Total posts: 4,276
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It is inappropriate to not support gay marriage.
Yet people are under no legal obligation to support it. Do you really think people should only be allowed to support legal things? That's a bad precedent to set. Gay marriage was illegal not too long ago.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It’s not the web designer’s speech.
It's not their idea, but they can refuse to express that speech by making the webpage. Even if the speech isn't their idea, they don't have to repeat it.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The reality is you are choosing to paint your house pink.
If you hire a Jewish designer to paint your house with Nazi symbols, the designer can refuse because they don't want to endorse views they disagree with. They can also refuse to paint houses pink. People can refuse to express speech even if the idea doesn't come from them.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Because you are not declining to make the page because the client is heterosexual, you are declining to make the page because the page is homophobic.
That's what happened in this case. The designer objected to the design itself, not the fact that the customer was gay.
If you make a webpage for some gay couple THAT IS NOT YOUR SPEECH
It is if the particular webpage includes messages you disagree with. We already established that views on the webpage count as speech (such as if the webpage is anti-gay).
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
That's a good comparison to use. Few people tend to realize that the issue is the speech itself, not which customer is being served.
Created:
They can't refuse to serve gay people, but they can refuse to endorse certain messages they disagree with. They can't refuse to sell gay people a design that they've sold before to someone else, but they don't have to make a custom design if it's not a design they'd make for anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already made plenty of websites for gay people having to do with completely different topics.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Very much by design
And part of that design was affirmative action, hence why this ruling is a step in the right direction. If the government is taking your taxes to fund a school, they definitely shouldn't be prioritizing certain races.
Harvard which was founded in 1636. It predates the US government
The Harvard of 1636 is not the Harvard of today. They've received a lot of government funding since then.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Most colleges aren't purely private institutions, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
I'm not on anybody's list!
They agree with your political opinions.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
When driving Act offended when husband buckles up.
How would that make sense if you're wearing a seatbelt? Do you not trust your own driving?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I wondered how Trump increased the National Debt by 39 percent.
Stimulus checks. (Interestingly, Democrats criticized Congress at that time for not spending enough.)
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Democrats help people in red states
When the president's economic ratings have been worse than Carter's, an election is coming up with polling too close to call [1] [2], and control of the congress is split, of course Democrats will be open to bipartisan legislation.
Trump aimed tax increases at blue state Americans
The Federal Government doesn't tax by state. I'll just link to Trump's actual tax policies, which reduced tax burdens to the point that they were criticized for potentially adding to the national debt.
"Those who earn less may also see a bit of a break. A single person making $39,000 in taxable income in 2017 saw a rate of 25%. In 2018, 2019 and beyond, that rate dropped to 12%."
"According to the IRS, tax refunds averaged $2,775 in 2021. This is an 11.2% increase from the previous year when the average return was worth $2,495."
"Trump’s tax plan was one of the largest tax code overhauls in decades – lowering individual tax rates, raising standard deductions, and lowering the threshold for medical expense deductions."
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The main problem that arises with syllogisms is when one of the premises proves too much. Take the example, "All people deserve human rights." The opposing side could argue that murderers or thieves forfeit their right to liberty and that the major premise is not valid. Your argument rests on both premises being valid, so you end up having to defend something completely off topic.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
LGBT is about acceptance of sexualities, not just of people. If they accept any group, it will be as equals; they won't start advocating for conversion therapy.
That said, by the time pedophilia advocates become more widespread (if they do), the LGBT movement will likely be called something else. Advocacy groups don't maintain the same brand forever, and I already see a number of subgroups forming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Who claims exactly what is perfect?
Muslims believe that Muhammad was the greatest man who ever lived and a possessor of moral excellence. This is why Muhammad marrying a child (even if the practice was common at the time) is considered a problem for orthodox Muslim views.
Aisha might as well have been a box of gold for all Muhammad's contemporary morality required of him.
Muslims believe Muhammad was objectively virtuous, not just that he adhered to the moral standards of that time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Not a Muslim myself, but there are typically two responses I've seen to this on Muslim forums.
The first is that Aisha was actually 19, not 9. Hadiths aren't considered infallible in Islam, and there are a number of examples of time periods being miscalculated around that era. There's a lot of skepticism around this explanation, but there's some reasoning to substantiate this given a lot of calculations that are posted here.
Another argument I've seen is that the rate of maturity itself (not just laws) varies by culture. The logic would be that if children in a particular society are forced to take on more responsibilities, they would mature faster than children in our current society. I don't really buy this one, since child marriage has been shown to have negative psychological effects in places where it is common, but I suppose that Muslims would attribute that to abuse by the husband, not to the act of marriage itself.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Peter probably doesn't need a handout from some moron.
I'll take the money if he doesn't want it.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Instead of having a baby (which requires excess calories), save more excess food.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
You'll need more excess calories to grow the baby than you'll get from eating it.
Created:
-->
@Slainte
wont engage in a debate, earning $1.5M for a charity
Fair point. I would argue against a holocaust denier for $1.5 million, even if they were a complete loon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You think the Republican Party is anti-porn?
Sometimes I support what politicians say in theory, even if they're reluctant to practice what they preach. Which is often, I'll admit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
it is probably pretty normal for kids to witness a certain furtive amount of adults having sex and this may even be an important part of the process of growing up
As much as I hate to say something good about a political party, I'm with the Republicans on this one. I don't think young children watching adults have sex is an important part of their development; in fact, it probably risks a whole host of psychological problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I agree with your main point, but I think there are better examples than water and guns. Water is a need, and most people supporting the legality of guns would say that guns are a necessity for adequate self-defense. I don't think anyone defending porn thinks that it's necessary for survival.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
to assume that its okay for adults to harm children for sexual pleasure. I dont think thats the position anyone wants to hold.
Don't you hold that position?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
What implications does game theory have for global charities? If a charity such as the Malaria Consortium broadcasted the following announcement on live television, what do you think the effect would be?
"The Charity Game"
If you could donate $50 and with that money save thousands of people, would you do it? We think that the answer is yes. Now consider a different question. If your decision to donate $50 inspired hundreds of thousands of others to donate, and your decision led to a chain effect that saved thousands of lives, would you donate? We think that you would.
We estimate that it will take $10,000,000 to eradicate malaria in Nigeria, saving 2,500 lives. But all it will take for you personally to eradicate malaria in this region is $50. In this game, every individual will have the opportunity to donate exactly $50 to a neutral arbiter. If we don't reach the 200,000 donations necessary to achieve the goal by 6pm tonight, all of the money is returned. If we do reach the number of donations necessary, all the money is delegated to eradicating malaria in South Africa. We estimate that after this announcement is made, the threshold will either barely be reached or barely be missed. Given expected donations and standard deviation in human behavior, it is predicted that if anyone listening convinces three people to donate while donating themselves, that action will have a 10% chance of causing the threshold to be met. Consider the following possibilities: (1) The threshold is met, in which case your decision to donate has a significant probability of saving 2,500 lives and definitely has some impact regardless, or (2) The threshold is not met, in which case your money is returned, and you've lost nothing anyway.
If exactly 200,000 people decide to donate, then each of those people has, with their donation, saved 2,500 lives. If 199,999 other people decide to donate, and you are not one of them, then your decision not to donate resulted in 2,500 preventable deaths. If that is the case by tonight, then will you regret your decision not to donate? If we do reach the number of donations necessary, and you are one of the donors, will you be happy that your donation caused 2,500 people to live? We think that the answer to each of these questions is yes.
Perhaps this is manipulative. Perhaps you think that by returning donations if they do not meet a certain threshold, we have become responsible for the deaths of these people. But even if that is true, it does not change the inescapable fact that your decision to donate has a significant chance of saving 2,500 people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
sort of the same as decay
But that's a semantic point and completely taking the verse out of context. The obvious interpretation is that Jesus didn't stay dead for long. Luke wasn't under the impression that Jesus never died.
all suffering and evil is good in the long run
I understand if this seems like I'm making an annoying distinction, and I see where you're coming from, but I think you're making an assumption about Christian doctrine that is unfounded. An all-good God behaves in a just matter—all good doesn't just mean maximizing the number of good things that happen or the amount of pleasure that occurs by any means necessary. I argue that it's just for God to allow suffering since humans deserve it. That doesn't mean those things are good. Your hidden premise is that it is unjust for God to allow bad things to happen, but I reject that premise. If you want to bring up free will, I guess you could make the analogy to someone eating a lot of unhealthy food. It's not a good decision, but it's just for me to allow them to do so. (Although free will isn't my entire argument, I also argue that humans deserve suffering, per Christian doctrine.)
- The sin resulting in suffering is bad, but God allows free will.
- The suffering resulting from sin is just, since humans deserve to suffer.
- The action resulting in the suffering (sin) is unjust, since humans do not have the authority to punish other humans for sin. But God has the authority to punish sin or to allow suffering to continue.
This distinction is actually a very important part of Christian doctrine. The crucifixion was necessary and God allowed it for the purposes of penal substitution, but the people who crucified Jesus were not justified in their actions. Just because humans are not justified in doing x does not mean that God is not justified in allowing x.
you're proving that their are different standards of proof for say a simple hypothesis such as the cat one, and the alien one
Sure. But I don't agree that the standard is "extraordinary," which is hard to quantify in the first place.
epistemic believability
I feel like we're back to where we started. What makes God epistemically unbelievable? Your initial proposition seemed focused on scope (i.e. how much impact would the God explanation have on the universe?) But if we're not referring to scope, how do you measure epistemic believability? I'm sorry if the word "epistemic" is meant to explain this, but I'm not a philosophy expert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I don't expect we'll get be getting Terminators, Skynet, Blade Runners, Matrix AI, Westworld
Agree with that. Though I do suspect it will dramatically change the world in ways we don't yet expect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
cells are still vibing
Cells not being active isn't exactly the same thing as decay. Decay happens after death, at least that's the most obvious interpretation of the verse.
Do you believe there exists any instance where this is not the case?
i.e. why doesn't everyone suffer? I've often thought that the more pressing question is why anything good happens to us at all. But there are explanations for this that are strongly implied. When asked why a man was born blind, Jesus says, “this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” So some good things help God to achieve his final purpose; the destruction of the devil, the salvation of believers, and the eventual recognition by all mankind of their sinful nature. Some good things lead people to become more moral. But the necessity of punishment for sin and the benefits of good things happening must be weighed. What I expect you want is very specific criteria (i.e. suffering is just in x, y, and z circumstances.) I don't know what those circumstances are, but I don't think that's a reason to believe there aren't any, or that the Christian God couldn't be applying some weighting mechanism and optimizing his level of intervention. We can speculate, as I'm sure you will, but the existence of speculation doesn't undermine the premise.
a great deal of evidence would be required - a simple picture or even a single report probably won't suffice.
If a few competing news channels all reported on the alien (Fox and CNN both giving similar reports), I think I would find that sufficient. I'd probably consider an announcement by NASA to be convincing on its own as well.
So regardless of how unlikely the former circumstance is, so long as it is some real number, I would always prefer it over the supposition of an entity with infinite attributes.
I understand your weighting mechanism, but I'm rejecting it as faulty. The sun doesn't require much evidence, despite being very large. I suspect you'd consider one person being able to fly to be much harder to believe than the existence of the sun, given similar amounts of evidence. But that violates the weighting mechanism you provided—the existence of the sun has much bigger implications than one person being able to fly. "More attributes" doesn't mean "more unlikely."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Paul Krugman is the most widely known example. And he was a Nobel Prize winner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
That's true, but it goes both ways. A lot of people underestimated the internet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
that would merely support my position that a resurrection didn't occur, because decomposition didn't.
If death occurs without decomposition, it's still a resurrection, since that term simply refers to being brought back to life. But I think you're reading too much into the semantics of this anyway. A reasonable reading of the verse isn't that Jesus didn't decay at all. I don't think all statements must refer to absolute definitions since a lot of definitions have slight variations anyway. And it's a translation from Hebrew, so semantic technicalities based on English don't really work for the original source material. The meaning is clear enough.
if they deserve suffering, then the instance of suffering is not holistically evil, meaning that over all, the good outweighs the evil, given the just nature of them "deserving" it
If you want to define things that way, then sure. I would describe suffering as "just" in relation to what people deserve if we want to get into technical terms. It seems to me that if you can't prove people don't deserve those things, then the gratuitous evil argument isn't evidence against Christianity since we don't know that the suffering is undeserved.
- An alien knocked my drink over with telekinesis.
I buy that this is less likely than a cat knocking your drink over since cats are known to do things like that, but if this claim were true I do not think it would require extraordinary evidence. NASA making contact with aliens would not be extraordinary evidence, but it would be sufficient to make me believe in aliens. I don't think the threshold is as high as you're putting it.
god is ontologically infinite
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure the scope of something is proportional to its probability. Otherwise, we should have a hard time accepting the existence of the sun, which is 864,000 miles wide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
the definition of decay is "the state or process of rotting or decomposition"
Words have multiple reasonable meanings that are understood in context. "Decay" necessitates that some amount of decay has occurred. The term can also be translated as a "return to corruption." Not decaying could be a result of the embalming, though some people consider this a part of the miracle while others do not. Neither of these interpretations contradicts Jesus dying.
the definition of gratuitous is merely suffering which serves no good making purposes
I reject the premise that God being good means that God must prevent something that is causing more harm than good. Rejection of God is synonymous with a rejection of good. Per Christian theology, suffering is a result of sin, and God as a judge of humans must allow it to continue. Your premise is that an all-good God must prevent gratuitous evils or must not allow humans to suffer. I reject that premise since the Christian position is that all humans deserve suffering.
epistemically extraordinary
Are you still defining extraordinary as "a truth impacting literally everything else in the universe"? Or do you mean something else? What criteria make something extraordinary, and why do those things require a lot of evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
I didn't say decay I said decomposition.
The verse you quoted said "his flesh did not decay." That's in line with Jesus only staying dead for a few days.
- There is gratuitous evil, which entails the falsity of god.
When you say that gratuitous evil causes more harm than good, I assume you are referring to human suffering. But your conclusion doesn't follow if human suffering is a result of sin and rejection of God. Being all good, per Christian doctrine, God must punish sin.
the claim to Gods existence, given his expansiveness would impact literally everything else in the universe
Are you sure claims like that require extraordinary evidence? "Reality is real" has implications for everything in the universe, yet I think we're perfectly rational in accepting that without extraordinary evidence. Not to mention that "God doesn't exist" holds implications for everything in the universe, so everything other than agnosticism (per your framework) requires extraordinary evidence to accept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
p1.If a body is dead, decomposition will occur.
Flesh takes a few weeks to decay. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus stayed dead for weeks; in fact, it says the opposite.
Evil comes about from more ways than just free will.
Evil doesn't mean "bad." Evil means "immoral" which requires someone to make an immoral decision. If by gratuitous evils, you simply mean bad things happening, then this doesn't contradict the Christian position. The Bible describes all sorts of bad things happening, so the gratuitous evils you describe are compatible with Christian theology. Christian doctrine involves extensive reasoning for the existence of human suffering as a result of the Fall, probably more than most other religions.
extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence
Extraordinary means "highly unusual." Why do unusual claims require unusual evidence? Why not evidence of any sort? Most people believe in God, so atheism is the more unusual position anyway. The more intuitive claim is that unlikely claims require a lot of evidence, but this doesn't follow, because the likelihood of something is based on the amount of evidence for or against it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't think it's hypothetical. Constitutional protections exist today, and there are many examples of "pure" democracies failing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You could have a dictator who makes rape illegal, or an armed minority in a country with constitutional protections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Marital rape was legal in a lot of democratic countries. Since we agree that rape is unjust, that actually supports the point that tyranny of the majority isn't always the best system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Marx mentioned the idea of labor-money, the idea being derived from labor theory of value.
The labor theory of value was supposed to justify labor-money. (i.e. labor money is a just economic system, because the labor theory of value is an accurate description of the economy). But because the labor theory of value is false, the conclusion doesn't follow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The labor theory of value was intended to be a description of capitalism, not a plan for organizing the economy. That's why it can be disproven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
"to each according to his work"
That's not justice, because the labor theory of value is demonstrably false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
However, not the kind of Socialism Marx hoped for. Rather, the Socialism where majority steals from minority.
That sounds a lot like Marxism.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I vote to hold a reelection.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah I'm pretty sure these are both from badger. I think Wylted gave him login info.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
A few of us have been joining the Modern-Day Debate Discord. It's way more active than DART, and I think you would do well there.
Created:
"My departure from DebateArt.com should not be seen as an abandonment of intellectual discourse, but rather a strategic decision to seek out platforms that prioritize inclusivity, respect, and empathy. I yearn for a community where diversity is celebrated, and all members are valued for their contributions, regardless of their religious or cultural backgrounds. To those who have engaged in meaningful discussions and fostered an environment of acceptance and understanding, I express my gratitude.Your efforts have not gone unnoticed.However, it is essential to recognize that change must come from within the community as a whole.It is imperative to address antisemitism directly, challenge harmful narratives, and create a safe space for all individuals to participate and grow."
Smodin - "100% Likelihood of Complete AI content"
GPTZero - "Written by AI"
ZeroGPT - "100% AI generated"
SEO.ai - "Probability for AI is 99%"
Created: