Total posts: 2,186
-->
@Lemming
I agree and disagree with parts,But suppose I'll focus on Will.Do you view acting/will as 'exactly the same as choice,Or do you view there as differences between the two concepts.
Yes, by definition they are (infer) the same thing:
" to determine by an act of choice"
Will; willed; willing; wills
Created:
TWSI'm still waiting on yiu to.prove your a legal expert.You can'tDismissed
I never claimed to be [a] legal expert. I put forth that I have more academic and professional experience than you, which gives my stated positions more credibility than yours. That’s not claiming to be [an] expert, that’s stating a fact of experience and knowledge that exceeds yours.
And you reply a LOT to a guy you have blocked
And so do you and many others here at DART. So what! As if pointing this out means anything, other than to you cause you clearly think it’s an insult on some level. It’s not. It’s pointless, utterly irrelevant and a waste of time and energy addressing it. It’s rather banal, to be frank.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
TWSThen show me these scientific agencies that mock peer reviewI see no evidence for that claimDismissed
No one here made that claim. No one.
You’re interpreting someone did because you’re incapable of admitting you’re wrong on your clearly established strawman assertion she (and now me) did.
You’re wrong. Own it.
Created:
>
@Kaitlyn
So do you. Who are all these scientific agencies that are mocking peer review?
She never claimed any “scientific agency” mocked peer review…you did (strawman).
She clearly said your assertion that peer review is the gold standard among scientific agencies is factually inaccurate because “anyone who understands them” (ie - they’re purpose and intent and processes) “mocks them. “
Your lack of defense in substantiating your own tripe is what is and should be, dismissed.
Created:
You tell me you are an expert and to just take your word then your claim is dismissed
No one, not even myself, has ever said to anyone here “just take my word for it, because I’m the expert here”!! No one!!
And if you retort with anything other than your agreement to that fact, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove someone, anyone, said those words - exactly - in asserting their position on the subject under discussion.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>While I'd agree people have a choice,I also think they don't have a choice,
No one never has a choice; everyone ALWAYS has a choice.
A certain action towards a person, in a certain moment,Was always going to create an action by the person acted towards.
Not true.
The bullied don't always react to the bullies.
Someone bumped into at the store doesn't always react.
But, we don't know futures, until we've arrived at them,
No, we won't know them until they've come to pass.
And outside influenced or not, a person still has a will.
i.e. - choice
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Just following orders, doesn't tend to get accepted as a defense,
Under duress, Stockholm syndrome, so on and so forth.
Justice system tends to make the argument that those individuals still had a choice, 'despite the consequences.
Technically, they still have a choice...their predicament just makes them weak to take a stand.
. .That's where the have and have not, of choice comes in for me.
To each their own.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Environment has an influence on us,Even if we look to our Ego and Will,'Hard not to be influenced by surroundings.
Still a choice to change that environment when it has negative influences or outcomes upon us. Or one chooses to stay in it.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>And yet peer pressure exists, I'd argue.
Yes, it does; and so does weak constitutions, low self-esteem, being thin-skinned, and entirely desperate for attention or to be the center of attention.
Take people who influence other's to kill,Manson might not have killed anyone personally,But his actions caused others to kill.. . . .
Manson, like other socio-psychopaths use fear and manipulation to get others to do their bidding or suffer the consequences.
I 'do like the ideal though,For individuals to remember their freedom,Their body being tied to their 'own impulses, choices.
And yet they often don't and blame others for their shortcomings and utter failures in life.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You are ok with shutting him down so that he lives his life the way you see fit, not how her actually wants to.
Strawman.
At the end of the day his choices are still his choices. I (nor anyone else for that matter) have NO power or control over his choices. He chooses. He alone. End of story.
Created:
You are not a legal expert. Lol
Far more than you and iwra again are. I have the academic and professional experience to accurately read, interpret, comprehend and accurately apply the law whereas you lay persons do not.
Created:
TWS responds to my posts but has me on ignore. Lol
And you comment about me, respond to me albeit indirectly, and YOU have me on “block,” hypocrite statement on your part.
And he is far from a lawyer
Don’t need a piece of paper to do lawyerly things. I’ve bested high priced HOA attorneys when I lived I. An HOA. Five n fact, and an entire firm the HOA fired in response to my lawsuit.
I advocate for veterans and have taken my case before the Board of Veterans Appeals and won. I have a 90% success rate winning claims for veterans as far back as the Korean War.
Being an age yak lawyer ain’t all it’s cracked up to be when someone as educated as I am can beat them.
Created:
How many times do I have to tell you I have TWO legal degrees, and I worked under a DA and the courts.Translation: you have two certificates of completion in some kind of correspondence training.
Don’t do “certificates of completion,” and I’ve never done a correspondence course.
People with law degrees don’t say they have “legal degrees” genius.
Sure they do.
You worked under a DA and the courts is suspiciously vague. How far under exactly?
Under means employed by…duh!
As I’ve disclosed several times across numerous threads in the forums…I supported two misdemeanor attorneys, two felony attorneys, the office manager, special projects for the DA, and backup grand jury coordinator. I’m working for the DA in various capacities as such, I had constant contact and communications with the court and various judges getting orders signed.
I possess the requisite academic knowledge and professional that you so obviously lack.And grammar skills
Yup.
Created:
@IwantRooseveltagain
He is not a lawyer or clearly would have said so
clearly. But that’s just too obvious for him to grasp.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That screams weakness on your part.Lying about one's emotions either to yourself or others is in my opinion a failed strategy and a weakness.
Well, I have zero emotional stake in any debate/discussion I get into.
The only time I get emotional, err…pissed off, is when I’m cheated (deletion) for BS reasons by staff on votes in debates or new thread topics. I take my frustration out on the one arbitrarily making the BS decision.
Other than that, there is nothing you or anyone can say @ me that will insult/trigger me. When anyone tries, I just laugh because it says more about them than their insult does as directed @ me.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Twit = a silly or foolish person.
Being referred to as silly or foolish is hardly an insulting term, but if one takes it that way…well…as I said before, their weakness.
Calling the replies (as in their expressed position in the words typed) “stupid ass” ≠ @ the person. Her words clearly cannot get offended, but if she did…well, as said before, their weakness.
Your intellectual output is clearly flawed reasoning. Too emotive and no rationality (ie - logical assessment).
Then Again, perhaps YOU were offended by what I said to another. That screams weakness on your part.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, I don’t. I don’t have the power to do so. The only one who has that power is the one reading the words I type. If they get offended, triggered, butthurt…that speaks to their weakness, thus the power to insult them [is] on them, not me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I support women’s rights, but I’m not [a] “feminist” by any means, as I don’t belief win equality of the sexes as they do. I don’t believe wormed should be in combat roles in the military. I don’t believe they should be police officers either. But they should have full autonomy over their own bodies equally as men do, regardless of their ability to bear children as they are no one’s personal incubator.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Word salad. Rephrase.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
What’s with the Skittles colors for your avatar???
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yet we know it isn't something so overt in all cases. I was raised in a catholic household. I'm not a basket case, and I'm definitely not as obnoxious as you appear to be.
If being in your face honest = obnoxious, I’ll take it as a compliment.
Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
False equivalence fallacy on your part.
Created:
He won't do shit, and he knows it. Cause if he does, it proves he is a biased hypocritical loser with ZERO integrity.You should be banned just for admitting you watch StarTrek.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! That's all you got???
See, there's those unsubstantiated name calling immature banality we all know and hate about youUnsubstantiated? You already admitted you are on disability and you don’t have a job, and you don’t have any children. I’m stating facts and you constantly overuse the word banal.
Case in point proven yet again, and by your own doing. LOL!!!
we all see it with you and your issues on full display at DART.Was he also engaging online with a bunch of lonely losers who have dead end jobs or no jobs at all and no children, who blame blacks and immigrants and transgender people for all of their failures in life? That’s so funny! Just like here a DART.
Classic denialism.
Created:
You are NO legal scholar, so you do not KNOW SHIT about the law let alone how to read it, or SCOTUS decisions.Right, you were a corporal in the army who had a tin badge that made you feel important before you were discharged after a couple years.You are practically a Judge Advocate General
WRONG!!!
Are you daft or what?
How many times do I have to tell you I have TWO legal degrees, and I worked under a DA and the courts.
I possess the requisite academic knowledge and professional that you so obviously lack...and acting like you know more than me just proves what a "clown" you are.
Created:
IwantRooseveltagain,
You are NO legal scholar, so you do not KNOW SHIT about the law let alone how to read it, or SCOTUS decisions.
Go away. You're the boy who constantly cries wolf, err...TRUMP (or MAGA)!!!
Created:
IwantRooseveltagain,
Saw a true crime show on Netflix, about the "missing turns to murder." First episode was about an airline pilot with anger management issues who ended up murdering his ex-wife. Everything the show described about that pilot, wow....we all see it with you and your issues on full display at DART.
Created:
Look it up. I’m not your teacher or tutor. There is a difference. A very big difference.Lol. There’s a difference you just can’t explain it.
I can. I won't. I want YOU to look it up.
Context matters. And there are different meanings to the term "intellectual coward," so you need to know which one is correct in the manner in which I used it (ie. the context in which it was used). If you cannot do that, well, it just demonstrates what [a] "dummy" you truly are!!!
linguistics. Common sense. Reading comprehension. C and all of the above.So nobody taught you that. You just came up with it on your own. And you are not an educated man.
OF course I was taught that, and I know the difference. You do not. And I am not beginning to question you being a pilot. If you cannot understand the linguistics of the posts in this forum...well shit, you surely cannot understand the technical and pilot manuals you are required to read to be a pilot.
For a so-called airline pilot you’re not the brightest when it comes to linguistics. (That was a personal attack)So I reported your self described personal attack. Let’s see what White Flame does about it.
He won't do shit, and he knows it. Cause if he does, it proves he is a biased hypocritical loser with ZERO integrity and if he did, it will SHAME this forum for its existence.
For a known disabled and unemployed person, you are not the brightest when it comes to any general subject.
See, there's those unsubstantiated name calling immature banality we all know and hate about you.
Created:
Hypocrite, in the context given, means he was engaging in hypocrisy. That’s a description of behavior, not the person - at the person.So dummy, means he was engaging in dumb thoughts and speech, That’s a description of behavior, not the person - at the person.You are a ridiculous person. (not a personal attack) Just a description of your behaviorReading comprehension matters.Context matters.Both of which you’re clearly oblivious to
Lol. Way to demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension skills and ineffective linguistic knowledge/skills. Lol.
Created:
I never called them [a] coward, I referred to them as [an] intellectual coward.What’s the difference exactly?
Look it up. I’m not your teacher or tutor. There is a difference. A very big difference.
When addressing another’s behavior, demeanor, and attitude it isn’t an ad hominem.That’s ridiculous. Who taught you that? So if someone’s behavior ( the things they say) is stupid, I should be able to call them stupid and dummy, right?
linguistics. Common sense. Reading comprehension. C and all of the above.
And no, you address the argument as being stupid and not them personally. Big difference.
Personal attacks are just that, personal - as in at the person.You didn’t say their actions were cowardly, you said they are intellectual cowards. That is a personal attack, genius.
That’s NOT how I said it, and no, it’s not a personal attack.
For a so-called airline pilot you’re not the brightest when it comes to linguistics. (That was a personal attack)
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Homosexuality and bisexuality aren’t caused by the way children were reared by their parents, or by something that happened to them when they were young.How do they know? (hint: they don't)
It most certainly can be caused by how their parent(s) reared them. I witnessed my sister do it to their first born son. He’s a total feminine basket case. Irresponsible. Obnoxious. And still living at home (he’s in his mid 20s) with mommy and daddy, and always will. His sister is completely normal (heterosexual female).
Created:
So you can call someone a coward, but dummy is over the line? And you are surprised I say what I say?
There’s that awesome lack of reading comprehension again!! And with a strawman fallacy!!!!
I never called them [a] coward, I referred to them as [an] intellectual coward. Two different terms with two completely different meanings.
You make personal attacks all the time and then claim they are not personal attacks. And that is after you have said something stupid.
When addressing another’s behavior, demeanor, and attitude it isn’t an ad hominem. They’re adjectives describing said behavior, demeanor and attitude. They’re not nouns. Context matters.
Personal attacks are just that, personal - as in at the person.
fucking hypocrite is ok, but dummy is over the line?
Hypocrite, in the context given, means he was engaging in hypocrisy. That’s a description of behavior, not the person - at the person.
Reading comprehension matters.
Context matters.
Both of which you’re clearly oblivious to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Though they try their hardest, over the my siblings' and I's early years the parents separate and eventually divorce. My sense of self-worth ruptures and I believe myself to be a "bad-luck curse".This quote, right here, is the whole key to fixing the gay community. With good parents, there would be almost no gay stuff going on.
Couldn't agree more.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
There are a number of people whose personal attacks against others have been a problem for a while now, IWRA included. And part of the reason we haven't acted against it is that there's been a lot of reciprocal behavior. We've let it drag on too long, so some people have felt the need to defend themselves or lash out in response.
THAT'S RIGHT!!! You all let it happen and continue to happen, so it's your fault not those defending themselves.
The current predicament you've all put DART in by allowing this behavior is all on you all. You should have reigned it in long ago so it wouldn't be so muddied now with biased actions being announced by orogami against GreyParrot without a word otherwise against IWRA (pure hypocrisy).
IF you want this behavior to stop, then address it publicly as a change that will begin say in one or two days, after said announced time if anyone continued in repeated harassment of unwarranted ad hominem attacks (name calling, etc. made personal - at the person), then you may proceed with the warnings, ROs, etc. after X # of violations.
But just coming out in a public thread doling out criticism and threatened punishment for one but not another who has clearly been the root cause of the problem is not the way to go about fixing the behavioral problems with name calling going on at DART.
Do better.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Sir.Lancelot
I agree with SL and RM as well!
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Dummy, idiot, childless, disabled, so on and so forth.....the list is long and obnoxious with all the insults that IWRA has put forth and constantly uses that would = the same you are applying to GP.
Don't be a hypocrite. If you're going to chastise one you must apply the same to the other.
And "fanchick" is hardly offensive compared to some of the shit IWRA says towards GP (and myself), among others.
Do you really want me to go through a number of threads to recount all the derogatory ad hominems IWRA has constantly and consistently repeatedly used towards users?
Again, don't be a hypocrite in such clearly stated biased actions you just announced herein against GP, but nothing against IRWA.
EDIT: Sir.Lancelot and RationalMadman make excellent points about IRWA just as I have voiced here too.
Created:
Why does society encourage men to rape women?
Society does no such thing.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>The pillow is a tool, not a focus of sexual attraction.It is your contention that sexuality is a choice. If that's the case, then that means you can choose to feel sexual attraction towards men or women.
No.
- Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually.[1][2] This involves biological, psychological, physical, erotic, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors.[3][4] Because it is a broad term, which has varied with historical contexts over time, it lacks a precise definition.[4] The biological and physical aspects of sexuality largely concern the human reproductive functions, including the human sexual response cycle.[3][4]
Sexual Orientation is what you choose.
- Someone's sexual orientation is their pattern of sexual interest in the opposite or same sex.[5] Physical and emotional aspects of sexuality include bonds between individuals that are expressed through profound feelings or physical manifestations of love, trust, and care. Social aspects deal with the effects of human society on one's sexuality, while spirituality concerns an individual's spiritual connection with others. Sexuality also affects and is affected by cultural, political, legal, philosophical, moral, ethical, and religious aspects of life.[3][4]
Sexual attraction is the result of what you are aroused by, so if you can choose your sexual attraction then you can choose which gender arouses you.
- Sexual behavior and intimate relationships are strongly influenced by a person's sexual orientation.[67]
Therefore, arousal can according to you, simply be switched on or off towards either sex.
Wrong. Not switched on or off, but rather chosen to act or not to act. Just because someone has a mental desire or interest (curiousness) towards the same or opposite sex doesn't mean they will or would act on it until chosen to do so. The way you (and others) assert is that people just do, they just act, without choice, and go around humping anything with a heartbeat and an available orifice.
If you can turn your arousal on or off towards a given gender, then you are in control of your arousal.
No, you're not in control of the physiological responses of arousal. It's an automatic response to what the mind observes and translates into said physiological response. There is no control over that.
If you are in control of your arousal, then you can choose to be aroused by your pillow.
Wrong. Not how it works, as explained; that is, unless you are a paraphiliac towards objects. But that is neither here nor there where this topic is concerned. I mean, we could go off on a red herring tangent with other sexual orientated perversions like paraphilia, necrophilia, beastiality, so on and so forth.
Created:
-->
@Bill-0
I mean, maybe you could make that argument, however its not what the law says, so therefore if someone is punished for doing something that isn't against the law, i would be against it
I just quoted the law; it IS what the law says. What part of " “guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 several years, or by a good of not much more than $10,000.” did you fail to comprehend?
Again, the law says that you need to harass said person,
No shit Sherlock! Technically it states "intimidate," then defines said intimidation as 17 repeated or continuing acts they categorize as "harassment."
- "h.16 (b) "Intimidate" means a willful course of conduct involving 17 repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened. Intimidate does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose"
and deciding to use the ones they would rather not be called maliciously to harass them.
"Maliciously" is not a part of that legal definition.
And i dont have a degree, Im 15...however i can read and ive done lots of research into legal issues
Well, I do have a degree in the legal arena (two in fact), and I have worked in law enforcement as well as for the courts under a District Attorney's Office. You seriously lack the requisite academic and professional experience to know what you're even talking about, much less the necessary knowledge to properly read, interpret and understand how statutory law is applied and how it is enforced (proven).
If you can link me an article of someone being arrested for calling someone the wrong pronouns i would love to see it.
If the Governor signs it into law, it will be the first state-test case and if it holds, other ridiculously liberal states (like CA and WA) will follow.
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
Then by all means, just go away if you can’t hold up your end of the discussion with cogent arguments, statements, or replies on point.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
The obvious point made by Clarence Thomas. You can’t fight racism (discrimination) with just more racism (discrimination).
Merit over arbitrary skin color thag doesn’t even define let alone guarantee the kind of person/student applying to any particular school (or job for that matter).
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Even normal things have causes....
Huh? Try being less vague.
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
The burden of proof and basic responsibility tk put forth a cogent argument, position, comment is on YOU - and NOT the reader - in deciphering your word salads.
Created:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual…
False. Any self-respecting and honest scientist let alone layman knows full well that heterosexuality is normal as it is in the “nature” of humanity to not only procreate for its survival, but also in relationship and the civilization dynamics in order for that survival to be realized.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The pillow is a tool, not a focus of sexual attraction.
The pillow serves the same function as the “pocket pussy.” Just a tool, nothing more. It’s what is sued visually that gets one’s mind off.
Like you, D_R, could watch transgender men role playing as women screwing one another and get aroused and need release other than five finger Mary. So you either select the pillow or the pocket pussy. Neither of the latter has anything to do with sexuality.
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
Testing waters.
Ha ha!! Nice try at backpedaling on that obvious word salad.
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
So, by everyday elements, that's how my sexual attraction can change? Alright, let's go by that. But when my body goes through those elements, that sexual attraction may or may not change. Do I choose to make it change? No. It changes on its own. I don't have a say, to be like, "hey, because of this can you just start making me feel attraction to females?"
🤦♂️ more word salad. 🙄
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
Yep! My body just completely started feeling a new attraction to females!
Your body reacts to what the kind perceived through visual, smell and perhaps touch (if you allow it). The body just doesn't “do it” all on its own. It reacts to external stimuli via how the mind perceives it. It’s in the mind. It’s a choice.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
ALL are choices if and when acted upon.Thats clear as mud. Choosing to act according to one's sexual preferences and choosing sexuality are not the same thing.
Yes they are. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
Created:
-->
@Bill-0
Under the new monthly bill, offenders are “guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 several years, or by a good of not much more than $10,000.”
If it’s in the law, you can bet your last dollar that someone will be made an example of and jailed.
Where did you matriculate to earning any degree in the legal arena?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm not sure to what you're referring, but I can't help but think you've overlooked bi-sexuality and the spectrum of sexuality.
ALL are choices if and when acted upon.
Created:
Prove it’s a theory.
Created: