Total posts: 3,954
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So why do you believe that sex should be between a man and a woman, and not two men nor two women?
Created:
Posted in:
Build and Progress type gaming? Sounds just like 2b2t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
2. Because it goes against the natural order. Sex is reserved for a married man and woman - a human man and woman.
What is wrong with a man and a man or two women? Do you perhaps see them as wastes of time that amounts to nothing substantial or are you just openly homophobic, or what?
I mean, animals can't consent to human sex, just like why pedophilia is incorrect(Children can't consent). However, saying that sex is between a man and a woman isn't the full picture as there are extremely many examples of two men consenting and those consents matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polyglot
I wish I could marry the person of my dreams.
Granted, but you later are diagnosed with insomnia and amnesia so there is no exact person that you could dream of.
I wish I could have 1M subs on YouTube.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Mine is that Minecraft will get a Cave update.Granted, but the update causes the game to crash.
IDK if you are still here or not, but Minecraft did get a cave update without crashing.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes. All it takes are rockets. The question is if it is desirable or will it do anything to the economy. Current information suggests that it is not a net positive for the society, or we are not ready yet.
Created:
Posted in:
Also there are vegan meat. There are vegan burger and it is projected in which lab-grown meat will be as cheap as slaughtered meat in a few years.
Created:
Posted in:
I am Ok with eating animals. In fact, the only reason I don’t eat humans is that it has serious health problems.
That said, some plants require more water than even animals and are purely making money because it is classified as “plants”.
Created:
Posted in:
He has a life. He writes books about the US constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
Because the bible is written by fallible men or something like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
No, no, he doesn't have to be rich. Just look at the Buddha.
Created:
Posted in:
President? I don't think someone who believes in Qanon and someone who is actively homophobic and transphobic would make a good president for the US.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh come on, why is the default debating setting 2 rounds? Even DDO does 3 rounds. I don't even care that settings beyond 5 rounds is not possible. 2 rounds isn't enough for default normal debates. I personally think 3 is a much better choice so I request to change the default debate when creation to 3 rounds instead of 2.
Created:
Instead of choosing a wife, how about a husband? ;)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
We are a year over that stage. Nowadays, non-mask wearers are the ones making the streets dangerous.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, in that case, miracles may happen, but they will not be considered eternally a miracle. In the end of all things, there are no miracles because we will eventually be able to explain stuff.
Like, in the old days what is considered a miracle of a healing is now discovered like just a regular response of a gland releasing more of this one substance than in other scenarios.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Conclusions are not necessarily judgments, so why don't you fuck off your high/mightiness and be a little civil? Start by living your A.C.T.
I remember something being taught as early in school as in 5th grade called the "show, don't tell".
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Your proof of miracles existing is that there is no proof of them not existing.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
The status quo is nothing, and proof or counterproof shifts the status around. If there are pretty much equal amounts of proof and disproof, it returns back to the Status Quo.
The status quo of whether miracles exist is null: We can't prove whether if it exists or not. That is the status quo. Unless there are presented information that amounts to something about whether miracles exist or not, we cannot say that miracles exist or not due to the lack of information.
The center-ground or status quo on the God issue would quite literally be agnosticism. Both sides present proof of why their side is more correct. If there is no proof, then we cannot prove anything. A toddler who just got introduced to the idea of "god" would have no proof of it existing or not, and the default settings to any problem, without proof shifting anything anywhere, is in the center where we cannot know anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Your ad-hominem fallacy does not undermine the authenticity of my argument as of now. I want REAL REASONS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Why would an Alpha want to be a sigma? What about all the people trying to be like you? Be a threat to civilization?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Nothing that requires experience is real, so it is better to believe in the lies that makes you happy than lies that makes you sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I live here and it has provided me benefits. The amount of progression is insane. How about you tell us why it is undemocratic or why being undemocratic is bad because most people here are happy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If those liberals are idle whiners, it is not because they are liberal, but because they don’t want to work. Wanting rights and not working is different. If a Nazi is also a femboy, do we really conclude that male cross-dressing is racist and authoritarian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Looks like we agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
How do you know they are consistent? How do you know they will work in the future? Science? Well, it is based on past experiences that you don't even know if they exist or not, so no.
Created:
Posted in:
Ironically, those refusing to wear masks are taking away freedoms because them on the street means that infection is possible, which means lockdown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@StevenCrowder
You don't understand liberalism and communism.
Liberals tend to fight for their right, and communists tend to be hardworkers. If they whine so much, they are whining because not that they are liberals or communists, but because of something else in them. A true liberal or communist society needs no censorship. Censorship is only used to suit the current civilization where communism or liberal is used.
Created:
Posted in:
Experiences can reveal objective truths
No. All experience are subjective and every confirmation based on experience are subjective to that person. No matter how many people believed it, since absolute objectivity cannot be perceived, there is no way to prove that those experiences yield objective truths.
but those objective truths can never be subjectively proven true to those who can't or haven't experienced it.
If I have a dragon in my garage who is invisible, roars inaudible noise and breathes invisible and garage-temperature fire, then what is the difference between having it or not having it? The objective truths are like that. Even if objective truths based on experience exists, there is no way to prove that they in fact do.
The problem is here. You can only prove that this is subjectively true, because you see it. Objective truth based on experience is impossible to prove to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You don't need certainty to have knowledge. Science uses the power of induction to create explanations, like equations about gravitational attraction, that are taken as objective because they consistently, in every application, accurately describe and predict observable phenomena. If we can inductively prove that something is objective, the ability of most people to confirm that makes it objective.
Prove that.
Created:
Posted in:
Because we go through a crosswalk and he did not want to wait for a car to stop because they always have stopped at the stop sign.
I had to explain, just because something has always happened, does not mean it always will happen and we need to be safe
I don't know how well your son understands this but this is essentially a double-edged sword: Just because the crosswalk was safe doesn't mean it is safe at this point. Also, your son would basically prevail in this argument because he is free to do everything if I am imagining that you are imagining whatever I think you are imagining because every threat would be imaginary and impossible to be proven to exist.
This statement works about objective things even: for example, history. I fail to see the connection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
There is a difference between medium-left and far-left. Far left didn't work. The current China still operates under a system where Capitalism is under Socialism's control.
Plus, economic freedom, by experience of me and billions of other Chinese people, is pretty good in mainland China. I wouldn't be saying this if China is communist at this point. Different kinds of leftism is different and different usages of different kinds of leftism is as different as different is different.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
It means that Jews are better at controlling US politics and I still fail to see why the US is controlled by Israel. Over 13% of the US is black, does that mean the US is controlled by Africa? Most politicians are white, does that mean the US is controlled by Europe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
So you agree?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
That is true. I am, though, curious that how that derives the statement that Israel controls the US.
Created:
Posted in:
Feel free to debate me on this topic if you truly will.
Created:
Posted in:
Our science and morality is built upon one "fact": That experience matters, and that what you see is true. That simply isn't true, as we cannot prove anything based on experience: How do we know that invisible aliens aren't pushing all these objects to create the illusion of Gravity? We do not know. Even though the current physics may not be "true", it is plausible, or that we think it is true, or that it is subjectively true. There is nothing preventing someone with what we call schizophrenia to actually see objects "with mass" to float upwards without seemingly any force exerted on it. In fact, we cannot conclude that those ones with schizophrenia are seeing the real world as it is, and we just have the same symptom of schizophrenia. How do we determine normal vision and abnormal vision? By social categorization, or what we "think" is right versus what we think isn't. Even how we see the world cannot be proven to be true, let alone speculation based on it.
You cannot prove that the next time you push a shopping cart "forward" and nothing else, it won't push back at you and smash you to the walls. You cannot prove that the next time an apple grows ripe, it won't fall endlessly to the sky. Even though we tend to believe our experiences and more often times than not, you see the objects behave exactly like how the old people tell you through the physic textbook that they are going to behave, it is through YOUR vision. You can only prove that this time it worked, subjectively, but never that it WILL work next time, objectively.
Objective truth based on experience is equal to nonsense because objective experience is impossible and experience is not objective. Anything we consider true, based on experience, are, at most, subjective truths.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@StevenCrowder
A relatively-leftist country went from nothingness to the 2nd most powerful country in like 70 years. Generalization is bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Again, all you talk about is how absurdly people use this term, and conclude that this term has no sensible meaning and is thus nonsense. You talk about that it is used in a harmful way thus it is malicious.
None of the following definitions agree with this view, yet this is apparently a "racist" definition. This definition isn't consistent with Wikipedia that believes "racism" is about "the scientifically false belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another"
See? That is a misuse. Let's give another example of a misusage of the term.
You think White people should not be denied rights of normal religion practices, you are literally a Fascist!
I bet $1,000 that someone on twitter said something like this at least once in the entire history of mankind, assuming society has objective existence.
This is a misusage of the term "fascist", and while a fascist is indeed harmful in view of the average human being, this usage is simply being harmful in another way: One that simply uses it as an insult that doesn't correlate with whether someone supports nationalistic policies or not. All your examples showing why "Racism" is nonsense and malicious is about how people uses it incorrectly, in according to the existing definitions.
You're begging the question.It *can't* be misused because it's a nonsense term.
Way to invalidate the structure of organized language that has been built around the past millennium or so. Racism has a definition. You are just not accepting it. Unless you are of enough authority to redefine how "racism" works or how language works in general, Racism is racism and people use its definition(correctly, that is, people often use it incorrectly according to the definition). Racism, according to what You agree with, is a noun. A noun is used to refer to something, an idea, even. How could a noun be nonsense when its job is to refer to something? Even in those misusages, the misusers are not treating the term as nonsense: They may refer it to something else, something that isn't racism, by definition. Just because there are confusing definitions for a term doesn't mean the term is nonsensical.
Racism is a term and it has a definition, and it has to refer to an idea based on that it is a noun. Misusage according to the definition is possible.
If one feels they are being racially discriminated against, then "racial discrimination" should be the term used.
So you DO recognize that this idea exists, and just have another term to refer to it. I don't oppose that idea, but invalidating the usage of a valid idea just because people misuse it all the time doesn't sound rational.
Wikipedia denies the possibility of races and the traits that go with them: "the scientifically false belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance" Racism - Wikipedia . Clearly, whoever wrote and whoever accepted this definition isn't being "objective" about the validity of human races. Whether it "offends" people or not is totally irrelevant as to whether it is fact. Facts can discriminate and that doesn't sully their validity.If I were to say that, "being overweight is unhealthy", that will discriminate and make some overweight people offended. That doesn't mean the fact is wrong lol.
...Do I really have to prove to you that other than we cannot be sure of anything, no other statement can be surely proven to be a fact?
Let us assume that all the facts we consider facts are factual. The facts do not express racial hate: Could you really establish a fact that says "Jews should be killed!" and be accepted by the scientific community? NO! The facts that have been established are not trying to assume race constitutes whether if one is superior or inferior: You know it is a false belief. If the people are offended because they think it expresses racial hate: It is only subjectively racist: because the self finds the 'fact" of racial hate. To be fair, some of your examples are just subjectively using the terms. You just don't understand how these people find whatever they are looking at racist. It is a subjective matter.
Let us assume that all the facts we consider facts are factual. The facts do not express racial hate: Could you really establish a fact that says "Jews should be killed!" and be accepted by the scientific community? NO! The facts that have been established are not trying to assume race constitutes whether if one is superior or inferior: You know it is a false belief. If the people are offended because they think it expresses racial hate: It is only subjectively racist: because the self finds the 'fact" of racial hate. To be fair, some of your examples are just subjectively using the terms. You just don't understand how these people find whatever they are looking at racist. It is a subjective matter.
How about I challenge you to a debate to the same issue? I feel like ping-ponging back and forth is more meaningless than debate it all out.
Created:
Posted in:
A family is a society-model so small-scaled that whether it is capitalist or anarchist is irrelevant to the structure as a whole. Though, harmful family members are as harmful as they are no matter how harmful they actually are.
Though, some families praise socialism, others praise Christian theocracy.
As to what makes a family totalitarian, when one person is in charge of all the things in the family. Some wives absolutely dominate their husbands in the home, spending the money the man makes for shopping bags. Other husbands dominate their wives based on traditions written in holy scripts.
As to a communist family, one who shares everything. Poor families tends to be communist: They literally share everything. They live together, and though only one or both parents have jobs, everyone gets the equal thing.
I can almost visualize no capitalist family, except for that ones of rich companies(even then, the family resembles more of either oligarchy or monarchy). I don't think co-owning an entire family and equating them to currency values is a very good idea.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
everyone know the US is an Israeli puppet regime, so I just decided to shoot straight here
This is debateart.com and not baselessclaimingart.com , so I doubt anybody is going to believe you.
Created:
Posted in:
global warming is a false narrative spread by the elite.the reefs died because of the wrath of god
How about let's debate whether if the wrath of God even exists. This statement alone requires proof for:
- Global warming is false
- Global warming is elite propaganda
- God exists
- The wrath of God exists
- The wrath of God caused those reef to die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@StevenCrowder
Yes, the post above.
Also, uh, it probably exists in the US as well.
Created:
Posted in:
liberals and leftists are always whining about "poverty this poverty that" when they dont realize poverty could easily be solved if people weren't to lazy.
Congratulations, you have solved a problem that politicians, economists and historians have been puzzled by for centuries! Now, tell me your plan and I will contact Nobel Prize committee to offer you a Nobel Prize for Economics.
They act like giving them free homes will fix the problem (thats communism by the way).
Communism is hard to start, but not inherently bad. Also, although permanent shelters for free may seem a stretch, free bunker beds/housing meant to give homeless people a good night sleep that are built next to the streets aren't that expensive. If I am not mistaken, other countries in Europe tried that and it worked to some extent.
Also, to the wider definition of "free housing", all you need to do is to commit a crime. There are people who do crime right when they get out of prison because they are homeless outside of prison and at least the jailhouse is technically a place that they can live in.
If we enforced the law on homeless people more the problem we almost be solved.
What law? Can you state it here?
Created:
Posted in:
they say "temature is going up" but climate has always changed its natural we have seen it in the past from ice ages warmin up i doubt that was cuz of factorys seeing that they didnt have any!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????
The climate exists. The climate changes. "Climate Change" is real.
Unless you can prove that climates are constant across the history of Earth, the climate changes and climate change is real.
Don't try to refute. Even if it is not caused by humans, Earth is warming.
Created:
-->
@StevenCrowder
How?
Created:
Posted in:
Functionally, "racist" and "racism" are used when "race" is mentioned and people's feelings get hurt; labelling something "racist" doesn't add any information. That's it. It's like a trigger for someone to pull whenever race is mentioned in a debate or conversation.
Blame it’s misusage. The real term has a definition and when one feels discriminated due to being a certain race, it is technically racist according to definition.
We get to the stage here where what could be scientific fact is considered wrong because it's "racist" -- a nonsensical contradiction.
Normal and “objective” people from all races accept something as true and they accept it as non-discriminate. I mean, why would a fact discriminate? When it discriminates and offends people, it is no longer what they perceive as a fact.
All the examples below are strawmen: they are about how people misuse the term, and not the term actually is. The term has a meaning and it can be used in an objective manner: about something that exists and is objectively recognized as something that is harmful to an ethnic group of people.
Created:
Posted in:
If a term is so clearly defined, then why do we seem to always need this follow-up question? Furthermore, how can we have debates that last for hours all over the internet about whether something is "racist" or not, and not have it resolved within seconds because of a clear definition?
People debate all the time about whether Taiwan is a sovereign nation, despite Taiwan is a defined piece of land, and Nation is a defined concept. The reason here is that there are factors that make this incident both racist and non-racist, which doesn’t make the term racist any poorly-defined.
Rather, not everything is a false dichotomy. One thing can be of more racist element than another, but not a lot of things can be purely racist.
Created: