God is omnipresent. He has no "seat" lol
Once more you can only have this thought through the illusion of duality, separateness. Its simply a metaphor.
It is an interesting conversation. But it isn't contradictory in the least once we don't see God as separate from Jesus. God sent himself through Jesus.
Jesus was only a human temporarily. His identity as a human was an illusion, as he was more than his body, more than the qualities of the body he temporarily possessed, he was a man but MORE than just a human and the qualities of man. Jesus isn't separate from God, so he did indeed get his power from god but God is Jesus, so therefore he god his powers from himself... Simply because he talks about God in separate pieces for coherence doesn't mean he was. My water analogy still stands. Just as water can be in separate states doesn't mean it isn't one.
Again you will never change your mind on this topic. The thing is if you were born a Christian you would agree with all of this. You only refuse to see it because you were born into a different religion. I say this as someone who is not even a christian.
I don't understand your salvation argument. I would agree with it, i would just say Islam isn't much different. At least an atheist wouldn't believe it anymore than Christianity. Its filled with tales of flying horses lifting Muhammad up in flames too. Its filled with morals which no one in their right mind would make a maxim in the modern day aswell. Much of shari'ah for instance believe you should have the punishment for death for homosexuality and adultery, all things incompatible with democratic values.
That's your opinion. Catholics have their own doctrine and philosophy which overcomes these problems and so do the Quakers. Watch the meister eckhart video....please lol
If you truly care to get the best answer to this possible and not to simply try to convert people to Islam, then you would watch it if you care for the truth. It would truly refute all your arguments in a manner you would not be able to respond.
"The same water cannot be solid, liquid and gas at the same time, but this is what the trinity is."
wrong.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52562.0
EVEN if water couldn't (which it can) be all 3 at once, why could GOD not be? God is beyond these things.
" If we remove the father, the other 2 parts of the trinity won't. Jesus relies on the Father. Now if Jesus relies on the father, to do whatever, to live, to do miracles etc, then he is dependant. And if Jesus is dependant, then he is not God. It is as simple as that."
Yes, Jesus relies on God. But God is still himself. Just like God relies on himself for his own powers too! you can only think this thought as you still see God as separate pieces.
these are easily your weakest debates in my opinion, rayhan. Your entire argument comes from assuming you know God more than Jesus did. Unless you believe the Bible is 80% lies. Either the Bible is a book full of lies or you know more than a prophet.
"Another analogy for the Trinity is that God is three in one, just as H2O can exist as a solid, a liquid, and a gas. This, too, can be helpful in understanding that there is something about God that is one and something about God that is threefold. However, ice, water, and vapor are three modes of being of H2O. To take this analogy too far would be to think that God exists in three modes and can express being God in three ways. However, the Father, Son, and Spirit are not just modes of being. We might say that this analogy emphasizes the oneness of God at the expense of God’s three-ness."
I think this one was a great analogy, you just cant seem to understand how God can have different qualities from which you imagine him having. You clearly put God into your own mental boxes, of what he should and shouldn't do if he were a self reliant being. If you simply watched ibn arabi, which you still clearly haven't done. You would have an answer to this question a week ago. Just because Jesus chose to indulge in human sensations and eating food etc, doesn't mean he needed too or was even reliant on such things, He clearly wasn't (at least through most of his life). He could do anything he wanted according to scripture, he just didnt to respect free will. He allowed himself to feel pain of a human body and take on our sins. There's no contradictions here, simply black and white thinking. Does God truly lose infinity in your eyes if aspect of his infinity CHOOSE to feel non infinity temporarily? that still doesn't deny the fact God is still overall infinite in his highest form and can attain union with this form once more. Theres a million different sects of Christianity which all have their own consistent philosophies which answer these questions already. Just in their own ways. Catholics say Jesus never sinned, so he never needed to eat. Quakers say he was born a man like me and you, he did sin but attained immortality in oneness with God on the cross. The answers are there. All of them have consistent answers to this in their own way.
I think using analogies is rather pointless when it comes to bodily autonomy rights. It's apparent you can spin bodily autonomy to look strong in either direction (slightly more so for pro-abortion). Which then for me means who wins this debate is on how well Whiteflame can refute Bones' "slave" analogy, and his argument that just because a law is ineffective doesn't mean it shouldn't be in law. which I think shouldn't be that hard to give a good counter argument too if whiteflame spends some time on it. I think Whiteflame is likely to win. He controls the flow of the debate and shifted the burden of proof and most of the heavy lifting back onto bones, when it could of very easily of been on whiteflame if he decided to go down the personhood route.
they earned it but i would necessarily say they deserve it. Having said that i don't think anyone deserves anything. I have no contract given to me i can find in my cupboard which god gave me on what i should and shouldn't expect in this life. I simply want what is pragmatically the best for each individuals personal development.
Something can help both parties, and im not saying having amazon is worse than not having it. I'm saying we can have something BETTER something MORE. We don't have to settle for this when there is better alternatives, as the current model is still built on suffering of a certain sect of the population.
That link doesn't detract from what I've said so far. I'll say it again, irrespective of what is wrote in that pdf. For rich people to exist, someone must not be rich. Otherwise being rich has no value, meaning it wouldn't exist. Therefore to be rich someone must be poor. Even if good billionaires exist, many aren't. To get to the pinnacle of business, on average its going to filter out less ruthless money hungry businesses. Its an immoral model where the more evil are generally destined to win, the only time this doesn't happen is in brand new fields where there isn't a monopoly of evil already (like bill gates with computers). So once more the idea that it can sometimes be fair and sometimes not doesn't justify it for most people. We can do what billionaires do, with the innovation but have the money more spread out with less risks of these big businesses bribing politicians and not working in the peoples interests as much as we would.
Just like a monarch may work in the peoples interest but they will less so then a democracy.
"Billionaires exist because others are poor. How can someone be rich if no one was poor? we live in a world of duality, and if poor people didnt exist rich people couldn't either. Its logically 1 to 1 that bill gates takes the meals of the poor. Just because some billionaires temporarily uplift people, doesn't mean the money doesn't come back to them in the long term."
there can only be so much money in an economy otherwise inflation occurs, which makes wealth worthless. Its common sense.
Bill gates can fight malaria, but it still doesn't deny the perspective that any one individual should not have this much power if it takes away from others. People who defend billionaires simply because they do good deeds is akin to someone defending monarchism and wanting it simply because there's potential for a good king/Queen. The potential negatives outweigh the potential benefits.
How about everyone has more money and let them decide if they want to put it into a certain charity or not? you still cant seem to argue against the idea that the fact bill gates is a billionaire he's literally making people go hungry simply through being so wealthy. How can you justify that simply because he's trying to get a vaccine for malaria? a collectivised group of workers could do exactly what bill gates is doing (in a worker co-op) except now the money is more evenly distributed. I think most people are in denial and don't want to make decisions for themselves so they let big daddy corps make decisions for them with their money.
Billionaires exist because others are poor. How can someone be rich if no one was poor? we live in a world of duality, and if poor people didnt exist rich people couldn't either. Its logically 1 to 1 that bill gates takes the meals of the poor. Just because some billionaires temporarily uplift people, doesn't mean the money doesn't come back to them in the long term.
I don't agree. Bill gates gives money away, but eventually the money comes back too him. There's no actual systemic changes that these people do to stop them from being unnecessarily rich, nothing to stop the long term suffering they create through their economic wealth Its all temporary stuff. If they weren't so rich in the first place, he wouldn't have to give to charities, the people could buy things for themselves and not live on food stamps. All giving to these charities does is numb the economic issue and pretend it doesn't exist, not solve it.
"Every time someone works for Amazon, it's a net benefit."
That doesn't make it moral. Assuming you crash landed on a dessert island, some guy wakes up before you and he claims all the coconuts on the island. He says he will only give you the coconuts if you suck his dick. Do you have a realistic choice not to suck his dick? in the grand scheme of things sucking his dick is a net benefit for you in the long run. Right?
I feel like you can make a marked distinction between someone who's middle class and a CEO of a corp. Now all of what you said is technically correct, there's just some massive symmetry breakers which make them pretty distinct and one arguably far more immoral.
I don't care about my rating personally, fuck the ego. I debate everything, (such as my prison argument I obviously don't agree with). I don't care about taking losses. Most of the best in any sport or competition almost always have losses as to be undefeated either means you're not human or didn't vs good competition. Look at Muhammad ail. No one considers wilt chamberlain the best basketball player ever despite his numbers being better than Michael Jordan, because he vs'd bums. Simply a modern day athlete in a time where basketball was just beginning.
I find debates like these shaky, who constitutes who deserves what? hard work? For me personally, no matter how someone attains their wealth, it doesnt justify the fact that through being a billionaire you make a family go hungry. There can only be so much money in the economy after all, so the less its spread out the more the ones at the top perpetuate suffering and poverty. But i digress, i hope you win.
Abortion laws differ widely depending on state. I'm unsure why you have this monolithic view that everyone should in law view abortion as wrong based on the amendments. Many People read these amendments and still disagree. That's all I'm saying, it detracts nothing from Bones' arguments that you bring that up. Its clear you brought it up because you think its obvious.
"What you think, feel, or believe is of no consequence. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. Period."
I just shown you can put your argument back on you.
"Nothing applies to an actual baby outside the womb to that which is prior to birth."
Babies don't actually develop self awareness, till they're about...6 months I believe? therefore they have no moral autonomy of their own.
"Nothing applies to an actual baby outside the womb to that which is prior to birth. Fact. There are no babies in the womb when 94% of ALL abortions are BEFORE 14 weeks gestation, the majority of those before 6 weeks. He cannot turn the argument back on me. No one can. Science is clear. You all are in denial of those fact based truths."
I'm pro abortion. You just come across like a zealous lunatic with your black and white thinking. There's nuance here and you ignore everything Bones says which is true.
interesting arguments, but a lot of what you said just didnt resonate with me personally. Just because the 14th amendment says something doesn't make it logically more consistent, appeal to authority.
Your argument against bones between the difference of a fetus and a baby felt like a strawman to me. He's well aware the same applies to babies outside of the womb, so if we see it as bad to kill babies outside the womb it should for babies inside the womb, right? he could just turn that argument back on you.
Christ warns against being a drunkard, or drinking to the point of intoxication. But Jesus did drink wine on occasions but never shown to be more than a cup of wine or more than a few sips at Passover.
"A woman may want more than 1 husband, it is her choice. No one is stopping her. But we look at the domestic cases and even with 1 husband, the abuse is much. After the Euros 2020, when England lost to Italy on pens, the domestic issues were through the roof. That is with 1 husband as well. Plus, sure, that woman may feel like she can handle it. She can have 4 husbands. However these 4 husbands will 99% not be Muslim, as they will be going against their own religion. She sins if she has more than 1 husband, it is as simple as that."
Its still exceptionally individual. Creating moral maxims such as this laid upon all people just are not practical, they deny human individuality and our unique natures.
Drinking alcohol is barely a sin in Christianity, i don't know where you get that from. Jesus is painted multiple times as drinking alcohol or offering it to others all throughout the bible. If anything all they advocate is moderation.
Islam has to change otherwise people will only follow Islam in name and culture. Just like has been happening to Christianity. Christianity is the most "followed" religion in name, yet most people who say they're Christians half of them don't even believe in God nor go to church, its simply culture. The same thing will happen to Islam. People stopped following Christianity due to increases in education and scientific progress. We now know there is not really much philosophical moral groundwork for laws such as, "kill all gay people" proclaimed in the old testament. Its simply outdated for modern living.
Religions have to change to the times, or they simply die. Once they lose their practical value for self development, why keep it around?
"-Men can be more abusive to a vulnerable wife when there is 4 of them and 1 of her"
its still her choice, a man runs a heightened risk of having domestic troubles with more than 1 wife too. Maybe this is heightened more for a woman but its still a double standard. We have laws in place to protect these women from domestic abuse, as we do men.
-Women are more emotional in biology so they would not cope with 8 children (2 from each father) plus sex every week and 8 children to give birth to, could be more
why does she need to have 2 children from each father? didnt prophet Muhammad take on baron women? Women handle kids better than men do, on average.
"The men are naturally more stronger, more dominant so there will be fights which would pressure the woman."
not all men are primitive.
"-Women need to work too to look after her children, if you ask why can't the fathers do it, who will look after the kids?"
if all of them work they can pay a babysitter. All of these arguments you made just make it more of an inconvenience for a woman to have more than 1 husband. But its also more of an inconvenience for a man to have more than 1 wife. Even if we grant its more of an issue for women, its still definitely doable, and why shouldn't she if she wanted? all the issues you pose aren't major problems which cannot be overcome in the modern day.
you never actually refute my arguments. You just start talking about something else and saying "google more" I'm very well aware of Aisha's life and the mental gymnastics people do to try and make her appear older than 9 when Muhammad slept with her. I've said it before and ill say it again. If women cant have more than 1 husband so we know who the father is, that doesn't apply to the modern day. We have genetic testing........I've brought this up too you and you just ignore it you have no argument against it. You just essentially say "its different" without explaining why. When you cannot answer these questions head on but pretend they don't exist, its obvious why people are thinking you're a bit inflexible in your thinking.
I don't care what she thought of her marriage nor Muhammad. I'm not saying he couldn't be a good husband, she was a victim of her times. So its understandable she may of even liked her marriage. That still doesn't mean she could consent. She was still by definition, groomed. That's all i want to talk about, i don't care if she LOVED her marriage. That still doesn't mean she could consent or wasn't groomed.
You think really think a 6 year old can consent to marry a 40 year old man? i don't think any 6 year old is smart enough to consent to marriage. Not even a 200 IQ 6 year old. What was she, an alien with a galaxy brain? if you had a 6 year old daughter and she said she wants to marry some old guy she seen on TV would you take it serious? no, you would laugh.
What "tests" do they do in Islam? In Islam they don't check mental maturity, simply if they can procreate or not. As far as im aware. Even by ancient standards prophet Muhammad would of been considered a pedophile. Girls menstruate earlier than ever these days, during those times the average age was 15. Now its around 12 for most girls (we think its mostly to do with diet). So Aisha getting it at 9 is exceptionally unusual. Any child psychologist or professional who studies with SCIENCE these vectors, would say this stuff is wrong and is grooming. I don't really care if it was normal during those days, that simply displays that the Quran nor its teachings are necessarily infallible or timeless.
I watched the video, and at best, all he did was what aboutism, pointing out flaws in the western system (that some women who are 16 cannot consent nor conceive). The age of consent is simply a general base line, and if a girl or boy cannot consent at that age, it has to be done matter-by-matter, case by case through mental evaluation tests. If someone is deemed mentally too slow to work a job then too are they to consent to marriage. If this happens to a 16-year-old and they're too mentally impaired to consent or practically carry out these tasks, then it would be considered rape to sleep with them. His entire argument was a strawman argument, if we do a test on a 16 year old and deem them mentally 10 years old, you CANNOT have sex with them. There's a reason we have "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which state if the legal aged person in the act is still a teen, the other person cannot be more than 4 years older than them. This is to reduce the harm to the teen, even assuming they were slightly behind others of their age group.
I'm unsure why her lifestyle is relevant to any of the critiques i offered you. Think of it this way; if you think Prophet Muhammad was fine having sex with a 9 year old, and marrying a 6 year old then to be consistent you also have to admit that children of this age ought to be considered adults in other regards if they're capable of sexual consent. If a child can consent to sex at 9 (which is one of the most important and personal things one can do) then you also have to admit children of this age should be able to be truck drivers, bartenders and other such jobs. If you agree they cant do these jobs then why can Aisha consent to marriage? the logical answer was that she couldn't and she was groomed.
In the modern era, Aisha would be considered to of been groomed. Even IF we granted the fact she became an adult at 9. She was given over to prophet Muhammad when she was 6, do you think she did that of her own will, or her fathers? if i wouldn't trust a 9 year old to work a job, like an adult or to get a drivers license or drink responsibility. Why do you trust her being able to consent to marriage with a man old enough to be her grandfather?
i love how some dude gets banned simply for a offensive name. Yet we have guys calling other peoples gods pigs and to low-key commit suicide and no one cares.
Strong first argument whiteflame, its good that you didnt get trapped arguing against his syllogisms. I think you did everything you needed to do to potentially win the debate. I think if you tried to argue personhood with bones in the first round, you would of instantly lost. I'm glad you instead chose to pretty much ignore everything he said and instead argue to the ineffectively of abortion laws.
I believe there is only biological inputs. Socialisation or culture, is simply what biological impulses are allowed to be expressed, but we agree there. Free will is a lie, bones.
"I have no idea what that means. How can gender be determined absolutely by biology if it is (or "has been") a cultural construct?"
Its a social construct that men should be the breadwinners (at least through most of history and society.) Yet you would be very incorrect if you thought there was not overwhelmingly biological reasons for why men are more aggressive than women (such as the fact men occupy 90% of the space in prisons). No amount of socialisation could equalise that number. You're living in la la land if you think it can. Men are more predisposed to violence genetically, women in the right situations can have those same genes expressed its just harder for them too be. genders, and cultures are made from genetic predispositions such as the fact violent cultures are much more likely to be patriarchal. E.g. artistic societies have more rights for women. Cultures, and what culture becomes dominant is based on socialisation but socialization is based on genetic predispositions and which come to the forth front depending on said environment. How flexible someone's genome is in different circumstances is likely individual.
You're funny TWS, you remind me of backwardseden.
Whatever you say sir
God is omnipresent. He has no "seat" lol
Once more you can only have this thought through the illusion of duality, separateness. Its simply a metaphor.
It is an interesting conversation. But it isn't contradictory in the least once we don't see God as separate from Jesus. God sent himself through Jesus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg0c32KbA-g&t=2s
its a long video, you can put it in 1.5x speed if you find it long.
Jesus was only a human temporarily. His identity as a human was an illusion, as he was more than his body, more than the qualities of the body he temporarily possessed, he was a man but MORE than just a human and the qualities of man. Jesus isn't separate from God, so he did indeed get his power from god but God is Jesus, so therefore he god his powers from himself... Simply because he talks about God in separate pieces for coherence doesn't mean he was. My water analogy still stands. Just as water can be in separate states doesn't mean it isn't one.
Again you will never change your mind on this topic. The thing is if you were born a Christian you would agree with all of this. You only refuse to see it because you were born into a different religion. I say this as someone who is not even a christian.
I don't understand your salvation argument. I would agree with it, i would just say Islam isn't much different. At least an atheist wouldn't believe it anymore than Christianity. Its filled with tales of flying horses lifting Muhammad up in flames too. Its filled with morals which no one in their right mind would make a maxim in the modern day aswell. Much of shari'ah for instance believe you should have the punishment for death for homosexuality and adultery, all things incompatible with democratic values.
That's your opinion. Catholics have their own doctrine and philosophy which overcomes these problems and so do the Quakers. Watch the meister eckhart video....please lol
If you truly care to get the best answer to this possible and not to simply try to convert people to Islam, then you would watch it if you care for the truth. It would truly refute all your arguments in a manner you would not be able to respond.
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-state-of-matter-can-be-solid-and-liquid-at-the-same-time
"The same water cannot be solid, liquid and gas at the same time, but this is what the trinity is."
wrong.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52562.0
EVEN if water couldn't (which it can) be all 3 at once, why could GOD not be? God is beyond these things.
" If we remove the father, the other 2 parts of the trinity won't. Jesus relies on the Father. Now if Jesus relies on the father, to do whatever, to live, to do miracles etc, then he is dependant. And if Jesus is dependant, then he is not God. It is as simple as that."
Yes, Jesus relies on God. But God is still himself. Just like God relies on himself for his own powers too! you can only think this thought as you still see God as separate pieces.
these are easily your weakest debates in my opinion, rayhan. Your entire argument comes from assuming you know God more than Jesus did. Unless you believe the Bible is 80% lies. Either the Bible is a book full of lies or you know more than a prophet.
"Another analogy for the Trinity is that God is three in one, just as H2O can exist as a solid, a liquid, and a gas. This, too, can be helpful in understanding that there is something about God that is one and something about God that is threefold. However, ice, water, and vapor are three modes of being of H2O. To take this analogy too far would be to think that God exists in three modes and can express being God in three ways. However, the Father, Son, and Spirit are not just modes of being. We might say that this analogy emphasizes the oneness of God at the expense of God’s three-ness."
I think this one was a great analogy, you just cant seem to understand how God can have different qualities from which you imagine him having. You clearly put God into your own mental boxes, of what he should and shouldn't do if he were a self reliant being. If you simply watched ibn arabi, which you still clearly haven't done. You would have an answer to this question a week ago. Just because Jesus chose to indulge in human sensations and eating food etc, doesn't mean he needed too or was even reliant on such things, He clearly wasn't (at least through most of his life). He could do anything he wanted according to scripture, he just didnt to respect free will. He allowed himself to feel pain of a human body and take on our sins. There's no contradictions here, simply black and white thinking. Does God truly lose infinity in your eyes if aspect of his infinity CHOOSE to feel non infinity temporarily? that still doesn't deny the fact God is still overall infinite in his highest form and can attain union with this form once more. Theres a million different sects of Christianity which all have their own consistent philosophies which answer these questions already. Just in their own ways. Catholics say Jesus never sinned, so he never needed to eat. Quakers say he was born a man like me and you, he did sin but attained immortality in oneness with God on the cross. The answers are there. All of them have consistent answers to this in their own way.
I think using analogies is rather pointless when it comes to bodily autonomy rights. It's apparent you can spin bodily autonomy to look strong in either direction (slightly more so for pro-abortion). Which then for me means who wins this debate is on how well Whiteflame can refute Bones' "slave" analogy, and his argument that just because a law is ineffective doesn't mean it shouldn't be in law. which I think shouldn't be that hard to give a good counter argument too if whiteflame spends some time on it. I think Whiteflame is likely to win. He controls the flow of the debate and shifted the burden of proof and most of the heavy lifting back onto bones, when it could of very easily of been on whiteflame if he decided to go down the personhood route.
I'll probably put a vote on this sometime in the future. I haven't read it all just yet. Its quite a hefty text.
they earned it but i would necessarily say they deserve it. Having said that i don't think anyone deserves anything. I have no contract given to me i can find in my cupboard which god gave me on what i should and shouldn't expect in this life. I simply want what is pragmatically the best for each individuals personal development.
Something can help both parties, and im not saying having amazon is worse than not having it. I'm saying we can have something BETTER something MORE. We don't have to settle for this when there is better alternatives, as the current model is still built on suffering of a certain sect of the population.
That link doesn't detract from what I've said so far. I'll say it again, irrespective of what is wrote in that pdf. For rich people to exist, someone must not be rich. Otherwise being rich has no value, meaning it wouldn't exist. Therefore to be rich someone must be poor. Even if good billionaires exist, many aren't. To get to the pinnacle of business, on average its going to filter out less ruthless money hungry businesses. Its an immoral model where the more evil are generally destined to win, the only time this doesn't happen is in brand new fields where there isn't a monopoly of evil already (like bill gates with computers). So once more the idea that it can sometimes be fair and sometimes not doesn't justify it for most people. We can do what billionaires do, with the innovation but have the money more spread out with less risks of these big businesses bribing politicians and not working in the peoples interests as much as we would.
Just like a monarch may work in the peoples interest but they will less so then a democracy.
"Billionaires exist because others are poor. How can someone be rich if no one was poor? we live in a world of duality, and if poor people didnt exist rich people couldn't either. Its logically 1 to 1 that bill gates takes the meals of the poor. Just because some billionaires temporarily uplift people, doesn't mean the money doesn't come back to them in the long term."
there can only be so much money in an economy otherwise inflation occurs, which makes wealth worthless. Its common sense.
Bill gates can fight malaria, but it still doesn't deny the perspective that any one individual should not have this much power if it takes away from others. People who defend billionaires simply because they do good deeds is akin to someone defending monarchism and wanting it simply because there's potential for a good king/Queen. The potential negatives outweigh the potential benefits.
How about everyone has more money and let them decide if they want to put it into a certain charity or not? you still cant seem to argue against the idea that the fact bill gates is a billionaire he's literally making people go hungry simply through being so wealthy. How can you justify that simply because he's trying to get a vaccine for malaria? a collectivised group of workers could do exactly what bill gates is doing (in a worker co-op) except now the money is more evenly distributed. I think most people are in denial and don't want to make decisions for themselves so they let big daddy corps make decisions for them with their money.
Billionaires exist because others are poor. How can someone be rich if no one was poor? we live in a world of duality, and if poor people didnt exist rich people couldn't either. Its logically 1 to 1 that bill gates takes the meals of the poor. Just because some billionaires temporarily uplift people, doesn't mean the money doesn't come back to them in the long term.
I don't agree. Bill gates gives money away, but eventually the money comes back too him. There's no actual systemic changes that these people do to stop them from being unnecessarily rich, nothing to stop the long term suffering they create through their economic wealth Its all temporary stuff. If they weren't so rich in the first place, he wouldn't have to give to charities, the people could buy things for themselves and not live on food stamps. All giving to these charities does is numb the economic issue and pretend it doesn't exist, not solve it.
"Every time someone works for Amazon, it's a net benefit."
That doesn't make it moral. Assuming you crash landed on a dessert island, some guy wakes up before you and he claims all the coconuts on the island. He says he will only give you the coconuts if you suck his dick. Do you have a realistic choice not to suck his dick? in the grand scheme of things sucking his dick is a net benefit for you in the long run. Right?
I feel like you can make a marked distinction between someone who's middle class and a CEO of a corp. Now all of what you said is technically correct, there's just some massive symmetry breakers which make them pretty distinct and one arguably far more immoral.
I don't care about my rating personally, fuck the ego. I debate everything, (such as my prison argument I obviously don't agree with). I don't care about taking losses. Most of the best in any sport or competition almost always have losses as to be undefeated either means you're not human or didn't vs good competition. Look at Muhammad ail. No one considers wilt chamberlain the best basketball player ever despite his numbers being better than Michael Jordan, because he vs'd bums. Simply a modern day athlete in a time where basketball was just beginning.
I find debates like these shaky, who constitutes who deserves what? hard work? For me personally, no matter how someone attains their wealth, it doesnt justify the fact that through being a billionaire you make a family go hungry. There can only be so much money in the economy after all, so the less its spread out the more the ones at the top perpetuate suffering and poverty. But i digress, i hope you win.
yesterdaystomorrow is better than you're probably expecting! i debated them on vaccines one time, I lost.
Fun debate my beloved.
"a pregnancy is not on Earth"
yeah, its in outer orbit.
Abortion laws differ widely depending on state. I'm unsure why you have this monolithic view that everyone should in law view abortion as wrong based on the amendments. Many People read these amendments and still disagree. That's all I'm saying, it detracts nothing from Bones' arguments that you bring that up. Its clear you brought it up because you think its obvious.
"What you think, feel, or believe is of no consequence. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. Period."
I just shown you can put your argument back on you.
"Nothing applies to an actual baby outside the womb to that which is prior to birth."
Babies don't actually develop self awareness, till they're about...6 months I believe? therefore they have no moral autonomy of their own.
"Nothing applies to an actual baby outside the womb to that which is prior to birth. Fact. There are no babies in the womb when 94% of ALL abortions are BEFORE 14 weeks gestation, the majority of those before 6 weeks. He cannot turn the argument back on me. No one can. Science is clear. You all are in denial of those fact based truths."
I'm pro abortion. You just come across like a zealous lunatic with your black and white thinking. There's nuance here and you ignore everything Bones says which is true.
interesting arguments, but a lot of what you said just didnt resonate with me personally. Just because the 14th amendment says something doesn't make it logically more consistent, appeal to authority.
Your argument against bones between the difference of a fetus and a baby felt like a strawman to me. He's well aware the same applies to babies outside of the womb, so if we see it as bad to kill babies outside the womb it should for babies inside the womb, right? he could just turn that argument back on you.
Good luck with your house move mr bones, i hope you enjoy your new home sir.
good arguments lads.
Good luck to both debaters, seems like a fun topic!
Christ warns against being a drunkard, or drinking to the point of intoxication. But Jesus did drink wine on occasions but never shown to be more than a cup of wine or more than a few sips at Passover.
"A woman may want more than 1 husband, it is her choice. No one is stopping her. But we look at the domestic cases and even with 1 husband, the abuse is much. After the Euros 2020, when England lost to Italy on pens, the domestic issues were through the roof. That is with 1 husband as well. Plus, sure, that woman may feel like she can handle it. She can have 4 husbands. However these 4 husbands will 99% not be Muslim, as they will be going against their own religion. She sins if she has more than 1 husband, it is as simple as that."
Its still exceptionally individual. Creating moral maxims such as this laid upon all people just are not practical, they deny human individuality and our unique natures.
Drinking alcohol is barely a sin in Christianity, i don't know where you get that from. Jesus is painted multiple times as drinking alcohol or offering it to others all throughout the bible. If anything all they advocate is moderation.
Islam has to change otherwise people will only follow Islam in name and culture. Just like has been happening to Christianity. Christianity is the most "followed" religion in name, yet most people who say they're Christians half of them don't even believe in God nor go to church, its simply culture. The same thing will happen to Islam. People stopped following Christianity due to increases in education and scientific progress. We now know there is not really much philosophical moral groundwork for laws such as, "kill all gay people" proclaimed in the old testament. Its simply outdated for modern living.
Just admit there is no reason, you just find it disgusting.
Religions have to change to the times, or they simply die. Once they lose their practical value for self development, why keep it around?
"-Men can be more abusive to a vulnerable wife when there is 4 of them and 1 of her"
its still her choice, a man runs a heightened risk of having domestic troubles with more than 1 wife too. Maybe this is heightened more for a woman but its still a double standard. We have laws in place to protect these women from domestic abuse, as we do men.
-Women are more emotional in biology so they would not cope with 8 children (2 from each father) plus sex every week and 8 children to give birth to, could be more
why does she need to have 2 children from each father? didnt prophet Muhammad take on baron women? Women handle kids better than men do, on average.
"The men are naturally more stronger, more dominant so there will be fights which would pressure the woman."
not all men are primitive.
"-Women need to work too to look after her children, if you ask why can't the fathers do it, who will look after the kids?"
if all of them work they can pay a babysitter. All of these arguments you made just make it more of an inconvenience for a woman to have more than 1 husband. But its also more of an inconvenience for a man to have more than 1 wife. Even if we grant its more of an issue for women, its still definitely doable, and why shouldn't she if she wanted? all the issues you pose aren't major problems which cannot be overcome in the modern day.
you never actually refute my arguments. You just start talking about something else and saying "google more" I'm very well aware of Aisha's life and the mental gymnastics people do to try and make her appear older than 9 when Muhammad slept with her. I've said it before and ill say it again. If women cant have more than 1 husband so we know who the father is, that doesn't apply to the modern day. We have genetic testing........I've brought this up too you and you just ignore it you have no argument against it. You just essentially say "its different" without explaining why. When you cannot answer these questions head on but pretend they don't exist, its obvious why people are thinking you're a bit inflexible in your thinking.
He didnt even put it in the description. Its his own fault if he wants to be ambiguous.
I don't care what she thought of her marriage nor Muhammad. I'm not saying he couldn't be a good husband, she was a victim of her times. So its understandable she may of even liked her marriage. That still doesn't mean she could consent. She was still by definition, groomed. That's all i want to talk about, i don't care if she LOVED her marriage. That still doesn't mean she could consent or wasn't groomed.
Her father wanted his daughter to marry him for his own political power and influence.
You think really think a 6 year old can consent to marry a 40 year old man? i don't think any 6 year old is smart enough to consent to marriage. Not even a 200 IQ 6 year old. What was she, an alien with a galaxy brain? if you had a 6 year old daughter and she said she wants to marry some old guy she seen on TV would you take it serious? no, you would laugh.
What "tests" do they do in Islam? In Islam they don't check mental maturity, simply if they can procreate or not. As far as im aware. Even by ancient standards prophet Muhammad would of been considered a pedophile. Girls menstruate earlier than ever these days, during those times the average age was 15. Now its around 12 for most girls (we think its mostly to do with diet). So Aisha getting it at 9 is exceptionally unusual. Any child psychologist or professional who studies with SCIENCE these vectors, would say this stuff is wrong and is grooming. I don't really care if it was normal during those days, that simply displays that the Quran nor its teachings are necessarily infallible or timeless.
The debate prompt is if a gender pay gap exists, not why.
I watched the video, and at best, all he did was what aboutism, pointing out flaws in the western system (that some women who are 16 cannot consent nor conceive). The age of consent is simply a general base line, and if a girl or boy cannot consent at that age, it has to be done matter-by-matter, case by case through mental evaluation tests. If someone is deemed mentally too slow to work a job then too are they to consent to marriage. If this happens to a 16-year-old and they're too mentally impaired to consent or practically carry out these tasks, then it would be considered rape to sleep with them. His entire argument was a strawman argument, if we do a test on a 16 year old and deem them mentally 10 years old, you CANNOT have sex with them. There's a reason we have "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which state if the legal aged person in the act is still a teen, the other person cannot be more than 4 years older than them. This is to reduce the harm to the teen, even assuming they were slightly behind others of their age group.
trying to farm an easy win lol
I'm unsure why her lifestyle is relevant to any of the critiques i offered you. Think of it this way; if you think Prophet Muhammad was fine having sex with a 9 year old, and marrying a 6 year old then to be consistent you also have to admit that children of this age ought to be considered adults in other regards if they're capable of sexual consent. If a child can consent to sex at 9 (which is one of the most important and personal things one can do) then you also have to admit children of this age should be able to be truck drivers, bartenders and other such jobs. If you agree they cant do these jobs then why can Aisha consent to marriage? the logical answer was that she couldn't and she was groomed.
In the modern era, Aisha would be considered to of been groomed. Even IF we granted the fact she became an adult at 9. She was given over to prophet Muhammad when she was 6, do you think she did that of her own will, or her fathers? if i wouldn't trust a 9 year old to work a job, like an adult or to get a drivers license or drink responsibility. Why do you trust her being able to consent to marriage with a man old enough to be her grandfather?
i love how some dude gets banned simply for a offensive name. Yet we have guys calling other peoples gods pigs and to low-key commit suicide and no one cares.
Strong first argument whiteflame, its good that you didnt get trapped arguing against his syllogisms. I think you did everything you needed to do to potentially win the debate. I think if you tried to argue personhood with bones in the first round, you would of instantly lost. I'm glad you instead chose to pretty much ignore everything he said and instead argue to the ineffectively of abortion laws.
I believe there is only biological inputs. Socialisation or culture, is simply what biological impulses are allowed to be expressed, but we agree there. Free will is a lie, bones.
"I have no idea what that means. How can gender be determined absolutely by biology if it is (or "has been") a cultural construct?"
Its a social construct that men should be the breadwinners (at least through most of history and society.) Yet you would be very incorrect if you thought there was not overwhelmingly biological reasons for why men are more aggressive than women (such as the fact men occupy 90% of the space in prisons). No amount of socialisation could equalise that number. You're living in la la land if you think it can. Men are more predisposed to violence genetically, women in the right situations can have those same genes expressed its just harder for them too be. genders, and cultures are made from genetic predispositions such as the fact violent cultures are much more likely to be patriarchal. E.g. artistic societies have more rights for women. Cultures, and what culture becomes dominant is based on socialisation but socialization is based on genetic predispositions and which come to the forth front depending on said environment. How flexible someone's genome is in different circumstances is likely individual.