Total posts: 516
-->
@Double_R
Advertisers have even taken notice. Fox News prime time is famous for its ads praying on the gullibility of its audience and selling miracle cures. The founder of ScotteVest certainly noticed when he called fox viewers gullible idiots, and then there’s the whole Ivermectin fiasco…There is no equivalent to this on the left. The closest you can find is the issue with policing statistics, but this is no where near the same level of nuttery.
You really are a useful idiot for these ultra-capitalist legacy medias. You see how garbage Fox News is (yes, I agree with you) because you don't see all the other legacy medias doing the same thing.
ALL these legacy media types are lie machines. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Sky News, ABC etc. It doesn't matter which political side or angle you take with your politics. You've got a lie machine that runs THE SAME STORY (at exactly the same time as the others -- funny that) but with your political spin just so they can get you heated. It never occurs to you how controlled your non-Fox News legacy media is because you're too upset with Fox News, Donald Trump or a confederate statue to notice.
And so you get put into a little box wherein these legacy media types control your mind. They tell you what story you should care about. You DON'T get to see raw, unedited footage from an impartial entity, or stories that are only reported by one media outlet. The "left" media tells a story, and the "right" media tells the opposite story. That's all you're allowed to think about that day. You get fired up for your side and the legacy medias get you hooked on "the news". They don't give a damn about how truthful their stories are because all that matters is your eyes are watching the screen. Just look up ANY of these legacy medias on Politifact and you'll see that they aren't telling the truth the whole time, let alone most of the time PolitiFact .
Never mind that more black people die taking baths in bathtubs per year than police shootings. George Floyd is proof of out-of-control systemic racism in the police force that is killing black people everywhere because CNN told you so. You're now angry enough to riot, burn things down and turn a part of America into 4th world CHAZ.
Never mind that the election wasn't stolen from Donald Trump. The government is overrun by left-wing people rigging the election because Fox News told you so. You're now angry enough to storm the capital and get shot by special forces.
You have your political side. Legacy media spins stories with half-truths and lies to whip you into a frenzy. You then get angry about things which makes you watch legacy media even more. Some people get so angry they need to break things or hurt people, which gives legacy media more things to report on. Legacy media makes lots of money with advertising due to you watching so much. Rinse and repeat. That's your function as a useful idiot for these legacy media, ultra-capitalist types.
Donald Trump was absolutely right about one thing: fake news. However, that *also* applies to all the lying stories that were positive about him, too. Stop watching these controlled, lying narratives designed to control your thoughts. Turn the programming off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Say what you like about Nick Fuentes (I'm sure people like Oromagi have some worthless ad homs to call himThe 18 year old pimply faced incel cunt who took a quarter million in foreign money to attack our Nation's capitol and then turned FBI informant on the rest of his groypers? How about god-damned traitor twice over?Here's Fuentes advocating for the murder of Republican politicians who wouldn't go along with Trump Putsch:"What can you and I do to a state legislator — besides kill them? We should not do that. I'm not advising that, but I mean, what else can you do, right?"Here's what that treasonous lying fuck had to say about America this week: "The Taliban is a conservative, religious force, the US is godless and liberal. The defeat of the US government in Afghanistan is unequivocally a positive development."Is there anybody your role model hasn't recently betrayed?
Lol. Thanks for making my prediction come true, you useful idiot.
My point had nothing to do with who Nick Fuentes is. My point was that his groypers exposed how "conservatives" don't exactly believe in these views -- they just espouse them. That was it. But like the useful idiot you are, you decided to Ad hom Nick just like I said you would.
The funniest thing about you is that you cry when you get called nasty labels: "You can't just say SJWs because that's an alt-Right term of denigration", but you willfully engage in it yourself: "The 18 year old pimply faced incel cunt".
You're just a massive hypocrite looking for an excuse to spout anti-white hatred and I'm glad your full colors are on display here.
You SJW :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
-->@oromagiOne hundred percent straw, man.I notice you are characterizing people who advocate for social justice as extremists. Why would any good citizen be against social justice?He's not strawmanning anyone lol.He's arguing that SJWs should not ban speech. When I asked for specifics he literally gave me Russian clickbait for Fox viewers and no evidence of anybody banning anybody. Alec's subject remains undefined.
None of this was specified in the OP, to which you replied. Hence, you called the OP a strawman *before* TheUnderdog clarified, thereby making your criticism a strawman.
You can't just say SJWs because that's an alt-Right term of denigration
You're a massive hypocrite then because you've called white scientists "white supremacists" IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com) , which is just an extremist far-left term of denigration.
Stop being a hypocrite. Either you stop using these derogatory terms, or we keep using them and you stop crying like a little girl, princess.
Ultimately, this topic is still waiting for Alec to define his subject.
Ultimately, you're an anti-white far-left extremist who cries when you receive the same vitriol you spew.
Grow a spine, jelly.
Created:
Posted in:
Conservatives need to stop defending Fox News and these conservative grifters, and instead be critical of ALL legacy media. These people talk, and talk, and talk, but they never get anything done or changed, despite having an inordinate amount of power and influence.
Groypers showed that some of these "conservative" politicians/pundits don't give a damn about doing things that will actually get conservative views put in place. That's why "conservative" people like Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro don't care at all about the problems White countries are facing, but will happily spout conservative talking points all day Ben Shapiro, Conservative Inc, and the "Groyper" War of 2019 - YouTube .
If you actually want to reinstate free-speech (which is a good idea), then you need to start supporting people who are actually attempting to get things done, NOT these grifter types that only spout the talking points. Say what you like about Nick Fuentes (I'm sure people like Oromagi have some worthless ad homs to call him), but his Groyper movement exposed these fraudulent "conservative" grifters for what they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
One hundred percent straw, man.I notice you are characterizing people who advocate for social justice as extremists. Why would any good citizen be against social justice?
He's not strawmanning anyone lol. He's literally wanting to know: "I just want to see how far SJWs are willing to go." So, he's implicitly unsure of SJW positions, hence he asks how far you're willing to go.
People are against "social justice" because it's extremist and cult-like. Some people don't fall for your euphemistic label of "social justice" because it's:
- anti-free speech
- anti-white
- allowing transgenderism for children
- allowing sky-high taxation
- authoritarian with views of knowledge
- heavily invested in grievance/block politics
- in favor of heavy government intervention
etc.
So, TheUnderdog is 100% right in asking SJWs how far they will go with "hate speech" because SJWs believe in anti-free speech laws/regulations, he's just not sure if they will go that far.
Thus, your accusation of his question being a "strawman" is in itself a strawman.
Created:
Posted in:
You can say whatever, I don't care.
Yeah so I give you good reasons to not play this garbage games, and you end with this.
What's the point of posting this on a debate website? If you're not interested in doing things logically or correctly, then why even bother posting any of this on here? The whole point of a debate website's forum is to get to the bottom of things, not to totally concede everything and just do what you were doing anyway LOL.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
I think the best long term investments are in clean air and clean fresh water. Non-toxic food, comes in a close third.
This is such a bad faith interpretation of the OP's question lol. He's clearly talking about individuals investing.
Go and virtue-signal somewhere else, dickhead.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
As I've discussed the idea of taxing the rich more, there has been some, well, pushback. That these people are paying more than their fair share, that they provide all of the income for the government, etc, etc. Here's the thing, the fundamental things - whenever a rich person it taxed almost any percentage of taxes, they will have more than enough income to live on, this is not always the case with poor people.
So why are the poor entitled to the money the rich have earned?
Yes, the rich are able to theoretically pay more tax, because their base costs can be super easily covered. But why should this be happening? Why are you forcing them at the government's gunpoint to pay more?
Furthermore, let's assume that Biden's 15 dollar an hour minimum wage passes - that's 15 dollars times an average workweek of 40 hours, multiplied by four for your gross monthly income. That's approximately $2400, so, to deduct that 50% income tax, you get 1,200 dollars. According to Statistica, in January of 2021 (the last recorded data point), that is an overall cost of $1,124... so - rent - costs nearly your entire gross monthly salary - and that's not even considering if you have kids, or any other bills you have to pay, like internet, car insurance, health insurance, utilities, etc, etc. And this is all presuming that the minimum wage is increased to 15 dollars an hour.
So what? Who cares if the poor aren't able to afford "average" rent? Poor people have to bunch up with other people to pay rent, pick below "average" rent areas, or become more employable so they can command wages better than minimum wage. No one is entitled to housing, let alone "average" housing. If you're so worthless to a society that you can't make over minimum wage, then you're in not position to demand better housing, especially if you stupidly had kids you can't afford to raise. Stop making rich people pay for your incompetence/mistakes.
According to Pew. Research and Business Insider, the median interest of the group considered the "rich" is $187,872 - to be charitable, we'll round down to 185,000 dollars annually. So dividing that number in half, we get 92,500 annually, and 7,708 monthly.. which, is enough to pay what Statistica reports as the average rent for a house of more than 5 people, more than four times over - so- to say that a tax will affect each level of income earner the same is to not understand what fractions can do to different proportions. This is, fundamentally why, the rich ought to be taxed more than the poor. Not to make them also struggle, but to overcome this basic principle of proportionality.
If you're not contributing substantially to America, then perhaps you don't deserve housing.
Your entitlement complex is ridiculous.
Created:
I think we need to lower the age of consent to 14 for student loan debt. I think 14 year olds possess the requisite mental capacity to understand the consequences of their actions, and who is in a better position than the minor herself to judge whether or not she should enter in to such an arrangement?
Hahahahaha.
Even 14 years old is an infringement on the personal choice of those younger.
There should be no age of consent for student loan debt. 3 year olds should be allowed to take out student loans for their future education. The state should not interfere with people's right to personal freedom. Hell, even 12 week old infants should be allowed to take out student loans, vote, pay taxes, pay a mortgage, sign up for the military etc. -- there is no one in a better position than the infant to judge whether or not he/she should enter such an arrangement.
Stop allowing the fascist state to infringe upon our personal freedoms.
Created:
Posted in:
lol athias you have already tried that one on by calling me weakeredge do you just do this to everyone when your cornered?
Who would have thought the pedophile Athias is also a coward?
In the highly respected words of Jesse Lee Peterson: Amazin'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why not just skip to the inevitable conclusion and declare yourself the winner from the start ?
The audience decides the winner lol.
That's the whole point of a debate. It's about convincing the audience.
Created:
Posted in:
If you're looking for a game that is about strategy (nothing wrong with that), go and play one that doesn't involve grinding and gated pay-walls. If you're looking for to form friendships and be united in something, you can do that without doing mind-numbing grinding and paying lol. You don't have to grind and lock yourself in a pay-gated garden to get these things.
As for GTA, it's just fun playing it. You can be a Karen and say it "inspires violence" or whatever (that's another debate), but I'm having fun and you're not when you grind -- that's my point. It's fun to try and flip cars. It's fun to shoot rocket launchers at helicopters and see them explode mid-air. It's fun to see how long you can drive safely without breaking the law in a game designed for you to break the law. I have my own fun with the game doing things I can't do irl. When I get bored of that, I turn it off and do something else. When you get bored of your pay-piggy grind-fest, you keep grinding because the numbers aren't high enough and it's more efficient to suffer now than later. I don't have to pay for boosts to get better exp. I don't have to pay for extra slots or bigger bank space. I just play until I stop having fun. You don't.
Created:
Posted in:
I wouldn't classify all videogames as worthy to be shat on. I like games where I can have fun. I like GTA wherein I can shoot rocket launchers, pilot planes or drive a car super fast through a busy street, something I can't and don't want to do irl. I like Gw2 wherein I can dress my characters up in pretty outfits and be involved in the stories (and avoid the grinding). I like Fallout wherein I can make interesting, meaningful decisions in the game's story, or just shoot the high-powered weapons at random things to see if they vaporize (and not care too much about the levelling). These are fun things I like doing in videogames.
I do however take exception to these predatory, instant-gratification, pay-walled skinner-boxes much like the one you've listed here.
You see the issue here is that you're hardly playing a game to have fun. You're grinding away to make the numbers go higher. You're stating that someone MUST "no-life" the game for several days, in order to have any chance at winning. You're stating that you HAVE TO "farm" in order to get some numbers up. You're stating that you NEED to spend "15 dollars" on the game and that's the "minimum". So you're paying to grind/farm better in order to make numbers go higher. Does that sound like fun to you? Or does that sound like someone torturing themselves and paying to torture themselves less in order to make number go higher? This is garbage. You're basically a drug addicted pay-piggy to these people. They're the only ones allowed to sell you your dopamine hit.
Created:
Posted in:
For once, we agree :)
Created:
Posted in:
Imagine spending any time on this garbage lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
1) You've conceded that: "None of this matters because the only considerations--"capable" or not--that should be made as it concerns one's own body is by the very person him or herself," is a wild claim that leads to wickedly dark conclusions.I made no such concession; and I'd request that you quote me, but you've demonstrated no capacity to do this.
I first said: "That's a wild claim that's going to lead to some wickedly dark conclusions" Should the age of consent be lowered? (debateart.com) .
You responded by saying: "It doesn't change that your entire statement is irrelevant." Should the age of consent be lowered? (debateart.com) .
Your sentence inherently concedes that your general argument is wild and leads to wickedly dark conclusions, hence why your response contended with whether "my statement" was "irrelevant", and not my accusation that your argument was "wild" and lead to "dark conclusions" -- it conceded the latter.
(2) You've failed to demonstrate that my original argument is irrelevant Should the age of consent be lowered? (debateart.com) because you've failed to substantiate the idea that children are capable of consent.Your shallow argument is demonstrably irrelevant on its own; it needs no assistance from me. Note the statement which immediately followed my assessment: "because the only considerations--"capable" or not--that should be made as it concerns one's own body is by the very person him or herself. Your reference to diminished reasoning as a result of an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex does not in any way inform or explain the disqualification of a minor in behaving his or her body as he/she sees fit. Because in order to do this, you would have to quantify and arbitrarily select "how much" reasoning is necessary to have authority over one's own body. Do any of your references speak to this? No? Then it's irrelevant.
Firstly, your claim that the "argument is demonstrably irrelevant on its own" is circular reasoning because your logic is that:
(Premise) "[my] entire statement is irrelevant."
(Conclusion) We know this because "[my] statement itself is proof enough of its irrelevance."
Hence, you're embedded the conclusion in your premise -- circular reasoning (logical fallacy).
Secondly, I find it reasonable to apply restrictions to autonomy based on a person's mental capacity. Again, that's why we don't expect 3 year old children to take care of a house and family. That's why we have differing legal standards based on the age of the criminal (i.e. lesser sentences for young people). It's just so obvious that the younger people are, the less they are able to understand the implications of their actions. That's why it's a good idea that 24 week old infants aren't having sex with 35 year old people, but you're making the argument that's this is fine, pedophile.
Thirdly, you've decided to engage in a continuum fallacy in that you've argued the delineations between ages are "arbitrary", therefore there should be no delineations (i.e. you're arguing that there should be no age restrictions on consent). This is actually a logical fallacy. The best way to show this is analogize colors. We recognize 'orange' and 'green' are distinct from each other (people aged 3 and 40). We also recognize 'orange' and 'red' are distinct from each other (people aged 14 and 18). However, when we have the hue in question be in the middle of 'orange' and 'red' (should we give bodily autonomy at aged 17 or 18?), it's sometimes hard to determine what color it is. Regardless, that doesn't mean the distinction between 'orange', 'green', 'purple' and all the other colors are wrong, it's just that it's harder to tell on some hues. This is why your continuum fallacy is logically invalid.
I've substantiated the idea that children are unable to consent through reference to brain development.No you haven't. You've only asserted. You would have first had to have defined consent, and control for its legal definition. Then you would have to demonstrate how your reference informs the incapacity to consent as it met the description you've defined. You have done no such thing, because you exhibited the proclivity to submit shallow arguments.
You've shown your whole argument as logically inconsistent by labelling my argument as "irrelevant", and yet not knowing the definition of 'consent' I'm working with. If you don't know the argument I am making, then you cannot conclude it is "irrelevant" -- this is your logical inconsistency.
The definition of 'consent' I'm working with is 'the agreement to do something'. Part of this agreement should require both parties to understand the implications involved, as a 3 year old consenting to performing forklift operations in a high-risk, fast-moving dock environment might not be the best idea, so we invalidate the 3 year old's consent due to understanding a 3 year old can't understand the gravity of the task involved.
Similarly, we don't allow 3 year olds to have sex because they can't understand the gravity of the task involved. You're treating literal infants with same the autonomy that we give adults. If you weren't larping as an anarchist, you'd understand how ridiculous that is.
Moreover, children are unable to comprehend the implications, emotional aspects and risks involved in sex (much like how you wouldn't expect children to pay for a house, manage taxes, work a proper job etc.).Another shallow argument; no so such implications are required to be considered before having sex. Moreover, one is not criminally penalized for having sex for "less informed" or even stupid reasons. So this begs the question: why are any of these alleged implications even considered as a benchmark for minors, when adult are by no means compelled to follow suit? Your reasoning, once again, is asinine.
9 year old girls giving birth doesn't have implications that should be considered? 6 year old schoolboys having sex with 35 year old female teachers doesn't have implications that should be considered? I even spell it out to you and you still can't see the issues with treating children like adults.
Even with adults, people are prosecuted for having sex/performing sexual acts with ADULTS who are impaired. In some parts of the world, you can't legally give consent if you're drunk, asleep, seriously cognitively impaired etc. This has nothing to do with being "less informed" or "stupid" reasons. This has everything to do with these adults being unable to give consent due to their cognitive impairment/compromised state.
You're just mentally unable to grasp the fact that children are cognitively different to adults. It's actually astonishing. You are a legitimate pedophile.
You affording the same "bodily autonomy" to children as adults is a bad idea because they are not the same and these differences matter.It's either the minor has authority over his or her body, or the State does. And subjecting the authority of one's body to the authority of the State is the worst idea.
States don't have the right to force children to have sex, hence the state doesn't have authority over a child's body.
Instead, states prevent people exploiting a child's vulnerable nature by legally enforcing that a super serious act not be done to children. The law prevents dangerous pedophiles (like you) from harming children, NOT dictating what children do with their bodies.
Calling this "fluff" isn't a sufficient counter-argumentThis presupposes that you provided an argument; I calls them like I sees them.
"Fluff" is a bare assertion and thus is logically rejected on that ground alone.
You are a pedophile because you believe there is no difference children and adults having sexPhysically, there isn't much difference. Emotionally, it's contingent on the individual, their being adults or minors not particularly withstanding.
There's physically not "much difference" between a 24 week old infant and a 57 year old man?
I've covered the emotional part many times. You don't understand that children and adults are emotionally very different because you're a pedophile.
you have the capacity to be attracted to children.Don't forget "my capacity" to be attracted to other men, as well as non-human animals.
I never argued this. This is a total red herring.
Well, I will engage this regress no more.
I hope so.
I hope the FBI or the "state" kicks down your door and arrest you for being a child predator. Or better yet, you attempt to resist the "state" in your anarchist larping and your brain redecorates your "state" housing.
Get out of here, pedophile.
Created:
You giys know it's Trump who made the deal that you're attacking Biden for right?
Quote me on where I've argued that at all. Hell, quote me on where I mentioned Trump or Biden. That's right: I didn't.
Don't rope me into your stupid strawman, you anti-white jelly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No... I responded more specifically by saying "we can isolate the comparisons to HUMAN differences and similarities, which we as humans are more than capable of" you're literally ignoring the biggest point I made, AGAIN.
Yes. If we look only at humans, we can see that there is 'more variation within than between', and what you then do is argue that human races are a myth/unsubstantiated/too blurred to be real, based on that logic.
What I have done is shown you that when we apply the 'more variation within than between' logic to chimpanzees-humans and men-women, we see that these groups are subject to this logic. Hence, if you were being consistent with your logic, you would deny grouping distinctions between humans AND grouping distinctions between chimpanzees and humans AND grouping distinctions between men and women.
Because you don't actually care about the truth, your just a racist bullshitter who gets off on being racist, and whenever people actually rebuke your arguments you freak out and ignore the actual argument, repeating the same tired claim over and over.
Relax.
"Racist" is a nonsense term Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
By the same token, your method of "declaring YOURSELF victorious" is equally silly for the exact same reason.You might as well be giving yourself a trophy that you made yourself.(IFF) you don't believe there is any chance of convincing your opponents (THEN) why the hell are you talking at us ?While it seems "rare", it is not unheard of for an interlocutor to acknowledge a "good point".
The primary function of debate is for someone to win. If you're looking for the truth of the matter, you're much better off taking the 10s of hours required to dig into the weeds and capture all the nuance. But most people aren't interested in doing that for various reason (time constraints, apathy etc.). You're not going to convince your opponent mid-debate because they're trying to win and it takes a lot of time for people to change their believes (because it's often thoroughly tied to their identity).
The reason I talk to other people is to see if I'm right and potentially learn from other people. Even if I don't convince you, I get to make my arguments better and see if you have anything that will convince me. This forum is not a debate, btw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm going to summarize key points in this discussion because you make only a few repeated counter-arguments:
(1) You've conceded that: "None of this matters because the only considerations--"capable" or not--that should be made as it concerns one's own body is by the very person him or herself," is a wild claim that leads to wickedly dark conclusions.
(2) You've failed to demonstrate that my original argument is irrelevant Should the age of consent be lowered? (debateart.com) because you've failed to substantiate the idea that children are capable of consent. Thus, my arguments made in the quoted post all stand
(3) I've substantiated the idea that children are unable to consent through reference to brain development. Moreover, children are unable to comprehend the implications, emotional aspects and risks involved in sex (much like how you wouldn't expect children to pay for a house, manage taxes, work a proper job etc.). You affording the same "bodily autonomy" to children as adults is a bad idea because they are not the same and these differences matter. Calling this "fluff" isn't a sufficient counter-argument -- this is a bare assertion (which you make multiple times)
(4) You are a pedophile because you believe there is no difference children and adults having sex -- you have the capacity to be attracted to children. That is not the same as claiming you're a convicted pedophile, you have committed pedophilic acts or that you are planning to (hence, my reasoning is not "asinine"). Again, people are pedophiles due to your capacity to be attracted to children (which you are). Whether you are an anarchist or not has no bearing on this conclusion
But really, this is you larping as a cringelord anarchist and accidentally revealing that you're a pedophile, Athias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
That's a wild claim that's going to lead to some wickedly dark conclusions.It doesn't change that your entire statement is irrelevant.
You've failed to prove this.
So if a 9 year old (entered puberty early) is "capable" of having sex, they should be able to have it?Yes.You want 9 year olds and 30 year olds having sex?No.You want two 9 year olds having sex?No.My "want" however is irrelevant.
No, actually. Your want is completely relevant to this because we legally mandate what is consider "consent" through what we want, and yes I'm arguing that we should legally mandate the notion of consent in regardless to sexual intercourse.
When society doesn't want 9 year olds having sex, that's because there are grave implications that result from it (children, costs, power imbalances etc.) You failing to not want that is completely relevant to the grave implications that result from that.
Also, the fact that you think 9 year olds should be having sex makes you a pedophile.
You have no idea what "registers" in my brain.
You are incorrect because you write words which reflect what registers in your brain. Therefore, I do have an idea.
"Power imbalances" are present in everything children and adults do. If "power balance" informed "predation" then no parent in the age of majority would be a fit custodian.
Power imbalances in consent are the problem, pedophile.
For example, if a custodial guardian says to his 10 year old child 'have sex with me or you don't get fed', that is clearly an exploitation of the power imbalance rendering the child unable to give true consent.
Yes, the same can happen in instances outside of sex, hence why child protection agencies exist. But there is *always* a problem in regards to underaged sex because the children involved are unable to comprehend the implications, are at serious risk of being exploited, and are unable to deal with the real world implications of sex. That's the point.
the issue with 9 year olds giving birth to children,All of which could be regulated by the child's custodian.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't have this result in the first place, so I'm not going to open this can of worms because society should be looking to avoid this at a lot of cost.
the cognitive inability to understand the consequences of sex,If a nine year-old can attend a university, then I'm fairly willing to bet that he or she can appreciate the consequences of sex; a minor who knows to avoid touching fire can appreciate the consequences of sex.how two 9 year olds are going to pay for a child etc.
Having general intelligence/being famous is different to having the emotional understanding of the implications involving sex. Even with your extreme examples, children aren't emotionally equipped to deal with the blow out involved with having sex. That's the point that you routinely miss because you are a legitimate pedophile.
Why create the division just there? What about zygotes? Fetuses? Obviously you can't see past your own prejudice to appreciate the argument I've made in favor of an individual's bodily autonomy, but instead attempt to pigeonhole said argument to sex with infants. So I'll simply respond with this: parents/custodians can regulate their infants sexual prospects without coercing it.
Zygotes and fetuses can't have sex, you stupid pedophile.
You're treating 3 year olds as if they're adults with the "individual's bodily autonomy". I've got no problem if you want to talk about adults like that, but you think there is no difference between 3 year olds and adults having sex. Three year olds don't understand the implications of sex, let alone anything in the adult world. All they know is that they want to play and learn about things they see in their lives.
Naturally. I mean, I must be, right? I must also be gay when I argue that homosexuals bear discretion over whom they choose to engage coitus. I must also be covered with tattoos, despite my utter disgust of them, because I wouldn't stand behind any statutory penalty for marking up one's skin. I'm also a pot-smoking alcoholic, as well, despite my not having a single alcoholic drink or a smoke in almost 15 years.
I haven't argued any of this.
I have argued that you are a pedophile and your illogical reasoning is harmful to society, and when you say things like "The age of consent should be eliminated entirely", and that you're okay with 3 year olds having sex, you do a better job at proving both those things than I do.
I don't agree with blocking people like that, but good grief is he a danger to society.You only compliment me when you describe me as a danger to your conception of society. I welcome it.
I don't think you realize how unacceptable what you are saying is. You are fully advocating pedophilia. There are strict, unforgiving laws against it all throughout the world that should be enough to prevent you from engaging in pedophilia, not to mention the extremely damaging abuse children suffer at the hands of pedophiles. This is nothing to be owning or embracing -- you are as bad for society as terrorists and serial killers.
You need to be rectified before you cause serious harm to a child, if you haven't already.
Convicted pedophiles need the death penalty.I'm a convicted pedophile now? Well, better start informing my neighbors as Megan's Law requires. Oooh, Megan? I wonder if she's young enough.
No.
I never called you a convicted pedophile.
I called you a pedophile. I hope that if you ever get convicted of pedophilia, you are killed for your inhuman crime.
This Athias guy is implicitly arguing there is nothing wrong with pedophilia.Is that what I argued? Quote me verbatim.
Everything you write points in this direction. The most damning quote is this: "The age of consent should be eliminated entirely".
You are a pedophile, Athias.
We've already acknowledge your indisputable logic: arguing in favor of removing criminal penalty = engaging the act that's criminalized.
That isn't how I came to the conclusion that you're a pedophile.
I've argued that because you don't see anything wrong with 3 year olds or 9 year olds having sex, you are a pedophile. To you, there is no difference between an adult and a 3 year old having sex. That is an essential belief of a pedophile, one of which you hold.
You are a pedophile.
Created:
Posted in:
The age of consent should be eliminated entirely. The government has no prerogative--other than its self-imposed "legal" one--to dictate when and how one can behave one's own body. Athias -- Should the age of consent be lowered? (debateart.com)
This Athias guy is implicitly arguing there is nothing wrong with pedophilia.
This guy has to be a pedophile.
Created:
Posted in:
you are blocked and a danger to society
I don't agree with blocking people like that, but good grief is he a danger to society.
Convicted pedophiles need the death penalty.
Created:
Posted in:
None of this matters because the only considerations--"capable" or not--that should be made as it concerns one's own body is by the very person him or herself.
That's a wild claim that's going to lead to some wickedly dark conclusions.
So if a 9 year old (entered puberty early) is "capable" of having sex, they should be able to have it? You want 9 year olds and 30 year olds having sex? You want two 9 year olds having sex? How does it not register in your brain that this is an appalling standard to have, with all the power imbalances involved with children and adults having sex, the issue with 9 year olds giving birth to children, the cognitive inability to understand the consequences of sex, how two 9 year olds are going to pay for a child etc.
Or would you wind it back even further and say that people *before* puberty are "capable" of having sex, therefore that's fine? Nothing wrong with 3 year olds having sex?
That's actually thoroughly disgusting, dangerously wrong and you're a pedophile.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
It's also worth noting that the media has plenty Jewish influence jews in media - Bing images . Add to that the fact that Israel is surrounded by countries whose Islamic religion tells them to kill Jewish people and take back the holy land, and it's of little wonder why the Jewish media wants wars in the Middle East. For example, if Israel were to get into a war with Iran, and the US wasn't involved, Iran would wipe Israel from existence because despite having less nukes than Israel, Israel is far smaller and more concentrated -- very susceptible to a nuke attack. There's no reason for the US to be involved in the Middle East, but there is every reason for Israeli/Jewish people to be because they're faced with an extinction level threat.
I'll briefly address the other usual counterargument given to what you've said.
The 'mineral' argument is bogus because the US became energy independent as a NET EXPORTER of oil in 2019 United States energy independence - Wikipedia .
The Russian threat argument is bogus because Russia is a former shell of its USSR and Tsarist self. Also, in 1877, Russia actually invaded and occupied part of the Middle East and nothing really happened. This land is generally not worth occupying.
Created:
Posted in:
The human brain hasn't fully developed until roughly the age of 25. What this means is that until the age of 25, humans are less capable of making big, life-changing decisions due to the underdevelopment of the prefrontal cortex At What Age Is The Brain Fully Developed? - Mental Health Daily. Ideally, if that was the only factor involved, humans should not be able to get married, have sex, drink alcohol, have political opinions, choose to go to college, enlist in the military etc. before that age. Also, the extra 7-12 years worth of life experience will further help make these decisions. I wrote an OP detailing how bad teenaged parents are for children (looking purely at outcomes): Children should be born into wedlock with their biological, adult parents (debateart.com) .
However, we also need to factor in the fact that young bodies have an advantage over their 25 year old counterparts. For giving birth to children, as women age they become more likely to have genetically unhealthy children https://youtu.be/4kfcsOhgzRA?t=550 . For men, they have the highest (natural) testosterone levels around the ages of 17-20 -- this is roughly where they are most virile testosterone levels in men by age - Bing images . So, purely for breeding purposes, it would be best if men and women of ages 17-20 could produce their children then.
Therefore, we have these opposing forces for age of consent: (1) societal factors wanting you to be far older to produce children (25+), and (2) the human body reaching breeding potential around the ages of 17-20 (probably lower for girls and higher for boys). Thus, the game here is to balance this out. If you set the age of consent too low, you'll have people having sex who don't understand the implications of it at all. If you set the age of consent too high, you'll miss out on the years the human body is at its reproductive best.
Nowhere in this calculation can it be concluded that 13 years old is a good idea for the age of consent -- the lack of physical maturation and mental maturation means you're getting the worst of both worlds. If you take it up to 16 (which is the case for some countries), you're basically at the physical maturation for girls (almost for boys), but the mental side will be horribly lacking (read my teenage parents OP). If you take it up to 20 years, you're on the back-end of the physical maturation and you're capturing more of the mental maturity -- this is where I'd like to see age of consent at.
If we set the age of consent to 20, we also lower the amount of useless sex before people can get married and have children (sex lowers people's ability to pairbond, and pairbonding is essential for a stable child-rearing unit) stable marriage rate as per teachman - Bing images . This will also mean that people will, on average, be having more responsible sex, thus lowering the chances of STDs spreading. We also help to avoid of the exploitative setups wherein older people have relationships with teenagers (think 30 year old dating 16 year olds).
Not only should we reject the age of consent being lowered (especially to 13), but I think it should be raised to 20.
Created:
Posted in:
For anyone actually reading the Double R or dfss discussions, I'll post my last comments wherein they were somewhat still responding to what I wrote, because the conversations were worthwhile up until these points:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
That's a silly rule because most debaters aren't going to award their opponent's any points. Even if they agree with you, they're just going to ignore your line of argument -- no use in wasting characters/time to give the opposition points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Forgot to address the above to you :)
Created:
Posted in:
I think the nuance you mentioned seemed to have a positive effect on western society as a whole. I could only think of one problem: wasn't there a royal family in the west who loved inbreeding? I'm not a big fan of monarch type governments so I don't know much but I believe this is a counter-example. Regardless, I think people are susceptible to manipulation. I'd grant that they would marry according to similarities with exceptions given to certain factors. And, whenever there are counter-examples in the form of personality opposites, I'd like to think that although they do attract each other because of their polarizing differences, I predict that these couples will inevitably end in divorces. Additionally, it makes sense that people marry with as much similarities as possible, so long as their immune systems do not end up disadvantaging them.
I guess the royal family was the exception. I'm not convinced that the Catholic Church fully understood why inbreeding was a bad idea, although I'm not exactly sure when and how they decided it was. Maybe they came to implicitly understand that inbreeding was a bad idea, without being able to explicitly explain why. All I know is that they imposed rules against it and societies started to flourish.
I agree with everything else you wrote.
Milton wrote that the Angel Gabriel had to delineate the ideas of heaven and hell according to human experiences. In other words, it's impossible for humans to fully understand what it means for Satan to rebel because human capability is limited. I'm not talking about realms beyond experience.I'm talking about realms within experience. Largely, they're predictable but the amount of randomness would still make it infinite. Aristotle believed that slavery was a permanent part of human nature, because every nation neighboring with greece used slavery. To date, I think nobody believes in slavery anymore unless the person is an anonymous troll in the internet. Unique experiences exist and I believe that these unique experiences make experiences infinite. My honest opinion.
I can agree that the odd thing is unpredictable and that some experiences are unique. Aristotle couldn't predict the end of slavery, as most people in the 1800s couldn't predict mobile phones or computers, despite them being less than 200 years away. I think people get carried away with their egos when they try to predict the future.
But that isn't the same as saying the possibilities are infinite. Rather, it's just the human experience being too limited (at the moment) to understand everything. There's a finite amount of chemicals and possible chemical interactions that can happen, even if that number is beyond human comprehension.
Well, I don't believe my whole reply to this point would be particularly useful but I'll write my honest opinion anyway. I believe there is a hierarchy of attraction. Western countries with plenty of diversity would still prefer caucasian partners in most cases. Im just throwing darts at a board because I don't really know; I'm just speculating. I feel like I've exhausted all of my insights, but at least, even though my particular point on attraction may sound dumb, at least I wrote it as honest as I can make it.For indonesians, we don't see caucasians often, unless you're the son of a rich general. So largely, normal Indonesians settle for the next best thing: the Chinese.Personally, I think males rating attraction solely in terms of looks are equally stupid as female gold diggers. I mean, girls should really stop conflating wealth with personality and guys should really stop conflating looks with personality. My opinion.
It's a bit hard to find data specifically on only Western countries, but dating apps have provided plenty of data based on race, albeit some of the data is old 7 (Surprising) Online Dating Race Statistics (datingadvice.com):
- As of around 2010, Facebook's dating app showed that White men were the most sought after by women (except Black women). Surprisingly, Asian women were generally the most sought after by men good-responserates.jpg (588×300) (datingadvice.com)
- A 2009 Okay Cupid data dump showed that again, Asian women were the most sought after by men okcupidmatch2.png (588×300) (datingadvice.com)
- Data collected from 2008-2014 from Okay Cupid showed that 35% of people (in 2014) preferred to date only people of their own race, although that number had dropped from 42% in 2008
- In 2014, a bit under 4% of people thought interracial marriage was a bad idea
Based on that data, it's not ridiculous to argue that (1) Western countries have more White people than any other race, (2) therefore, because 35% of people prefer to date their own race, and because most women prefer White men, it's plausible that White people are the preferred date in the Western dating market
There's also theories that argue certain phenotypic traits of races are objectively more attractive, although data for this line of argument is far rarer (likely because it's currently taboo for its "racist" vibes). There's this video that briefly touches on those phenotypic traits, but goes more into the dating statistical likelihoods of various races: WAW3c: Hwīte Men Have The Highest Snuggle Market Value - YouTube
As for your comment about Indonesia, I don't know Indonesia very well, so I don't think I can comment.
As for males rating attraction in terms of solely looks, yes that's stupid, but looks are by far the most important factor in terms of dating/marriage. As for women being gold diggers, I'm not sure there are many people who will defend gold diggers lol. Gold diggers are purely exploitative and men have to be very desperate/lonely to have anything to do with them.
I think this is a fascinating sentence. I had wondered how to make a good sentence that summarizes all of my ideas but I guess yours would do fine.
:)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
and then the other person ignoring what I wrote.In other words, "not being instantly convinced".
Nope.
They both stopped responding to what I wrote. Not that it's worth doing, but you can look back at who stopped responding to the other person first.
Created:
Posted in:
They should redo Mean Girls the movie except replace the female cast with more capable adult men like the two above.
Created:
Posted in:
He acts like it's "his" thread.
No lol.
I'm done with people making arguments, me responding to them, and then the other person ignoring what I wrote. It's tedious and unproductive having to look back to what I previously wrote and point out that the other person didn't respond to my counterargument, only to have the other person get upset and say 'it's not your thread wah wah wah. I'll do what I want!'
I'm not in the slightest bit interested in having conversations wherein you talk past what I responded with, or try to hide the fact that you're objectively wrong about something. I can't force you to respond to what I write, but I'm not going to ignore the fact that you haven't responded to what I wrote.
It's no surprise that you've decided to cry about this. You're one of the posters who does this, albeit it took you way longer to start behaving like this compared to the average user on here.
That's how this is going to go down. If you don't like it then shove off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Respond or leave: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Please don’t revert to ad hominems.
I've noted that your argument is a baseless, racial attack on white people. After that, I stated that you're anti-white and hate white people. The labels of you came as a result of addressing your argument (which was really a bare assertion), hence none of what I wrote was Ad hominem.
Try to act civilised.
You've made racially hateful comments against white people LOL.
You realize that people can scroll up and see how much of a hypocrite you are, in asking for others to be "civilised?"
Reece: [verbally abusing white people]
Others: Wow. You're verbally abusing white people.
Reece: Don't say that. Let's be civilised.
I just wanted to start a conversation. What questions do you have?
Yeah. Why do you make racially hateful comments against white people? Also, why do you consistently post some of the most stupid comments on this website?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Genetically there isn't much difference, mostly hormonial, further - that doesn't matter cuz' it falls in the same boat as the rest of your bullshit, bullshit. You've repeated yourself, like, the exact argument - saying that you've shown it like night and day - without actually responding. Your still being a moron.
You made the argument 'more difference within than between' proves human races invalid. I showed you analogies that demonstrate how ridiculous that logic is (makes grouping chimpanzees and humans separately invalid, and grouping men and women separately invalid). You've previously responded by saying 'we're talking about humans'. At that point, you've already dropped the argument. In fact, you still haven't addressed it, even with this post.
I honestly don't care if you can't address the analogies that show your 'more variation within than between' logic to be horrendous. You floundering around with those simple analogies is doing wonders for putting race realism in a positive light, so thank you :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Respond or leave: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Respond or leave: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .
Created:
Posted in:
Should have left that country a long time ago.
Yes.
All I see is a country that long since had a good reason to be there and has caused the region to generally hate America.
America is energy independent -- no need to be there for oil. The Soviet Union has been long since dissolved -- the Russian threat is a shell of its former self. Why is America still there then?
This isn't a Joe Biden problem, or whatever 'us-versus-them' tribalistic brainlet conception you want to spin on this. There's been a long chain of both Democrat and Republican presidents before him mucking up the US-Middle East relations with stupid inferences of that region. This stupid interference made Middle Easterners angry enough to cause things like 9/11. Then, America doubles down and interferes EVEN MORE in the Middle East, worsening relations even further and causing more terrorism. All of this keeps costing more and more money to have bases in the Middle East to try to 'stabilize' the region, as well as maintain counter-terrorism operations in America's homeland. This cycle keeps repeating until one side backs off, or there is a war which forces a side to back down.
Nobody should care that this is a bad look for Joe Biden because it's objectively best that America gets out of the Middle East. The Middle East will still hate America for some time, but at least this stops pouring gasoline on the Us-Middle East relations dumpster fire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But it never works like that Karly Baby.Karl Marx: Points out of ten.1. Facial hair....10.2. Bullshit........10.
I'm not a communist nor do I think Karl Marx was fundamentally correct.
I thought it was a nice rhetorical touch, given that communists/socialists nowadays tend to be pro gun control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Dunning-Kruger effect [ ] all products of whiteness.
This is just you being racially hateful against white people. You've provided no argumentation, reasoning or evidence to support this -- you flatly assert it like the stupid, anti-white moron that you are.
This is yet another example of you being one of the worst posters on this site, producing some of the most stupid and logically unsound/invalid arguments this website has ever seen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Race realism is about documenting real differences between races. That in itself isn't solely to do with white people. The idea that all humans evolved to be exactly the same, despite evolving in different environments across different times, is virtually impossible. Hence, race realism is virtually axiomatic, if you believe in evolution.
White privilege is a concept that doesn't exist in reality. Some people think white privilege exists because there are different outcomes for race are purely a result of environmental factors (systemic racism, white privilege, redlining etc.) Whilst the environment can affect outcomes, arguing that all outcomes are 100% the result of the environment denies the existence of heritability/genetics, and thus should be rejected on that fact alone.
Ryan Faulk has produced excellent articles on several common topics brought up in white privilege discussions: (1) Blacks and Whites with Equal Educational Attainment Differ in Cognitive Ability , (2) University Discrimination , (3) The Call Back Myth and (4) Racial Discrimination in Loans .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
In the amount of time you've spent being irrationally stubborn about not responding to this post Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com), you could have responded to this post, shown that it doesn't do whatever you're arguing (if that's the case), and we could have long since moved on.
Instead, you've continued to waste everyone's time by not responding to it.
Lol.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It also means that the people he’s blocked are all bullies that enjoy bullying him
Yes. They have bullied him very badly by disagreeing with him. The fact that people enjoy bullying like that makes my soy go sour.
Created:
Posted in:
I never said I was entitled to you behaving like a reasonable person. I told you the basic standard you needed to meet before I'd respond to your new points.
You failed to meet that basic standard, therefore I won't address your new points.
That's how this is going to go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
Your new points don't get responded to until you address all the previous points of mine you've dropped: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .
Dart needs to stop rewarding dodgy posters who pivot and ignore points made by other posters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I did show it, I gave you a post by post break down of how we got here.
No.
You went back to dig up things we talked about before.
These are all things we discussed before this post: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) . This post is the one where you started to refuse to address my points.
Note that as I just went through painstaking detail to explain to you
Yeah and I went through "painstaking detail" to respond to all your points here: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) .
If you are not interested in this conversation that’s fine, just stop pretending that I’m the one who shut it down and ran away.
Again, you're the one who decided to drop all my points. You're the one who shut it down by refusing to respond to all my points here: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) . Mirroring what I am correctly accusing you of isn't convincing anyone, because we can simply look at the comments in chronical order and see that you're the one who stop responding to my points. This is not something you can lie about.
I'm not going to reward your bad behavior by continuing the conversation despite you not responding to my points. I will post my comment that you failed to respond to again Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) , and again Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) and again Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) , until you get it through your thick, bald skull that this is where the conversation is at.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
His argument is generally this:1. People self identify as a race2. There are genetic markers which correlate to the self identified races3. Therefore race is not a social construct
Not only is this wrong, but you've also derailed the topic I was educating weaker on.
The point of contention was that 'more variation within than between' is an argument used to invalidate human races (one that you've also made). I showed how ridiculous that notion was by using clear examples wherein that line of argument fails, as well as referencing a body of research which explains why it fails: Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) . That's the discussion we were having.
Now I will correct you in saying that I agree race is a social construct, but that doesn't mean what you think it means. Social construct in this case means that the labels we use are socially constructed. However, as I showed you with Guo, Bamshad, Colloco etc. there is real, genetic data that validly sorts into these "social constructs" (read: labels), hence proving that these labels are valid (despite being socially constructed).
Also, feel free to pick up all the points you dropped in our discussion.
Created:
You are the one coming to my thread, trying to sidetrack everything with a nonsensical notion that racism isn't real because everything inside 'racism' is real. Absolutely ridiculous, I am done even replying to you for this thread at least.
One of your OP's premises is that "racism" is a valid term. I provided argumentation as to why we should reject the notion that "racism" is a valid term Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) . In response, all you have done in this thread has Ad hommed me in various ways, and provided arguments which I've already addressed that you've currently dropped: At what point is it far enough for you right-wing nutjobs to call it racist and too far? (debateart.com).
Thus, people should logically reject the premise of your thread as you've failed to defend it.
Created:
Then you are not a troll, you are a genuine unabashed far-right propaganda tool.
Firstly, this is Ad Hominem. My character has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments.
Secondly, I'm not far-right or a propaganda tool lol.
Thirdly, you continue to drop all the counterarguments I provided you in this post: At what point is it far enough for you right-wing nutjobs to call it racist and too far? (debateart.com) . There is no logical reason for people to believe your arguments, if you are unable to logically defend them.
Created: