This has to be my favourite debate on the site so far. I just wish you both didn't take 4 days to make an argument ( to feed my entertainment), but quality over quantity, I suppose. I don't know how you can take 4 days to make an argument. If I simply leave my argument static or if I simply switch to a different tab for a while, my argument literally disappears. If I close my debate argument and re-open it, it's gone. Any advice?
Morality = a set of rules, explicit or implicit, governing the intrinsic good or bad nature of an action
Objective morality = morality exists as a universal property outside of an individual perceiver
I would probably disagree with your objective morality definition. What may be objectively correct for me to eat (assuming objective morality) is going to be different from that of a rabbit and what is right for them. Morality doesn't have to be universal for it to be objective.
Just as moral relativism can act as a universal subjective and a non-universal subjective, why can't the same be applied to objective morality? There could be relative-objective moral facts too. I will soon prove that to you when i dunk on you in our debate.
Its not common sense. Many academic studies disagree with your common sense. Its common sense to most people women are worse drivers, yet if we google the statistics men are more likely to drive dangerously and to be in crashes. What is "common sense" can be skewed by your environment and own biases, the data disagrees with you until you can show me it doesnt. I have about 20 hyperlinks in my first round argument, I'm unsure why you think its uncontested truth.
I said ok because it seems like you have said a bunch of stuff i agree with (such as black people having more run down homes) the issue is you linked no studies for why they have rundown homes more often, whilst i did in my debate. There's just nothing for me to comment on, as there's nothing to critique, its an emotional argument, you're saying stuff without evidence. You can say its untrue, but can you prove it? your own personal opinion doesn't hold light compared to the empirical studies i linked backing my view with the same resolution.
That's a really good video, thank you for sharing. If someone has no arms and legs they cannot riot. Although on a personal note im very much in favour of rehabilitatory justice. A vengeance based justice system stops pretty much nothing. A fire will not put out a fire, therefore only the opposite of hate will rid it.
Even if we were generous and said stock market investors "actively" up-kept people's jobs (which is untrue, they expand companies, not maintain them. People don't invest in non-growing/failing businesses). We could calculate how much someone has invested in the company, and (potentially) divide the money they invested compared to the overall profits to decide how much they "deserve" for their contribution and how much the workers get to keep extra in their pockets based on surplus value created. This makes sure poor workers are not being robbed of the money they generate through surplus value.
"Policing racial disparities are racial disparities that pertain only to the conduct of the police force in interaction with society and the community at large only."
Who told you policing racial disparities are disparities that pertain only to the conduct of the police? that's why i accepted the debate, who in their right mind would think this was the condition of the debate? the condition itself is simply wrong on what policing racial disparities mean....you must of looked up some super bad definition. Its frustrating people are likely to vote against me in this debate when your premise condition itself is wrong, definitional.
It's pretty common knowledge that predominantly black schools are funded less and their properties are worth less (because they're black). When we study "policing racial disparities" factors which lead to more run ins with the police outside of simply bias on the police is always paramount and factored in, in sociology we don't leave racial policing disparities to only the police being racist, hence our missunderstanding. Only extremely far left people believe the police itself is the main contributor to racist policing disparities. No sincere researcher nor someone who believes in systemic racism believes what you want to debate except blue-haired women who spend too much time reading propaganda on twitter. Police disparities do exist on average, and the reason for it is because of past racist laws. This has far more to do than with just the police, but to do with economics created through unfair laws. The title is extremely misleading, as people who have done research are aware most racial disparities come about due to racist laws not involving the police but leading black communities to inevitably be in more run-ins with the police because of said laws (hence my lead argument). The police are still slightly biased interpersonally against black people, but it's definitely not enough to account for more than 50%.
It seems like a sincere misunderstanding. So I understand. Outside of that, I never realised I only had a 24-argumentation time limit until I accepted the debate. Which would be fine if it were the weekend, but I work a job. And I actually don't disagree with you. I thought we were going to argue about overall racial disparities (based on the title, and the description just wasn't descriptive enough or ruled out other factors, as even in sociology we don't leave racial policing disparities to ONLY the police being racist).
Policing racial disparities are not created only due to the police, i never realised this was the condition but thought it was simply what you believed.
Even TWS didn't notice this ridiculousness. Policing racial disparities are not created only due to the police, pretty much ever. Why didn't you make the debate title, "the majority of police racial disparities are due to factors outside of just police racism?" at least then its congruent with your description.
Your title is extremely misleading. Your title is in direct contradiction to what you really want to argue about in the description. The average disparities in crime between black and white people are the result of systemically racist laws in the past. Policing and racial disparities within the police are due to the lingering effects of said laws. If you truly only wanted to talk about why police disparities exist and not talk about other factors outside of the police, it seems like you were just looking for a gotcha debate.
Yeah, ok. The vast majority of sociological studies show that systemic racism does affect the average outcomes of people based on race. Sowell is an economist. Systemic racism is not even his field of study. There are many experts who are in this field of sociological study who have conducted the studies and disagree with his assessment of their studies.
They don't. I've invested in the stock market and the vast, vast majority of people have no say in how the business is run. The only time you do is if you have a majority share in the company, and even then you're not involved in day-to-day running. That responsibility falls to the board of directors and the internal management structure of the company. There's a difference between a CEO and someone who is a shareholder in a company. The only people who fulfil this criteria of having a say in a stock market company are billionaires.
Your debate title can be misleading. You say belief in god is self-defeating but you agreed with me in the comments that pantheism isn't, which is a form of god. Maybe you don't have to change the title (preferably you should, but it seems hard to do so). Just add more specifications to the description. But what you said seems good enough.
How is the second part of the debate topic assuming Con is atheist? Con can simply argue their own religion they believe if they truly think its the most truthful one.
Thomas Sowell? An interesting choice. I don't respect Thomas Sowell as a thinker. I'm more than ready for any "critiques" of what I presented he may have. He has some extremely bizarre views, such as his "red neck blacks" theory. Nothing he said back in the 1980's is going to stack up to the multitude of modern day academic studies which disagree with him and show how wrong he is. He's a typical conservative "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" kind of guy, and constantly appeals to the false correlation fallacy.
Paul Tillich could be described as a pantheist, although he himself would hate to be lumped in with pantheism, as he believed God was beyond even being. "Pantheism" is extremely common among famous philosophers. I personally disagree with him on many points, but I agree with him on others. I generally agree more with Hegel and Spinoza on God. I find his argument for God not being "being" nonsensical and contradictory. It assumes God cannot be the origin of being while being it, which he very easily could be if he's timeless (as energy we know already is), meaning no before him is necessary, meaning no need for a source of being outside of his existence, but I digress.
"Your concept of god (god being energy, energy being god) has nothing against naturalistic ontology and ontological naturalism.
You may become a pantheist for example, saying the universe itself is god. That too is not violating naturalism. But nor pantheistic neither your proposal is super-naturalistic god."
I'm unsure what the distinction criteria between a "naturalistic god" and a "super naturalistic god" are.
"But does the dad actively keep up their daughter’s job? Does the dad still have direct control on the daughter’s spending and have the decision weather the daughter is fired?"
Let's assume he doesn't actively keep up with his daughter's job. He just raised her to be healthy. He created her. To compare it then to a CEO, if the father is not entitled materially to his daughter's earnings because he doesn't actively upkeep his daughters' job nor manage her, by that definition, many people who have large swaths of a company's shares are not entitled to materially benefit. Consider the NSDAQ 100. According to your counter-argument, these people are not eligible or deserving of the wealth they earn from the stock market because they have no say in the day-to-day operations of the companies in which they invest into.
It's very easy to say deism/God can exist even within a naturalistic framework. The spectrums of energy our physical senses can interact with are exceptionally slim compared to what we know is out there....... That's not even considering what we don't know, which will almost certainly be much more.
In theory, God could exist as a form of energy like me and you. After all, we know energy can create consciousness, we're evidence of it. He could simply just exist as energy in a completely different vibrational spectrum, hence why he's invisible and undetectable.
" Say the company owner of McDonald’s gets 10 dollars a year per worker. Only 83 cents per month I stress. The owner will have generated 2 million dollars per year.
The top 1% creates most all the jobs and logically gets a share of the job. They owner created the job and therefore should be given some time part from it in return — or at the very least they certainly earned the money."
If i created my daughter, and she later decided to create an onlyfans, am i entitled to a cut of the money she generates since i created her? I gave her the ability to work that job, after all. I don't see why after a while a CEO shouldn't just get a nice fixed wage, which is exceptionally comfortable but not enough to make others not have food on the table.
I simply use this analogy to show you just because someone gave someone an opportunity for something and sacrificed time for you to have that doesn't mean you should owe them. This demonstrates either your thought process is incorrect or you never concluded a symmetry breaker between a CEO-employee relationship and other sorts of relationships of this same created nature.
My burden of proof was never to prove pantheism doesn't eradicate some individuality but more so that individuality does remain in pantheism. Even without pantheism you have a lack of individuality in many areas. I felt like that was a strawman that you said that, but that's to be expected (from reading your about me). You cannot divide the user from the account, btw.
I'm not going to respond to anything you've said in your first round argument. I have my own statistics to share, which will take up my character limit. I'll only respond to what you presented in round two.
"I'm skeptical of rebirth and much prefer it being called reincarnation if it is a thing. You're only truly born once, the rest are your later avatars. I'm a nature over nurture type of person and I don't see it as pessimistic, instead I understand that an idiot literally cannot think their way out of their retarded brain chemistry, memories etc. This applies to muchore."
I'm unsure why you think the original is any better than the paraphrase. By definition idiot has the same definition of someone with down syndrome, no one uses the word idiot to mean lazy. it means foolish in modern language, but the fact you later backed it up with the r word lead me to believe you didnt mean just foolish people but those with down syndrome. The problem wasn't me taking it out of context, it barely is. You just don't like that others can see it more readily as you care what people on this site think of you.
Idiot definition:
A person who is considered foolish or stupid.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
I was being kind to you to exchange idiot with down syndrome as its far more respectable, i only used the r word simply for paraphrasing reasons and saying think their way out of their down syndrome brain chemistry didnt sound like it made as much sense. But maybe i should of regardless, and that's something i should of done better.
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
06.15.20 08:50PM
What's your opinion on reincarnation?
That's between me and the goddess of reality. Are you reincarnating your account?
I'm skeptical of rebirth and much prefer it being called reincarnation if it is a thing. You're only truly born once, the rest are your later avatars. I'm a nature over nurture type of person and I don't see it as pessimistic, instead I understand that an idiot literally cannot think their way out of their retarded brain chemistry, memories etc. This applies to muchore.
"I am not sure where I exactly said the quote Ehyeh is saying nor to I want to be associated with using the term 'retarded"
Its in your answered questions, where you said that. Scoop through them all.
Pantheism can mean multiple Gods, not necessarily though. I believe in a Spinoza form of pantheism, which doesnt get divided into seperate Gods but is simply one with the universe.
"Actually narcissists can be very empathetic"
only in so far as they can relate to you. Narcissists are going to be less empathetic on average compared to people without narcissistic qualities.
The point i was expounding was that they have shared qualities in a lack of empathy. I'm unsure how pantheism can promote a lack of empathy. I will debate you on it anytime.
Does this sound like a philosophy that promotes psychopathy to you? Ego or separateness is what leads to narcissism. Narcissism leads to a lack of empathy. Pantheism is extremely humanising of other beings. In pantheism, you can only uplift yourself by uplifting the all. If the ego is the sense of "I" that creates distinction and separateness, then the ego is that which then leads to selfishness through said sense of "I." Therefore, a more universal "I" ought to be adopted so even acts of selfish acts are "selfless."
A slave is someone who has minimal rights of their own, or becomes property. There is of course property laws, hence you can have laws against treatment of slaves as has been the case through most of history.
Its not an assumption. The Islamic slave trade had more female slaves than male ones. Women were fighting back? I'm unsure why slavery is ever justified for any of the reasons you cited. The only thing that could be said to be moral in any would be to free the slave.
I brought up the slavery, as you made it seem like Islam is very picky with slavery (you made it sound like they only take male warriors). That's why i linked it.
You don't believe its coercive at all? that you only get freedom if you literally marry your slave master? "prisoners of war" like women?
If you think its ok for slavery to happen if someone can be free if they simply marry their captor, i don't know what to say. That's not a justification, its obvious if you're a non Muslim slave you have MASSIVE material incentives to become a Muslim. It would be inaccurate to say the least to say there was a "fair" choice here about whether or not you should convert to Islam if you're a non Muslim slave.
"As history proved, such prisoners of war became gradually assimilated in the Muslim society and became familiar with Islam, which encouraged so many of these slaves to accept Islam. From the Islamic perspective, to be a Muslim slave (who may also get his/her freedom in a way or another) is better than to be a non-Muslim free person; the former will enter the Paradise and the latter the Hellfire."
Eseentially people are coerced into becoming muslims if youre a non muslims slave, as its pretty much your only option in a muslim society.
"The Quran and the Sunnah urged Muslims to treat their slaves kindly and not to overburden or abuse them. Usually the sexual relationship took place in a normal way. Of course, forcing a slave girl to have sex is a kind of abuse against her, but she is still her master’s slave girl and this is his right. It is not proper for a man to force his wife to have sex with him, yet she is his wife and this is his right. Sometimes a woman gets married under certain social or economic pressures and she does not like the man she is married to, but still he has rights on her including to have sex. "
This has to be my favourite debate on the site so far. I just wish you both didn't take 4 days to make an argument ( to feed my entertainment), but quality over quantity, I suppose. I don't know how you can take 4 days to make an argument. If I simply leave my argument static or if I simply switch to a different tab for a while, my argument literally disappears. If I close my debate argument and re-open it, it's gone. Any advice?
Just open up my links and you will see why i disagree with you...
The data disagrees with you until you show me it doesn't. I've already given all of my links in my round 1 debate argument.
I could barely be considered a human at this point, ossa. My brain has collapsed into a black hole from the sheer gravity of my intellect.
Morality = a set of rules, explicit or implicit, governing the intrinsic good or bad nature of an action
Objective morality = morality exists as a universal property outside of an individual perceiver
I would probably disagree with your objective morality definition. What may be objectively correct for me to eat (assuming objective morality) is going to be different from that of a rabbit and what is right for them. Morality doesn't have to be universal for it to be objective.
Just as moral relativism can act as a universal subjective and a non-universal subjective, why can't the same be applied to objective morality? There could be relative-objective moral facts too. I will soon prove that to you when i dunk on you in our debate.
That sounds like an amazing idea until a prisoner intentionally sets his bed on fire to kill himself.
Its not common sense. Many academic studies disagree with your common sense. Its common sense to most people women are worse drivers, yet if we google the statistics men are more likely to drive dangerously and to be in crashes. What is "common sense" can be skewed by your environment and own biases, the data disagrees with you until you can show me it doesnt. I have about 20 hyperlinks in my first round argument, I'm unsure why you think its uncontested truth.
I said ok because it seems like you have said a bunch of stuff i agree with (such as black people having more run down homes) the issue is you linked no studies for why they have rundown homes more often, whilst i did in my debate. There's just nothing for me to comment on, as there's nothing to critique, its an emotional argument, you're saying stuff without evidence. You can say its untrue, but can you prove it? your own personal opinion doesn't hold light compared to the empirical studies i linked backing my view with the same resolution.
That's a really good video, thank you for sharing. If someone has no arms and legs they cannot riot. Although on a personal note im very much in favour of rehabilitatory justice. A vengeance based justice system stops pretty much nothing. A fire will not put out a fire, therefore only the opposite of hate will rid it.
Ok.
Its a troll debate. I like thinking of extreme ideas and seeing how far i can take them.
Truly.
Even if we were generous and said stock market investors "actively" up-kept people's jobs (which is untrue, they expand companies, not maintain them. People don't invest in non-growing/failing businesses). We could calculate how much someone has invested in the company, and (potentially) divide the money they invested compared to the overall profits to decide how much they "deserve" for their contribution and how much the workers get to keep extra in their pockets based on surplus value created. This makes sure poor workers are not being robbed of the money they generate through surplus value.
"Policing racial disparities are racial disparities that pertain only to the conduct of the police force in interaction with society and the community at large only."
Who told you policing racial disparities are disparities that pertain only to the conduct of the police? that's why i accepted the debate, who in their right mind would think this was the condition of the debate? the condition itself is simply wrong on what policing racial disparities mean....you must of looked up some super bad definition. Its frustrating people are likely to vote against me in this debate when your premise condition itself is wrong, definitional.
It's pretty common knowledge that predominantly black schools are funded less and their properties are worth less (because they're black). When we study "policing racial disparities" factors which lead to more run ins with the police outside of simply bias on the police is always paramount and factored in, in sociology we don't leave racial policing disparities to only the police being racist, hence our missunderstanding. Only extremely far left people believe the police itself is the main contributor to racist policing disparities. No sincere researcher nor someone who believes in systemic racism believes what you want to debate except blue-haired women who spend too much time reading propaganda on twitter. Police disparities do exist on average, and the reason for it is because of past racist laws. This has far more to do than with just the police, but to do with economics created through unfair laws. The title is extremely misleading, as people who have done research are aware most racial disparities come about due to racist laws not involving the police but leading black communities to inevitably be in more run-ins with the police because of said laws (hence my lead argument). The police are still slightly biased interpersonally against black people, but it's definitely not enough to account for more than 50%.
It seems like a sincere misunderstanding. So I understand. Outside of that, I never realised I only had a 24-argumentation time limit until I accepted the debate. Which would be fine if it were the weekend, but I work a job. And I actually don't disagree with you. I thought we were going to argue about overall racial disparities (based on the title, and the description just wasn't descriptive enough or ruled out other factors, as even in sociology we don't leave racial policing disparities to ONLY the police being racist).
Policing racial disparities are not created only due to the police, i never realised this was the condition but thought it was simply what you believed.
Even TWS didn't notice this ridiculousness. Policing racial disparities are not created only due to the police, pretty much ever. Why didn't you make the debate title, "the majority of police racial disparities are due to factors outside of just police racism?" at least then its congruent with your description.
Your title is extremely misleading. Your title is in direct contradiction to what you really want to argue about in the description. The average disparities in crime between black and white people are the result of systemically racist laws in the past. Policing and racial disparities within the police are due to the lingering effects of said laws. If you truly only wanted to talk about why police disparities exist and not talk about other factors outside of the police, it seems like you were just looking for a gotcha debate.
" It is little to no academic integrity."
Yeah, ok. The vast majority of sociological studies show that systemic racism does affect the average outcomes of people based on race. Sowell is an economist. Systemic racism is not even his field of study. There are many experts who are in this field of sociological study who have conducted the studies and disagree with his assessment of their studies.
"Black rednecks" are not legitimate. If he chooses to bring it up, I'll explain why.
They don't. I've invested in the stock market and the vast, vast majority of people have no say in how the business is run. The only time you do is if you have a majority share in the company, and even then you're not involved in day-to-day running. That responsibility falls to the board of directors and the internal management structure of the company. There's a difference between a CEO and someone who is a shareholder in a company. The only people who fulfil this criteria of having a say in a stock market company are billionaires.
Your debate title can be misleading. You say belief in god is self-defeating but you agreed with me in the comments that pantheism isn't, which is a form of god. Maybe you don't have to change the title (preferably you should, but it seems hard to do so). Just add more specifications to the description. But what you said seems good enough.
How is the second part of the debate topic assuming Con is atheist? Con can simply argue their own religion they believe if they truly think its the most truthful one.
Thomas Sowell? An interesting choice. I don't respect Thomas Sowell as a thinker. I'm more than ready for any "critiques" of what I presented he may have. He has some extremely bizarre views, such as his "red neck blacks" theory. Nothing he said back in the 1980's is going to stack up to the multitude of modern day academic studies which disagree with him and show how wrong he is. He's a typical conservative "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" kind of guy, and constantly appeals to the false correlation fallacy.
You should probably fix your debate title, as you said belief in god is self defeating. Which isn't always the case.
Paul Tillich could be described as a pantheist, although he himself would hate to be lumped in with pantheism, as he believed God was beyond even being. "Pantheism" is extremely common among famous philosophers. I personally disagree with him on many points, but I agree with him on others. I generally agree more with Hegel and Spinoza on God. I find his argument for God not being "being" nonsensical and contradictory. It assumes God cannot be the origin of being while being it, which he very easily could be if he's timeless (as energy we know already is), meaning no before him is necessary, meaning no need for a source of being outside of his existence, but I digress.
"Your concept of god (god being energy, energy being god) has nothing against naturalistic ontology and ontological naturalism.
You may become a pantheist for example, saying the universe itself is god. That too is not violating naturalism. But nor pantheistic neither your proposal is super-naturalistic god."
I'm unsure what the distinction criteria between a "naturalistic god" and a "super naturalistic god" are.
"But does the dad actively keep up their daughter’s job? Does the dad still have direct control on the daughter’s spending and have the decision weather the daughter is fired?"
Let's assume he doesn't actively keep up with his daughter's job. He just raised her to be healthy. He created her. To compare it then to a CEO, if the father is not entitled materially to his daughter's earnings because he doesn't actively upkeep his daughters' job nor manage her, by that definition, many people who have large swaths of a company's shares are not entitled to materially benefit. Consider the NSDAQ 100. According to your counter-argument, these people are not eligible or deserving of the wealth they earn from the stock market because they have no say in the day-to-day operations of the companies in which they invest into.
It's very easy to say deism/God can exist even within a naturalistic framework. The spectrums of energy our physical senses can interact with are exceptionally slim compared to what we know is out there....... That's not even considering what we don't know, which will almost certainly be much more.
In theory, God could exist as a form of energy like me and you. After all, we know energy can create consciousness, we're evidence of it. He could simply just exist as energy in a completely different vibrational spectrum, hence why he's invisible and undetectable.
" Say the company owner of McDonald’s gets 10 dollars a year per worker. Only 83 cents per month I stress. The owner will have generated 2 million dollars per year.
The top 1% creates most all the jobs and logically gets a share of the job. They owner created the job and therefore should be given some time part from it in return — or at the very least they certainly earned the money."
If i created my daughter, and she later decided to create an onlyfans, am i entitled to a cut of the money she generates since i created her? I gave her the ability to work that job, after all. I don't see why after a while a CEO shouldn't just get a nice fixed wage, which is exceptionally comfortable but not enough to make others not have food on the table.
I simply use this analogy to show you just because someone gave someone an opportunity for something and sacrificed time for you to have that doesn't mean you should owe them. This demonstrates either your thought process is incorrect or you never concluded a symmetry breaker between a CEO-employee relationship and other sorts of relationships of this same created nature.
My burden of proof was never to prove pantheism doesn't eradicate some individuality but more so that individuality does remain in pantheism. Even without pantheism you have a lack of individuality in many areas. I felt like that was a strawman that you said that, but that's to be expected (from reading your about me). You cannot divide the user from the account, btw.
ok, i look forward too it! good luck in your current debate.
I'm not going to respond to anything you've said in your first round argument. I have my own statistics to share, which will take up my character limit. I'll only respond to what you presented in round two.
You pulled through! I'm happy, i was begging to think you weren't going to publish your argument in time.
"I'm skeptical of rebirth and much prefer it being called reincarnation if it is a thing. You're only truly born once, the rest are your later avatars. I'm a nature over nurture type of person and I don't see it as pessimistic, instead I understand that an idiot literally cannot think their way out of their retarded brain chemistry, memories etc. This applies to muchore."
I'm unsure why you think the original is any better than the paraphrase. By definition idiot has the same definition of someone with down syndrome, no one uses the word idiot to mean lazy. it means foolish in modern language, but the fact you later backed it up with the r word lead me to believe you didnt mean just foolish people but those with down syndrome. The problem wasn't me taking it out of context, it barely is. You just don't like that others can see it more readily as you care what people on this site think of you.
Idiot definition:
A person who is considered foolish or stupid.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
I was being kind to you to exchange idiot with down syndrome as its far more respectable, i only used the r word simply for paraphrasing reasons and saying think their way out of their down syndrome brain chemistry didnt sound like it made as much sense. But maybe i should of regardless, and that's something i should of done better.
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
06.15.20 08:50PM
What's your opinion on reincarnation?
That's between me and the goddess of reality. Are you reincarnating your account?
I'm skeptical of rebirth and much prefer it being called reincarnation if it is a thing. You're only truly born once, the rest are your later avatars. I'm a nature over nurture type of person and I don't see it as pessimistic, instead I understand that an idiot literally cannot think their way out of their retarded brain chemistry, memories etc. This applies to muchore.
"I am not sure where I exactly said the quote Ehyeh is saying nor to I want to be associated with using the term 'retarded"
Its in your answered questions, where you said that. Scoop through them all.
Pantheism can mean multiple Gods, not necessarily though. I believe in a Spinoza form of pantheism, which doesnt get divided into seperate Gods but is simply one with the universe.
"Actually narcissists can be very empathetic"
only in so far as they can relate to you. Narcissists are going to be less empathetic on average compared to people without narcissistic qualities.
The point i was expounding was that they have shared qualities in a lack of empathy. I'm unsure how pantheism can promote a lack of empathy. I will debate you on it anytime.
Does this sound like a philosophy that promotes psychopathy to you? Ego or separateness is what leads to narcissism. Narcissism leads to a lack of empathy. Pantheism is extremely humanising of other beings. In pantheism, you can only uplift yourself by uplifting the all. If the ego is the sense of "I" that creates distinction and separateness, then the ego is that which then leads to selfishness through said sense of "I." Therefore, a more universal "I" ought to be adopted so even acts of selfish acts are "selfless."
If he believes he can assert morality as being less likely to be objective, he is in for a reality check if he debates me.
Which one is it? I'll argue with them about metaethics if they win their current debate.
We'll see what happens, Christian.
You're going to get swept in this debate simply for that comment you made. I can assure you that much.
A slave is someone who has minimal rights of their own, or becomes property. There is of course property laws, hence you can have laws against treatment of slaves as has been the case through most of history.
unchallenged? I'll try not to let you down then sir.
I think you can make a distinction between interpersonal racism and systemic racism. I'd probably accept this debate.
Its not an assumption. The Islamic slave trade had more female slaves than male ones. Women were fighting back? I'm unsure why slavery is ever justified for any of the reasons you cited. The only thing that could be said to be moral in any would be to free the slave.
I brought up the slavery, as you made it seem like Islam is very picky with slavery (you made it sound like they only take male warriors). That's why i linked it.
You don't believe its coercive at all? that you only get freedom if you literally marry your slave master? "prisoners of war" like women?
If you think its ok for slavery to happen if someone can be free if they simply marry their captor, i don't know what to say. That's not a justification, its obvious if you're a non Muslim slave you have MASSIVE material incentives to become a Muslim. It would be inaccurate to say the least to say there was a "fair" choice here about whether or not you should convert to Islam if you're a non Muslim slave.
https://aboutislam.net/live-session/general-fatwa-session-3/islam-allow-rape-female-slaves/
"As history proved, such prisoners of war became gradually assimilated in the Muslim society and became familiar with Islam, which encouraged so many of these slaves to accept Islam. From the Islamic perspective, to be a Muslim slave (who may also get his/her freedom in a way or another) is better than to be a non-Muslim free person; the former will enter the Paradise and the latter the Hellfire."
Eseentially people are coerced into becoming muslims if youre a non muslims slave, as its pretty much your only option in a muslim society.
"The Quran and the Sunnah urged Muslims to treat their slaves kindly and not to overburden or abuse them. Usually the sexual relationship took place in a normal way. Of course, forcing a slave girl to have sex is a kind of abuse against her, but she is still her master’s slave girl and this is his right. It is not proper for a man to force his wife to have sex with him, yet she is his wife and this is his right. Sometimes a woman gets married under certain social or economic pressures and she does not like the man she is married to, but still he has rights on her including to have sex. "
what the heck?