Total posts: 407
Is Shila a bot? I have wondered this since it was suggested,
as one thing that seems to demonstrate this, is that sometimes Shila seems
unable to comprehend idioms. I remember using to term “tongue in cheek” and
this was taken literally by Shila and I have just had another example in the
topic “How racist are you.”
I posted this:
Am I racist, I try not to be. There seems to be some strange ideas as to what constitutes racism these days. One I have come across is, if you don’t see a persons colour you are denying their racial identity and that is racist, it also makes me want to go and bang my head against a wall.
I used the idiom “bang my head against a
wall” as a response to a definition of racism that I found slightly exasperating.
Shila responded with this:
If you have to bang your head against a wall every time you see a person of colour, you are a racist.Now if the person of colour banged your head against the wall he too thought you were a racist.
This demonstrates total lack of comprehension apparently provoked
by the idiom I used.
I wonder if Lemming may be right
and Shila could be
a chatbot part of the time, and post human comments other parts of the time. Or
be intentionally acting like a bot.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Shila is annoying, that much is certain. More often just plain ignorant and trolls when they have nothing better to say. Having said that, she/he/it/they have made some intelligent comments on point that even I found myself agreeing with from time to time, even hitting the “like” button. they are also immature, clearly, hence the oft trolling and very few on point comments. My solution was simply to ignore their comments. If you don’t feed the troll, the troll will look for food elsewhere.
I agree and personally I don’t mind Shila and I find she/he/it
interesting, but as you say sometimes annoying. I have been around debate forums, on and off, for about twenty
years and I have never encountered the likes before, the considerable output is
quite impressive. Your advice on how to deal with trolls is as always the best
and simplest method, “If you don’t feed the troll, the troll will
look for food elsewhere.“
Created:
Posted in:
And what if your area does not have it and you are bursting?Urinating outside cannot damage health unless ingested or if someone pisses on your cavities a lot. We are not discussing a golden showers or watersports kink.Get realistic.
If just a few people have a discreet piss in a public place because
necessity requires it, then it isn’t going to case a lot of harm but if you look
at it from a legal position, the law doesn’t just apply to the few, it applies to
the many. If it was lawful to urinate wherever you are and say a substantial amount
of people were to take advantage of this, it would not be pleasant for the environment
and could constitute as a health hazard.
Personally, when you have got to go, you have got to go. I don’t
know what the law is like in the US but here if a copper was to catch you, then it would probably just be a
warning.
Created:
Posted in:
Am I racist, I try not to be. There seems to be some strange
ideas as to what constitutes racism these days. One I have come across is, if you
don’t see a persons colour you are denying their racial identity and that is
racist, it also makes me want to go and bang my head against a wall.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Antinatalism is a seriously cerebral, emotionally detached belief. Antinatalists are some of the last people you'd expect to succumb to emotional whims, because you don't become an antinatalist on emotional whims. You become an antinatlist by realizing how horrible overall life is objectively for **all** creatures -- that's completely removed from their subjective, emotional experience.Besides, if you truly believed that existence was harmful and that childbirth was a harmful imposition on those birthed, you would want those closest to you to be removed first if anything, if you were to be swayed by "human nature".
I would question that antinatalism is an emotionally
detached belief, as it is driven by a concern for human suffering. If you are
emotional detached then human suffering wouldn’t be of any concern.
Created:
Posted in:
I suppose if people were allowed to piss anywhere it could
become a health hazard. In many European countries you get open air public
urinals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If a person is smart enough to become an authoritarian, it would be smart of his followers to recognize their smart leader and collectively enjoy success.
I think Donald Trump and his followers refutes that idea.
Created:
Posted in:
How to define stupid, as it can simply mean those whose
you disagree with.
Personally, I disagree with and find authoritarian followers stupid, as their obedience
to an authority limits their ability to think independently.
Created:
Oh dear, looks
like I have been blocked by Best.Korea.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I think everyone should punish their children every day. Even if children did nothing wrong, you should still punish them every day so they know who is in charge.
So
not only do you think it is okay to molest children but you advocate punishing
them, even if they have done nothing wrong. The Marquis de Sade would be proud
of you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Sure:(1) Detonate a nuclear bomb large enough to wipe out the Earth(2) Sterilize the human population (perhaps through additives in water)(3) Blast Earth off its orbital axis, destroying Earth's temperanceNo more breeding after any of those events.I'm sure you could think of more.
Human
nature being what it is, those implementing all those things would most likely make
sure that they, their friends and families survived, because being superior, antinatalism wouldn’t apply
to them.
Yes, I don't think you'd ever get humans en masse to agree to abandon their most basic biological instinct. That's why the force detailed above might become necessary, if antinatalism is indeed valid.I would sure want antinatalism to be assessed before anything that drastic were to take place, though.
That’s the problem; those applying the force wouldn’t want to apply it to themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Queen is dead. Let her Rest In Peace.
Plenty of people are dead who are still subject to discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
did you catch the part where they passed a law to INCREASE the royal allowance by 10X ?
No I didn’t but the video’s title “The Queen doesn’t want
you to know this” complete with an emoji limited its credibility for me.
If it is talking about the Sovereign Grant, the amount that is paid is decided upon and authorised by Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse, I don’t think the Monarch has a say in it.
If it is talking about the Sovereign Grant, the amount that is paid is decided upon and authorised by Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse, I don’t think the Monarch has a say in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
how does "the government" pass a bill and then tell the queen to veto it ?
The bill hadn’t been passed; the Queen’s veto was used to
prevent this. If you read the article you should get an idea of how it works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I tend to be sceptical of any media source but particularly YouTube
videos.
The video mentioned that she used her powers to veto various
Bills and she did veto those Bills but only on government advice; which is politic
speak for “because the government told her to.” One Bill mentioned in the video is the “Military Action
Against Iraq Bill” and I thought to look into that one. This article in the
Guardian, which is one of the more reasonably honest UK newspapers, covers the incident and although it is Queen’s veto, it is enforced
under government instructions.
The video also says that the Monarch is above the law and
this is true, but although the Monarch can’t face prosecution, if say he or she
went on a killing spree, then they would probably find themselves in a similar predicament
to King George III and we would have a Regent on the throne.
I didn’t bother watching it any further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
In the latest survey 48% of Meteorologists said climate change isn't happening. This dipped from 60% a couple years prior, but still shows that they certainly are not "bought out."
The scientific consensus is that climate
change is real and that it is caused by human activity.
This is from the American Meteorological Society.
“Climate Change is among the most pressing issues facing the world today.
Humans are causing climate to change and it poses numerous serious risks. The more carbon we emit, the higher the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be and the larger the changes in climate we'll face.”
This is from the American Meteorological Society.
“Climate Change is among the most pressing issues facing the world today.
Humans are causing climate to change and it poses numerous serious risks. The more carbon we emit, the higher the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be and the larger the changes in climate we'll face.”
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
To a book review perhaps, in debate evidence and logic are what matters. Studies are relevant when they introduce evidence. Expert analysis is relevant when it provides complex or creative logic.A quote of a pure assertion that children cannot consent has no more weight than a quote from the same book claiming children aren't harmed at the time.
It is the opinion of an expert in experimental psychopathology based on evidence acquired from interviewing those who have been subjected to
sexual abuse as children and as such should be considered reasonable.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I simply used the book as it mentioned cases where there was no harm, and cases where there was little harm.The author herself admits that harm is small in general, and that there were cases without harm.If she focused more on those cases where there was no harm, she would be able to find out what makes them different.She pointed out that children cant consent.Her opinion is not important, however, her studies are.Of course, it is quite possible that she said it out of fear. She was already labeled as pedophile supporter simply for doing this study.Even if she honestly thinks it, its her opinion unrelated to the studies she did.
Her opinion is important as it is directly based on the studies she made and the possibility that she made the statement
out of fear is simply conjecture.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Her opinion is irrelevant, the data is what is at issue.
As the author of the book her opinion is perfectly relevant.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
As I said, the books author is not a pedophile nor supporting pedophilia.However, the author was still accused of enabling pedophilia simply because in her book she said there is no trauma for the child and that harm is very small.She simply included statistics, and stories of sexual experiences in her book.She was also the one to say that in 90% of cases, victims dont want for pedophile to go to prison.Of course, she could have gone a step further and explore only consensual relationships between adults and children.However, that would probably result in favorable case for pedophiles and a bunch of death threats to the author.
You used that book in an attempt to establish the legitimacy
of consensual relationships between adults and children. I simply pointed out
that the author of that book disagrees that such a relationships can be
consensual.
As to going a step further to explore only consensual relationships between adults and children. That would be unlikely as she states quite clearly that children are incapable of consent.
As to going a step further to explore only consensual relationships between adults and children. That would be unlikely as she states quite clearly that children are incapable of consent.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
"Other sexual deviance have had volunteers come forward despite probable attack. There should be a few"There have been. I already mentioned the book "The Trauma Myth" in which there have been plenty of cases where people came forward and talked about their sexual experience as children.The books authors, despite not being pedophiles or promoting pedophilia, were labeled as pedophile supporters.The fact that positive cases never get published in the media is the reason people usually dont know about them.
This is a quote by Susan Clancy the writer of the book “The
Trauma Myth” you mention.
“Sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.”
“Sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.”
Created:
Posted in:
Are you a fan of Bush? I prefer my presidents well trimmed.
No, the first one was okay but of no real importance over
here, the second one however dragged us into a bloody silly war.
The name Bush doesn’t quite have the same amusement value, as apart from the innuendo it can equally mean a shrub or a fox’s tail. Trump however can only mean a fart or a bragging inadequate.
The name Bush doesn’t quite have the same amusement value, as apart from the innuendo it can equally mean a shrub or a fox’s tail. Trump however can only mean a fart or a bragging inadequate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Which area of UK does Trump mean fart? That seems extremely local slang...
Trump is a common slang term for fart, it originated in the north but is now widely
used across England. It refers to the
trumpeting sound made when breaking wind. His name caused some amusement
long before he became President.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Both Trump and Americans can learn from the Monarchy how to earn the respect of its subjects.Trump as a former president was impeached twice.
Here in the UK Trump is mostly seen as a joke; even his name is a
joke “trump” means “fart.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
only SOME members of the royal family are required to "show up" for SOME ceremoniesand there is a lot of activity that does NOT get reported in the press
They do get some moments of privacy and those considered not
to be senior royals get more privacy unless they do something considered inappropriate
and therefore newsworthy. The royals are also subjected to what are professional
gossip mongers, the papers frequently feature articles about the royals and those
article’s credibility relies on something like “a royal expert has said” “a
palace insider has claimed” “a royal source has alleged,” all basically appeals to
some anonymous authority. There are also royal biographers who have never
spoken to a member of the royal family but rely on similar gossip. Although the
royal family has the legal right to sue for libel, it is unlikely that they
would do so because of royal protocol, and the media knows this. Stories about
the royals sell papers and the gullible lap up all they read.
Personally, I am neither pro nor anti royal. Although I do find all the pageantry and ritual fascinating in a surreal sort of way.
Personally, I am neither pro nor anti royal. Although I do find all the pageantry and ritual fascinating in a surreal sort of way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
that's what they want you to think
Can you elucidate on that?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Atheists love the idea of everyone being like robots.
Unlike some religions who want people to submit and conform
to what is perceived to be the word of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Data storage and transfer is what it is.What would life be like if we got up every morning and had to rethink everything.
I wouldn’t want to be born into the British Monarchy. You are
permanently under the scrutiny of the media, who will turn on you for what they
believe to be the slightest indiscretion. You have little say in how you run your
life as you are subject what is known as Royal Protocol. The real power in the palace
is held by those Princes Diana called the “men in grey suits,” these are the
royal advisers and private secretaries, they are the ones who make the decisions
and decide how the Royals must conduct themselves. No thanks.
Created:
"I will stick with my original premise, children are easily manipulated and if they are subject to coercive manipulation by an adult, for that adult’s own ends, then that child is not consenting."For adults own end? Children can desire sex for pleasure. So really, when they consent knowing they will get such pleasure, it is a valid consent.
As you continue to evade the main point regarding the fact
that children are easily manipulated, I am wasting my time.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If you're going to give a subjective opinion you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say imply that disagreement "blatantly disingenuous"."It's blatantly disingenuous that you are trying to define anchovies as delicious.""Anchovies are disgusting""That is my own subjective opinion"Subjectivism and debate don't mix. If you can't articulate a reason common to others then by definition you can't advance an argument.
Thank you for your advice, it has been most helpful and in future
I shall avoid anchovies.
Created:
This is your definition.Such definition is inappropriate, because it fails to take into account consent based on limited knowledge.It also fails to determine who decides what amount of knowledge is enough for consent.For example, child knows that certain sexual activities bring pleasure. Child consents to them because child wants pleasure. What more knowledge does child need?The fact that you try to equalize "childs consent based on childs current knowledge" to "no consent" so that you could violate childs consent and make decisions about childs own body, and then accuse others of doing what you do, is nonsense.Childs will is consisted of childs goals. Only knowledge relevant to these goals is relevant for consent.
I will stick with my original premise, children are easily
manipulated and if they are subject to coercive manipulation by an adult, for
that adult’s own ends, then that child is not consenting.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"competent", "adequately", "undue"If the question arises "according to whom?" it is subjective.One subjective qualifier is enough to render a concept subjective, three?
It seems reasonable, which is my own subjective opinion.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Since children do understand, they can.Even a baby can, since even a baby has an ability to approve or disprove actions based on knowledge baby gains when these actions happen.Approval of this action to continue to exist based on available knowledge is consent.In case of consent with partial knowledge vs. no consent at all, consent still wins.
You are trying to redefine the meaning of “consent,”
in an attempt to validate child sex abuse, this is blatantly disingenuous.
This definition is how I see it. Consent is a decision given by someone who is competent, who
has been adequately informed and has adequate understanding, and who is free
from undue influence, enabling them to make a voluntary decision.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Idiot
Thank you.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Raping kids is thought crime?
No, raping children is a crime, being a pedophile isn’t.
Created:
Child doesnt understand sex, but if child is willing to perform it, then it makes no difference.Its still child consenting.
You can’t consent to something if you don’t understand what
it is you are consenting to.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Your point was already refuted. Child is the only one who can make decisions about own body.You cant decide about childs own body. You cannot decide instead of a child.Even if a child doesnt know everything, you are still not allowed to decide for them against their will.Child is the only one who can decide."Children are naive and need to be protected"Children need to be educated."would telling a child not to eat poisonous berries take away control about what happens to their bodies"This is you confusing education with force.First, the force is only allowed if it uphelds personal control over own body.Forbidding child to have sex does not do this. In such case, you are using force to forbid child to decide about own body.
You are not defending to rights of a child, you are trying
to defend the right to coerce and manipulate a child into performing acts that
the child doesn’t fully understand.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You cant decide instead of a child about what happens to childs body.If child wants sex, it is childs decision.You cannot decide about what will happen to childs body unless child agrees with it.If child isnt allowed to decide about own body, then the child has no rights.Since you take for your right to violate childs consent, it is funny that you attack pedophiles for upholding childs consent.
I think I have already made this point ... children can be easily
manipulated therefore they lack the capacity to consent. But you don’t want to
hear that.
Children are naive and need to be protected, would telling a child not to eat poisonous berries take away control about what happens to their bodies.
Children are naive and need to be protected, would telling a child not to eat poisonous berries take away control about what happens to their bodies.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Children dont have rights in your society.Rights would consist in children being able to control what happens to their bodies.Since they dont have such control, they dont have rights.If child must do something against her will, then its not a right.Just because a child can believe in lies, this doesnt mean you are allowed to decide what happens to her body against her will.The opposite case means that her body doesnt belong to her, but to you.This is why pedophiles are hated. They believe children have rights.Hence the question: what if the child consents to be in a relationship with a pedophile?
A child who can be manipulated and easily persuaded to do
what an adult requires lacks the capacity to consent to such a relationship, coercion
is not consent.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Actually, pedophiles need to be completely separated from other prisoners.Pedophiles are not like other people. Pedophiles believe children have rights.Pedophile's mere presence bothers non-pedophiles.Its almost impossible for a pedophile and non-pedophile to be in the same room without great problems.
Children have rights; they are also more vulnerable to
manipulation and exploitation than adults. Children will readily accept and believe
what is told to them, a belief in Santa Claus would be a good example.
A Pedophile is simply someone who has a sexual attraction to
prepubescent children and providing they don’t act upon that attraction I have
no problem with it, but those who do act upon it to satisfy their own sexual desire
and who exploit a child’s vulnerability to manipulation need to be kept away
from children.
Children have rights and one is to be free from sexual exploitation.
Created:
Posted in:
For me God is a mythological being, who for those who believe
in him is supreme, beyond that one aspect there seems to be some disagreement as
to his nature and this occasionally lapses into a lot of violence and killing.
Created:
Here in the UK prisoners who for
whatever reason are likely to be at risk of attack by other inmates are segregated.
We don’t lock up pedophiles, that would be thought crime.
We don’t lock up pedophiles, that would be thought crime.
Created:
Posted in:
For me the concept of Hell somewhat diminishes the idea of a
loving God. Hell is supposedly a place of eternal torment and what form this
torment will take seems open to opinion, there is mention in the Bible of fire
and worms, but I would imagine that considering it is the creation of an all
knowing omnipotent being it will be totally unbearable. And this torment is internal;
you really have to think about that one, this unbearable suffering doesn’t last
for a hundred, a thousand, a billion or say a figure of one followed by a
billion trillion zero years, it is eternal, it never ends. There is no
redemption no chance to reform and to mend your ways, there is no point to hell
apart from causing suffering. This isn’t justice; no one deserves this, not
even the worst criminals or tyrants deserve this. This entity that inflicts
this on people isn’t a loving one, he is by most definitions totally evil.
There are those who say God doesn’t send you to Hell, you send yourself but this argument doesn’t work. God created Hell, he established the rules as to what you would be sent there for and he is the one who judges you, therefore he is the one who sends you there. Any tyrant could use this same argument for inflicting the most inhumane suffering on those who don’t submit to him.
So what is one of the things you can get sent to Hell for? Apparently it is not believing in God, this is totally unjust as belief isn’t a choice, belief is down to perception and you can’t make yourself believe something that you perceive to be false.
I don’t believe in God because I have seen no evidence to convince me that that God or any other supernatural entity exists. If someone was to demand that I believe in God and threatened me and my family that failure to do so would result in an unpleasant death for us all, this would be one huge incentive for me and I would say I believed and go through all the necessary rituals to demonstrate my conversion, but it would be a lie, because I can’t make myself believe in a God I perceive to be nonexistent and choice isn’t an option.
To be fair not all Christians follow this doctrine of Hell. The Church of England for example has rejected the idea of Hell and there is simply Heaven or death.
There are those who say God doesn’t send you to Hell, you send yourself but this argument doesn’t work. God created Hell, he established the rules as to what you would be sent there for and he is the one who judges you, therefore he is the one who sends you there. Any tyrant could use this same argument for inflicting the most inhumane suffering on those who don’t submit to him.
So what is one of the things you can get sent to Hell for? Apparently it is not believing in God, this is totally unjust as belief isn’t a choice, belief is down to perception and you can’t make yourself believe something that you perceive to be false.
I don’t believe in God because I have seen no evidence to convince me that that God or any other supernatural entity exists. If someone was to demand that I believe in God and threatened me and my family that failure to do so would result in an unpleasant death for us all, this would be one huge incentive for me and I would say I believed and go through all the necessary rituals to demonstrate my conversion, but it would be a lie, because I can’t make myself believe in a God I perceive to be nonexistent and choice isn’t an option.
To be fair not all Christians follow this doctrine of Hell. The Church of England for example has rejected the idea of Hell and there is simply Heaven or death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Who do you do , then?
I don’t do anyone; I like to sit on the fence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
To your king instead of Ravenclaw or Slytherin
King isn’t a Hogwarts House and I don’t do patriotism.
Created:
-->
@Shila
How about a fantasy King Charles for a change?
Why would you change it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Show some commitment.
Where should I show it?
Created:
Posted in:
I would go for Ravenclaw but I have a feeling I could be sorted
into Slytherin.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Imagine Flemmings objection to some other actors.People 'can do different casting if they like, and sometimes it's actually rather interesting,For me it's usually I just prefer what I grew up with,Such as I preferred the original Robocop to the remake, nothing to do with race in that case.Gods of Egypt (film) - Wikipedia though,I didn't even bother watching, other than the plot looking bad to me,I just didn't care for the casting.I'd have preferred a different cast/actor for Troy (film) - Wikipedia too, than Brad Pitt.I imagine people find 'washing as they call it annoying, is because it seems often an attempt at diversity, than an attempt at a good movie,People can be sensitive towards their ingroup, and perceived attacks, true or not, on itor like Fate Stay Night making King Arthur a woman, it's based on predictions of what more people will watch, $,Rather than about historical accuracy, well, fantasy anyhow the series.Never seen Fate Stay Night myself.
Personally I like dramas to be historically correct, even those
with an element of fantasy and that includes casting.
I don’t have a problem with the casting of fantasy characters though, like mermaids or Spiderman … although Thor being a Norse god should probably look suitably Nordic.
I don’t have a problem with the casting of fantasy characters though, like mermaids or Spiderman … although Thor being a Norse god should probably look suitably Nordic.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
...and yet, Sean Connery was one of the best, if not THE best, Bond.That being said, there is a valid argument in sticking with the template the author intended. Me personally though, I see skin color makes little difference to the character. He is still a massively skilled secret agent with fancy gadgets.
I liked Sean Connery as Bond and he has since proven himself
to be a fine actor. I did like Daniel Craig in Casino Royal though.
The books were of their time and were quite racist and sexist. There have been a few demands for a black person to play Bond and I don’t really have a problem with this providing the actor is chosen on merit, not simply because they happen to have dark skin. Interestingly there have been no demands for an Asian or an East Asian Bond; it’s always for a black one.
The books were of their time and were quite racist and sexist. There have been a few demands for a black person to play Bond and I don’t really have a problem with this providing the actor is chosen on merit, not simply because they happen to have dark skin. Interestingly there have been no demands for an Asian or an East Asian Bond; it’s always for a black one.
Created: