Total posts: 1,048
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
Where in that definition does it state that someone who believes in evolution thinks we came from an amoeba?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i've repeatedly pointed out where you've misquoted me
That's their forte, to constantly misquote, misinterpret, and mischaracterize what another says. They have done it to me too, on more than one thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
In a civil debate - you don’t repeatedly ignore the opposing argument, and when someone points out you are engaging in an outrageous straw man by taking the things he’s saying so far out of its obvious context that it beggars belief - you don’t simply ignore that argument and restate the same straw man.
LOL!!! The sheer level of your hypocrisy knows no bounds. LOL!!!
Created:
-->
@Conservallectual
atheism and humanism, an implicit false equivalency fallacy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Religion is an evolutionary advantageFunctionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face. Namely:(1) Creating an untouchable, unseeable leader who can never be caught in a scandal, contradiction or anything untoward (something that humans will never be able to rectify if they themselves are leaders, due to their imperfection).(2) Adds mystical magic to morality so that it seems divine, rather than just an impulse. This is especially important for cause-driven people who want to feel like they are living with a real purpose. It also helps to prevent crimes of all natures.(3) Quells fear of the unknown with answers to queries that scare humans (e.g. what happens after death? You go to Heaven or hell; you are reincarnated; you enter paradise etc.).(4) Creates free labor as a religious zealot will gladly do things in the name of the divine, all the whilst making them feel good for doing so.Without religion, there are important holes to fill, and I don't think Atheism or Agnosticism fill them. I think it could be said that humans currently need religion to function.
When I look up "evolutionary advantage" for a definition, this is what I found:
"Any phenotypic trait that increases the fitness of one species over another. This could be anything that allows the species to better compete with another species occupying the same niche, obtain food/resources more efficiently, or stave off predators." - SOURCE
Based on that definition, I fail to see how the manmade concept of "religion" (or "religions") have anything to do with phenotype let alone the evolution of homo sapiens.
In fact, historically, religion has been a rather huge disadvantage, disappointment, detriment, and any other "D" word (that corresponds with violence) one can come up with whereas the true evolution of humanity is concerned.
Created:
-->
@Avery
Also, humanism is ridiculous. Groups of humans differ genetically to such a degree that treating them all the same is to treat them all poorly. Basic human rights are fine, but universalized doctrine for freedom of speech, immigration, cognitive ability etc. -, especially when you take into account cultural (e.g. religion), is going to make no one happy.
THIS! (I agree 100%)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Oh, copy that.
I'm tired. A little slow tonight.
Glad another agrees too.
On that note, I'm shutting this laptop down and hitting the sheets.
Peace out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
I agree with both you and Greyparrot.
Censorship is an inherent problem with this "truth decay" phenomena.
And I am one such person who has been censored and banned more than once. But now these social media platforms are requiring a cell number whereas they didn't before. Now when you're banned, your cell phone # is flagged and you cannot re-register even with a sock puppet account via just an email. Cause a cell number is required for text verification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Exhibit A - the person posting continuous, nonstop disingenuous misinformation; pretends their posting of continuous, nonstop disingenuous misinformation is not the problem - it’s really the people they target with their nonstop disingenuous misinformation!
Hypocrisy, to the proverbial "T"!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
"Most atheists are directly against the concept of god."I am an atheist, by definition, but I am not "directly against the (concept) of god.
Most does not equal all.
Concept is a key word here.
I identified clearly that I am not a part of that "most" category, and that I am not against "the concept" of god.
So...
This.
This... this, what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I'm unsure how you can outright decide God cannot exist. As it would appear, there's not very much we can be certain of! It is evident our senses are untrustworthy (as shown by Socrates in Phaedo). To be sure of naturalism, physicalism, materialism, etc, you must first assume your senses to a pretty high degree to be correct.
"You" can outright decide God (described in the Bible) cannot exist the same as for the fact that little green men, purple pumpkin eaters, werewolves, vampires, time travelers (Dr. Who), and the multiverse does not and cannot exist within our realm of physical realities.
And our senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch) are trustworthy. Fire burns. Smoke smells. Spoiled food tastes horrible. Dead bodies in decay feel gross when touched. We cannot see in the dark without light.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
Most atheists are directly against the concept of god.
I am an atheist, by definition, but I am not "directly against the (concept) of god."
Created:
-->
@Avery
I appreciate your engagement in this thread, as it is finally nice to see someone who understands exactly that which I have been trying to convey without all the nuances of others tunnel vision, one-dimensional thinking, and incorrect interpretation of what was put forth (e.g., the 3% reference being misinterpreted because they didn't comprehend, "A little less than half ..." part of the sentence). In short, everything you've been stating in rebuttal to others has been spot on. Just wish others were so enlightened to the truth instead of being so stubborn in seeing it for what it is. Truth.
Created:
-->
@bronskibeat
Well, you're right in that sports fans usually only go up to a few million in damages at their worst, but the opportunities (a big championship or world series) for these riots to have an opportunity to happen, don't happen every day, and they only impact one city at a time (wherever the game was),
Most of the riots that exceeded $1M were abroad, not in the US.
And yet when people of color (namely black Americans) riot, it is NEVER in the thousands or even hundreds of thousands but rather ALWAYS in the millions; not to mention the gross number of lives lost amongst the violence perpetrated during those riots. 2020 was no exception.
My point is that we don't demonize an entire group based on the negative actions of the minority within that group (whether they are sports fans or political protesters), which it would seem like you are trying to do.
And yet blacks do just that all the time when a minority of cops act contrary to their mandate. They also do just that when a minority of white people do something they subjectively call racist, in effect labeling all white people "Karens." They also do just that when their self-esteem is low, and they get paranoid and claim oppression by all white people. Lizzo at the VMA. Jada Pinkett-Smith and the Oscars being all white (or too white). So on and so forth.
It cuts both ways. If they are going to label an entire group based on the actions of the minority, the same logic can be laid at their feet too.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
See…more of that intellectual cowardice again.
Splitting hairs over a word you’re taking out of context in order to create a sophomorically banal strawman argument.
You’ve also given us yet another example of your lack of reading comprehension skills as well. I never said the FBI analyzed the data, I said they extrapolate the data into its respective reports, tables, etc. [for] criminological statistical analysis. The word [for] means what the UCR data is used [for] by criminologists (and anyone else) [for] statistical analysis in conducting research and providing reports on their findings.
Keep making a fool of yourself here. I’ll just keep calling you out for it.
Created:
-->
@Avery
Well said!
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
There’s that lack of reading comprehension skills again.
Raw data is given via police reports, the FBI breaks it down into “statistical compilation,” which is basically what I said in my comment here (and you ignored): “The data is being collated and extrapolated into the various UCR reports, tables, etc. for criminological statistical analysis. Which is precisely why there are numerous reports, tables, etc. that respectively cover the numerous variables the “raw data” contains so as to make the research more viable, as well as the data. ”
You’re being an intellectual coward here. Incapable of admitting when you’re wrong and continuing to double down on irrelevant red herring and strawman arguments. Pretty sad.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I edited my previous comment.
And? You’re still wrong.
The FBI is not “republishing” the “raw data.” The data is being collated and extrapolated into the various UCR reports, tables, etc. for criminological statistical analysis. Which is precisely why there are numerous reports, tables, etc. that respectively cover the numerous variables the “raw data” contains so as to make the research more viable, as well as the data.
And my initial claim of the UCR being more than 75% complete is still accurate. Which supports my OP that a small percentage of black males in this country commit over 50% of the nation’s violent crimes (based on arrest records - cause one can still be guilty of a crime but via jury nullification or prosecutorial misconduct, could be freed with prejudice),
And you are wrong when it comes to your assertion cities have different meanings for race. I worked in law enforcement, which includes records updates to the Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS). The racial classification is the same as the US Census. The only real racial classification that gets screwed up where data reporting is concerned regards Hispanics, since that is not a race; and we have no other appropriate classification for those of Spanish speaking descent. So they often get lumped in as white, which really skews the data.
The ranking comment, that’s ranking for an entirely different purpose than what the UCR and other data sources are specifically used for (i.e., it is not data reporting for criminological purposes). So again, you are still wrong.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
There are NO methodological problems in the argument that I have put forth.
Your lack of reading comprehension skills are the problem here.
Sources have been given that back my position up 100%.
You have provided nothing to contradict any of it. That includes the numerous red herrings and doubling down on irrelevant issues of contention.
Simple as that.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Public-Choice…for your edification:
All posts within this thread that debunk your recent assertions.
Created:
-->
@Athias
You referenced some presumed authority over that which I do or do not understand. I'm not going to play games, so enjoy another night, sir.
False. I made no such presumed authority. I made two very clear statements. The first referenced you, the second addressed something else entirely. As such, only one playing childish games here is all on you. Good night. Don’t let the bedbugs bite.
Created:
-->
@Athias
First, if you have something to say to me, do me the courtesy of addressing me directly.
I referenced you, I didn’t have anything directly to say to you. Big difference.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Additionally, those 60 million interactions are not all arrest situations. Many of them are casual encounters.
No shit Sherlock!
The point of mentioning the 60+ million encounters is to rebut (more than adequately) your 100 or 200 or so exceptions to the rule. Doubling down on your failed point is not an impressive counter rebuttal.
No, I do not have a source for the casual hasty generalization (for the sake of argument) % of how complete the UCR database is. It is a generalization. And a damn good one too.
“There are 17,985 police agencies in the United States which include city police departments, county sheriff's offices, state troopers, and federal law enforcement agencies.” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States
“The Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) is a nationwide, cooperative, statistical effort of more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies voluntarily reporting data on crimes brought to their attention. ” (this includes universities, etc.) - https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/data-sources-and-methods/data-sources/uniform-crime-reporting-system-ucr
So yeah, the UCR has a participation rate of 75% or more.
Furthermore, you keep claiming black males commit half of all violent crimes, but you are ignoring that the UCR is not a conviction database
Again, no shit Sherlock! I have repeatedly said it is a database collating information on arrest records. Are you blind in one eye and cannot see out the other, or just lacking in reading comprehension skills.
So you can't just pull statistics out of your ass because you want to believe them negroes are all out to get whitey. Ok billy-bob?
Ignorant strawman argument.
The fact is that your claim is unproven due to lack of evidence. And maybe the reason you keep getting banned is because these social media companies realized they didn't want an anti-black cuckservative spreading disinformation.
No, it is not. It is a proven claim. Criminologists have been studying and reporting on it for decades. I know, as I have a degree in the field and have studied it myself. There are plenty of reports online you can Google to read/review for yourself.
I get banned because the left hates the truth because to them the truth sounds like hate. That is the ONLY reason why I get banned…for telling the truth. It’s their lying eyes that cannot accept the that truth. Fact.
You make the rest of us normal people on the Right look like racist, confederate-flag-waving, jack-offs who have a grudge against black people because they lost the Civil War and didn't want to move on with the rest of the world and become enlightened human beings instead of owning people as property, like a couch or a coffee cup.
Nah, you do that all on your own. It’s called psychological projection for a reason.
It's hard enough being on the right as it is without people going around claiming they're "conservative" blaming black people for society's troubles.
Yet another ignorant strawman argument.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
oi vey is right.
There are over 60 MILLION CONTACTS with police every year.
Your 100 cases here, couple hundred there are EXCEPTIONS, not the rule!!!!
The UCR is an accurate record of ARRESTS!!! Not convictions. When juxtaposes to other sources, they demonstrate an accurate picture of what race, gender, age groups commit the most crimes in the respective categories.
The UCR is about 75%+ complete. It wouldn’t matter if it was 100% complete. The fact won’t change that a tiny % of black males commit over 50% of the entire nation’s violent person crimes. Period. Fact. Period.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
The planting evidence spurious claim are exceptions, not the rule.
There is no white supremacy, only racism. And it cuts both ways. Not one way.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I already said the data was incomplete because not all agencies report.
Notwithstanding, the data collected still provides a factually based picture of what data has been collected.
What I’ve asserted herein is fact based on that (UCR) and other fact based data driven sources cited.
UCR data is arrests, not convictions.
Other sources like/similar, basic reporting systems like NCVS. Not convictions. So your what what when why where of prosecutions is completely irrelevant.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
A police report is a fact.
That report added to the UCR remains a fact still. Since the UCR is made up of data acquires from police departments reporting on fact based crimes, makes the UCR factual, however incomplete due to not every agency providing copies of their crime reported for statistical analysis. Still facts. Not an appeal to authority.
Same goes for NCVS and BOJ data. All fact driven. Not an appeal to authority. Clearly you and Athias don’t comprehend the difference.
Created:
-->
@bronskibeat
Comparing the BLM riots, theft and billions in property damages along with the overt acts of violence to the sophomoric outbursts and minor property destruction of sports fans is a false equivalency fallacy.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Your psychological projection and intellectual cowardice knows no bounds!
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Says the individual who has done nothing but argue in circles. Psychological projection much! 🙄
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That’s EXACTLY what an intellectual coward would say.
Mr. Dunning Kruger.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Your intellectual cowardice knows no bounds.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Do you even read what you write?
You clearly do not.
The only claim that was asserted that failed to meet the burden of proof was 3RU7AL
Wrong. You made the following claim, which I have quoted ad nauseous since you made the claim:
No, but I know of some people who prefer that outcome over carrying the pregnancy to term, which was the original narrative you uttered.
That is your claim. A claim in which @3RU7AL asked you to substantiate. To date/post, you refuse to meet your burden of proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There is a reason we have mainstream media, and right wing media. Unlike the latter, the former has journalistic standards.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
No scientific system can define what is and isn’t a person, only law can do that, read a book.
Mic drop …
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Repeating yourself won’t make what you say any truer. It just makes you look desperate.
Bible timeline is a joke. Earth is older than the biblical “timeline.” Earth is NOT the center of the universe.
And the Bible was written by men to be used by men to control mankind through fear and violence to force submission or suffer eternal damnation in hell (a place that simply does not exist except in the delusional minds of the gullible sheeple).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is it not amazing how much truth is unknown, hidden and/or simply never EVER talked about when it comes to the evils of so-called “green energy” meant to be “climate friendly”!?!
Who it truly hurts the most.
Where it truly does the most damage.
What it actually costs to produce, both in human and environmental tolls.
When it is of no further use, the cost and dangers of disposal.
Why it doesn’t do a damn thing to lower costs or help the climate.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Childish banal retort.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Cherry-picking what you “think” you can rebut is so sophomoric.
You completely dismissed (classic denial) the fact that I showed you did in fact assert a claim and failed to meet your burden of proof in substantiating it.
No, but I know of some people who prefer that outcome over carrying the pregnancy to term, which was the original narrative you uttered.
You claimed to [know os some people] who prefer an abortion. You were asked to substantiate it. You failed. You continue to fail.
Asking for a name (or names) of those “some people” you claim to [know] as an example to substantiate said claim is NOT a contradiction in terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
I don’t really understand why anyone would block someone on a debate forum, it is a place where you find those whose opinions you disagree with, that’s the point of it. As for abuse, just ignore it.
Another one who “gets it”!!!!
Created:
Posted in:
only people who object to being blocked are are the members who come across the most bigoted in their posts.
Bigoted is an entirely emotively driven subjective term that is abused by those with thin skin and a lack of emotional intelligence.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
And who is? You?
More than you, that’s for sure.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
1st, losing semantics argument.
2nd, burden or proof requires you to do it; otherwise you’re just demonstrating the Dunning Kruger Effect.
3rd, no one changed the “narrative” but you; and nowhere in the thread does a name need to be mentioned just to make a request of you to provide such to back up your position(s) proffered.
Referring to number 2 above, you made the following claim:
No, but I know of some people who prefer that outcome over carrying the pregnancy to term, which was the original narrative you uttered.
You claimed to [know of some people] who would prefer an abortion, you were asked to substantiate that claim and you failed to do so. You did not meet YOUR burden of proof that you NEEDED to do.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Why can’t you just take what I said at face value?
Probably because you’re no authority on the subject.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That’s not an answer to the question. You need to provide an “example,” which means by name and how many abortions she has been allowed to have while enjoying having them.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
The UN and everyone in it can go fuck themselves.
That I can stand behind 110%!!!!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ramshutu is darts most famous crybully.
Oh, so very true indeed!!!!
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Reading comprehension problems?
section (c) of the USC cited makes it clear when legal (human) rights are bestowed upon [a] human being.
And it is clear you do not understand what fetal viability means in relationship to the above cited USC and the 14th Amendment.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
@3RU7AL
3RU7AL,
You forgot the 14th Amendment.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
I said this, “so is the question of when human rights begin, which is settled codified law. ”
I did NOT say this, “Abortion is settled codified law.”
Created: