choice, it's a physiological reaction. The only thing the left will do that right wingers apparently fear is to teach your kids that if they are gay, it's ok. If you take issue with that, then yeah, we're different.
Now they are twerking in front children in drag shows.
Well first of all, most of those videos are fake. If you actually took the time you can find the original videos that absolutely did not take place in front of children and see how they imposed them over it.
To the ones that are real, what you guys are doing to the LGBTQ community is no different than what the left does to the police. Everytime one police officer in a country of 330 million people kills an unarmed black people the left uses it as proof that "they" are killing black people.
With the millions of people in this country and from all over the world (most of these viral videos that actually did happen are not from the US), you're going to find crazy shit of any kind, all you have to do is search for it. Any group of people can be turned into demons if you try hard enough, that's what makes the entire movement against this powerless minority so disgusting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
You claim that they are unique and have own opinions. Name mainstream media source that is openly communist?or openly anarchist or fascist in U ited States.
There is no market for any of those ideas (except fascism, clearly the MAGA crowd is all good with that) so of course there is no main stream media outlet expressing these opinions. If they did they wouldn't be mainstream because viewers would tune them out.
That's not evidence against my claim, which had nothing to do with uniqueness, btw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
What part of anything I've said suggests that one should believe the media blindly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
None of you know anything about Trump other than what the media regurgitates and wants you to think.
The media isn't a person, it doesn't sit around asking itself what it wants you to believe for the hell of it. There are different networks, different stations, different reporters, different hosts, all with their own viewpoints. The question is whether you have enough critical thinking abilities and media literacy to sort through all of the bullshit.
I reject the television media entirely as a information source.
Being on television doesn't make a story false any more than being printed in the New York Times makes it true. Anyone interested in facts and reality would judge reach story on its own merits, not hand waive away anything that appears in their television screen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Making claims they’re invalid like you do without proving it isn’t evidence against the data within said links
Validity vs invalidity can only be established (proven) to someone using their brain, so merely shutting it off while you scream "Nuh uh" doesn't mean you're saying anything meaningful.
I do have one correction though, he didn't destroy your links (plural) because he only focused on the one you lead with, which he absolutely destroyed.
- First he pointed out the absurdity of accepting at face value the idea that the UN did what you claim while no one noticed for years
- Then he quoted the actual UN resolution and pointed out what it says in actual English:
- No mention of prepubescent children anywhere
- The resolution clearly talks about giving"due regard" for the individuals maturity and self interests when determining the proper punishment
To anyone who cares about reality, the UN resolution was about not overcriminalizing something because it feels good, but to take into account real world considerations. If a 17 year old committed mass murder, I doubt you would advocate for him to be treated like a child incapable of knowing what he did was wrong merely because of his age.
But despite Oromagi making all of this clear (except that last point I just brought up), your response was this;
Fact checkers have about as much weight as the legacy media (MSM).People write fact checks with an agenda. Then we learn later the truth and the fact checkers lied on purpose.You didn’t disprove anything with that subjective opinion of yours. But hey, thanks for contributing.
That's it. Not one word of rebuttal to a damn thing he said. Not one word about the 5 years it took for people to notice this grotesque advocacy of advocating for pedophilia. Not one word about the fact that it doesn't talk about children, at all. Not one word about the fact that it specifically talks about the reality that most 16 and 17 year olds have reached a point in their lives where they clearly can make their own decisions, and how it's common sense in any other area of life to take that into account when determining repricussions for their actions.
Nothing, just hand waiving away literally every single word he wrote as a product of the lying MSM and a bald assertion of him not proving anything.
This is why you do not deserve to be taken seriously. If there were more serious people on this site I would ignore you altogether, sometimes I just get bored.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
And what would you say if this prayer your kids school was mandating came from the Quran?Good question, and I would say it would be damaging to the country also. Nothing beats the bibliical standard of living.
Do you not find it hypocritical to assert that the left is imposing their moral views onto the rest of us by removing the bible from schools while you advocate for mandatory prayer supporting your views and opposing the same for another religion?
There are no facts when it comes to evolution. This is why they call it a theory.
This is what's called a self own. Please educate yourself on what the term "theory" means in science:
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results...
The meaning of the term scientific theory as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[5] whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has already been tested and is widely accepted as valid.[1][2]"
Loving whoever someone wants is fine, just keep it out of the schools and out of the minds of the children.
So you are opposed to straight couples talking about traditional marriage and relationships as well, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
They are coming for the children.Stop being a denialist D_R!
Oromagi already completely tore apart the utter stupidity of the links you presented. If you have any response to anything he said feel free to enlighten us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@TWS1405_2
This is. Absolutely. Hilarious.
The song (and proceeding chant) is pun on bigoted right wingers. If you listened to the words and not just the chorus, the message is that they're coming for your children and will convert them into caring adults who believe in equality and justice for all.
If that's the gay agenda you oppose, then you are by definition, a bigot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I sure as hell would immediately doubt the expertise of any doctor who refused to explain until we were well outside of my knowledge base.
So tell me... what do you do once your knowledge base has been exceeded?
And while you ponder that question here's another for you; Where did your knowledge base come from? Exactly how much of the information you claim to know about the world came from first hand experience or scientific experimentation you conducted yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The titles of each citation are self-explanatory
Sure, but you have to read them to determine whether they actually say what the title claims and whether it in it's totality supports the conclusion you are drawing from it.
so you obfuscate by trying to dwindle down the reality of the issue to one single piece of evidence
No, I'm combating your shotgun argumentation fallacy. Listing 100 pieces of invalid evidence do not prove your case, because 100 invalid points do not add up to one valid point.
I ask you to pick one so we could focus on it and have a much clearer and much more productive conversation than if we were to try and go back and forth on every single one simultaneously. Anyone who stands by their position and argues in good faith would welcome that.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
"Since 1962, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that school-mandated prayers in public schools are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has also ruled that voluntary school prayers are also unconstitutional, because they force some students to be outsiders to the main group, and because they subject dissenters to intense peer group pressure.Now you want to push away my "narrative" with semantics.
And what would you say if this prayer your kids school was mandating came from the Quran?
Why is my prerogative to deny what you believe considered intolerance? Why must I be driven to believe like you? Evolution is still a lie, being sexually immoral (LGBTQ+++++etc) is still wrong. But since you can't get me to kneel, you'll circumvent me and damage the minds of my children.
If teaching your children scientific facts and that it's ok to love who you want to love qualifies as "damaging their minds" you really need to think about what that says about you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
That’s okay. We get it. You have no leg to stand on so you make the usual piss poor lazy ass excuses not to engage. You’re just too intimidated by the evidence so you limp up (impotent), as usual.
lol
So I challenge you to select one link to focus on and all you do is run away at the prospect of actually having to type words to defense your position.
But I'm the lazy one who has no argument.
Let me know when you decide that you're going to try something other than posting links to other people's thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Are they in the room with us now? You seem to have google confused with "everyone".
Google is the gateway to what they have to say genius.
Trust om competence is earned by performance, honesty, and being able to demonstrate the rationality.
Which is what generally elevates one to an authority on a subject
Any true expert (with the appropriate philosophy) can talk your ear off until you say "ok ok, enough details please carry on"
That's why we don't base our assessment of whether one is an authority on how well they speak to us. We base it on whether other experts in the feild regard the individual or the organization as credible.
Still believe the best argument determines the truth regardless of the speaker? Yes I never stop believing that.
You continue to pretend that's where our disagreement is because you can't support your own nonsense with straightforward honest argument.
We're not talking about how truth is ultimately determined. We're talking about how we deal with the fact that we cannot be experts in everything.
Your position appears to be that we never trust any information that we have not verified for ourselves personally, which followed to it's logical end means if your doctor tells you that you need surgery then you will not accept until you have seen all of the test results and had someone explain every fact of how the human body operates before you approve... Actually no you can't accept the facts you were told because you did not verify those yourself so instead you have to perform all of the experiments yourself in order to establish that the human body does in fact work the way they're telling you it does in order to then read all of the test results for yourself in order to determine that their medical assessment is accurate... Then you'll approve.
By then you'll be dead, but at least you didn't appeal to an authority before you formed a belief.
What would you say to me if you tried to show me what to do and my attitude was that I don't need you to show me anything because I can figure it out as I go to get it done just as effectively as you?I'd say you were stupid. There would be a higher level of stupidity though, and that would be if you were listening with rapt attention to another ignorant person who was feeding you nonsense and claiming they heard it from me.
That's exactly the non answer I was expecting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"everyone" just like "everyone" wanted Shokin gone. lol
I would consider literally every credible scientific organization in the world along with every national government on earth to be "everyone".
And yes, just like everyone wanted Shokin gone, proved by the thirteen articles from different parts of the world I provided written at the time all saying the same thing coupled with your inability despite trying to find just one saying otherwise.
But they were all wrong because you know, conspiracy. Or something.
Priests can be right about a multitude of things, but they are not correct because they are priests. To know if they are right about a certain claim one must support the claim with an argument.
Correct, which is what scientists do. In fact that's literally the hallmark of science, the very thing that gives scientific findings it's legitimacy, which is what makes it that much more absurd for someone who knows nothing about the subject matter to reflexively reject scientific findings.
If you didn't have arguments you should have retracted the assertion when challenged.
This isn't a thread about water scarcity, it is a thread about lab grown meat.
If you would have responded to my assertion that the world is running low on drinkable water by telling me that wasn't true, maybe I would have engaged on that topic. Instead you attacked me as being some brainless parrot regurgitating talking points all because I had the temerity to form an opinion about lab grown meat based off of a world wide scientific consensus on the future of water. So this is no longer a conversation about water, it's a conversation philosophy, specifically about expertise as a concept and the role that plays in the decisions and beliefs we make/form everyday of our lives.
It's not a secret, but I won't answer irrelevant questions when it's so obvious it's merely ammunition for informal fallacies.
It's very relevant to this conversation, but we all know why you won't answer it, because you can't without faceplanting.
Since you'll continue to dodge, I'll just take it a step further... I ask what you do for a living because I want to see if you still believe the same thing you're saying when it's you own expertise that's being taken for granted by others. Do you think I could show up and do your job just as good as you on day one without any relevant expertise? What would you say to me if you tried to show me what to do and my attitude was that I don't need you to show me anything because I can figure it out as I go to get it done just as effectively as you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
ALL DROPPED BY DOUBLE_R
You didn't make an argument, so there was nothing for me to drop.
Would you prefer I just did what you did and post a bunch of links in response so we can go back and forth on a link battle?
Or if you'd like, pick just one of your links and I'll explain *why* it doesn't lead to the conclusion you went on to state. I'll even do it on good faith instead of the usual waiting for you to prove that you are willing to type words of your own to defend your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
...and there it is, the delusion of universal consensus among a priesthood. Too many appeals to authority and your brain falls off.
Trying to wrap my head around the absurdity of this post, don't even know where to begin.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe you were the one who said that you fix your own car, fix your own plumbing, file your own taxes, represent yourself in court, diagnose and treat your and your family's health ailments, and perform your own IT at home, because who needs expertise... in... well, anything? Well apparently we can add to that that you're also conducting your own scientific experiments and studies to figure out the viability of the Earth's water supply.
For the rest of us simpletons who don't have a mystical ability to become a nuclear physicist overnight, one way we can determine what the consensus is across the globe is to use Google and figure out what the scientific community is actually saying on this topic. You can perform this experiment yourself, and notice that everyone from all of the fifty states, NASA, the UN, the WHO, and oh yeah, every other country on earth is working on ways - not to prove that there is a coming water crisis - but working on how they're going to address it. You know what you won't be able to find? A single credible organization anywhere on earth claiming otherwise.
And if that experiment is too much for you, here's a dumbed down PBS video explaining it.
But what do any of these people know, they're only authorities on the subject so according to your epistemology that's reason in and if itself to dismiss them. Apparently to you the answer is to find some guy on the internet or to just look around and go "duh look at all the water" and viola!... Claim debunked. Because anything other than that and your brain will fall off.
rather than trying to make an argument from your own understanding.
If I wanted to debate the long term viability of the Earth's fresh water supply I'd issue the challenge. That might even be interesting for the purposes of academic challenge. What's absurd is to convince yourself that accepting the global scientific consensus as the best explanation for any given phenomenon is lazy, anti-intellectual, or to even go as far as implying it's stupid. No one with an IQ above room temperature would conclude that.
BTW I'm really curious, what do you do for a living and how long have you been doing it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
If you believe that then you don't know what evidence means.You're right. Having worked in federal law enforcement, county Sheriff, county DA, and obtaining two degrees in the legal/CJS fields left me ignorant on knowing what evidence means. *FP*
*FP* is absolutely right. If you really have all that experience, you should know better. That's like a math metician who can't multiply or divide, it makes it so much worse.
It's the Federal Government testing how little or how far they can go without resistance which will eventually lead into full blown confiscation through fear and force of (patently unconstitutional) laws concocted to disarm the citizenry and turn America into a socialist/communist state.
Not one thing you've posted supports that conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Also, you cant take people seriously when they say "the earth is going to run out of drinkable water"You really can't. It paint a vivid picture of someone tragically unaware of the nature of the world they live on despite probably receiving an education containing all necessary principles to infer how absurd the statement is.It's the authority based epistemology.
Authority based epistemology... Aka the recognition of the fact that people who study a particular subject for their entire lives tend to know more about it than everyone else who doesn't.
It's remarkably stupid to think that all of the worlds experts who overwhelmingly agree that the earth is running out of fresh water never considered the Amazon Basin or asked themselves "why don't we just build an aqueduct?" I would point you to resources that could explain it to you but I seem to be unable to find anyone who can credibly explain it who's not an expert. I wonder why that is?
Created: