Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Why is someone so irrelevant so popular? It is just so stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Oh come on. You can see it from Sam Seder, Kyle Kulinski, Michael Brooks and others lefties online that they are Bernie or die. That is going to be a problem if lets say all those people actually made a large majority of Bernie supporters to simply abstain from voting which would make it even more difficult for a Democrat to win. They are morons basically and this kind of purity testing would only lead to bad stuff happening.
Basically online lefties don't know what politically effective is so they decide to purity test their way to losing again. Can be seen with Ilhan Omar endorsing Bernie who is losing to the frontrunners. I only hope they decide to vote for Warren or Biden if they do become the democrats nominee.
Sorry for not voting for you in the Hall of Fame.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
What makes abortion better not birth control?I think we should encourage and educate people about birth control. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. It should be strictly for emergencies.
It is somewhat hard to catch people selling alcohol to minors. It is a low priority crime as well. But yes, enforcement should be improved somehow.
It kinda has to if birth defects are taken seriously along with other substances that can cause birth defects.
I do wonder what would happen. I think that religion can only be invoked if it is a "recognized" religion. There must be a certain amount of members and certain criteria to meet. Not sure if they could use it, but perhaps.
I don't really know another reason why such a health risk like anti-vaxxers are allowed if it wasn't because of the 1st amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Sorry for not picking your primary poll thread.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you saying the argument is good?Also known as, "the ontological argument". Spinoza makes an airtight case.
Can you present it as well?
Also known as, "the logical necessity". Kant makes an airtight case.
Are you saying the argument is good?
Can you present the case?
Unfortunately neither Spinoza's nor Kant's solutions are compatible with the modern concept of "YHWH".
So they can't make a case for the current interpretation of the Biblical God?
Created:
I can't think of a much better alternative to fix this problem. It may be a bandage fix, but across most states, there is essentially abortion on demand for any reason and it has been for years (excluding Georgia and Alabama and maybe a handful of others). The problem still widely occurs. So, since we cannot eliminate addiction and abortion doesn't prevent it, I can see no better choice.
I guess it is good. How about birth control?
Getting caught involves fines and can be either a misdemeanor or a felony based on the circumstances. https://www.alcohol.org/laws/supplying-alcohol-to-a-minor/
I don't think it is taken seriously. If it is then I am wrong but if it isn't. Improve enforcement.
Yeah, I kinda despise anti-vaxxers, myself. I don't recall any mention in the Bible about vaccinations. I don't think any recognized religion requires you to drink alcohol.
Anti-vaxxers I am sure would use the 1st amendment to defend what they doing just like people drinking alcohol. It may not be as cancerous as the anti-vaxxers but I wouldn't know until people who like alcohol a lot have their drink threatened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
It amuses me that even on a rinky dink site with a trivial election people see conspiracy theories about a sinister rinky dink deep state whose evil master plan is to stop two rinky dink votes.
Well as you can clearly see George Sorous pretty much funds any lefty under their Illuminati branches for their global agenda to control everyone. I wish Metal Gear Solid was a global phenomenon rather then Geroge conspiracy theories and oh by the way this was a joke. I know people actually believe this but I don't. I am not going to ascribe complex answers when simple answers can be demonstrated to be true.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Damn. I was waiting for that. I am joking about that.I am not really prepared to write a fifty-page proposal on all the specific details right now.
Perhaps classifying this as child neglect will act as a deterrent.
Deterrents are a bandage to the problem. Not the disinfectant or the needle and thread to close the wound. Peel of the bandage there is an open wound. I wouldn't think deterrents work because of the Cold War. It didn't actually bring about peace or in this case a desired result. Instead lead to an arms race to who had the most amount of power (weapons, control) to win against the other side. In this context if women were sent to jail we might see a steady drop in birth or some sort of revolution by the lower class which isn't at all good for anyone given how the amount of people that can cause real harm by the sheer numbers. Hope this made sense.
With regard to the household buying alcohol, they would not all be banned. The same could be applied to any parent with kids because they child could get ahold of the alcohol. It is, however, illegal for a parent to buy alcohol for the purpose of giving it to their underaged kid. That is how the law would work.
Even in the case you brought up. It is illegal to give a kid alcohol but I see videos online of people giving it to them. I don't remember a jail sentence nor anything else. To me the problem would be enforcement and how you would actually know a pregnant women is going to use it. The most efficient is to have some sort of transmitter that recognizes bad substances which I don't think is politically feasible or even manageable whether it be due to technology or money. The next most efficient way would be cameras. Again I don't think it would be politically feasible and I think it would cost less money than a transmitter. I don't think you are for either of these things but if you are not then how can we make for sure they are not drinking alcohol. I can simply lie when questioned and when the baby is born you investigation would have to go through the 6 months plus any other problems the woman may have. Not to mention how much this would cost to go through every single child thoroughly as possible. Hopefully I laid out the problems with the best way of doing this and anything short would not be effective which is nothing what I said.
I don't think it is a violation of the right of someone to buy alcohol. It is preventing the violation of the kid's right to not have permanent brain damage.
"Prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the right to petition the government"
I am guessing I could list this as freedom of Religion like how I think anti-vaxxers get away with not getting vaccinated. It is not an excuse mainly showing a real example of a movement allowed to do harmful things. All these people need to do is that Jesus drank alcohol during his last supper or something so that means I can drink it to or something. I think that is all that is needed because I think the Religious claim of the anti-vaxxers are much worse than the thing that I made on the top of my head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
You faggots can enjoy this site by yourself, see how much you enjoy this place without people like me around.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Smoking while pregnant raises risk for preterm birth, low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome, and birth defects.
From this I found smoking while pregnant leads to low birth weight of 20 to 30% of accounts of low birth weights while from that number 10% of the infants die because of women smoking while pregnant. I think we can both say both of the numbers are not that big but still is a problem. I think the people who would smoke while pregnant don't really have the best lives to begin with. If we cared about the child then he shouldn't even be born to parent who willfully smokes while pregnant or doesn't even know the harm caused by it. Think about how willful ignorance or lack of intelligence could have an impact on the child. I think this would also mean they are poor because I think poor people are generally less educated. I think this link helps my case.
Additionally, alcohol is linked to cognitive debilitation and other issues for the child.
I guess this would still be a problem with the poor given lack of funds and the means to get help. A better take here would've been there is no safe amount of alcohol during pregnancy. That could've got the point across better. You could've listed the problems associated with it afterwards.
This usually causes irreparable harm to another being, the child, and therefore should be considered as some sort of child neglect or child abuse.
I guess that is fair. It would be more child neglect but abuse can be neglect so it can be either one.
At the very least, this child should be taken away.
Funds would be a problem and then giving it to a good environment to prosper would also be a problem. There isn't going to be enough infertile parents or family who wants to adopt instead of creating their own children. I wouldn't know how to fairly go about researching this so I guess my claim would be poor families would creates babies at a higher rate than they would be a supply of parents to give them a better environment to live in. I think I am okay claiming this but maybe infertile or parents who want children is much higher than I think.
It should probably also be illegal to sell either substance to a pregnant woman. As far as I know, all of these are merely discouraged, but not illegal.
It would help birth defects but I wouldn't know how to implement it. Is the woman only banned from buying alcohol? What if the father buys alcohol and she uses it? Is an entire household barred from buying alcohol? How about online stores and how they would recognize if you were pregnant or not? I think this would be a really difficult thing to get right that's if either side agrees. The right would say you are infringing on my freedom. The left would say the government doesn't make the choice that the mother should or something. Pretty complicated.
What is your opinion on this? The only thing that I could see causing issues is the cutoff point(by when does the pregnant woman know that she is pregnant and is still neglecting her responsibilities).
I think it is way more complicated than you pointed out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
we can't say 100% for certain either way.
What do you think is lacking:
Research into quantum mechanics
or
What people are able to do?
Tautological statement (3) Perfect-determinism is incompatible with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Indeterminism is compatible with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. (IFF) the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is true (THEN) perfect-determinism cannot be true. (IFF) the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is true (THEN) indeterminism is true - this statement (3) must be true in all circumstances.
Okay. Are you forced to use tautology because of the lack of things found out in quantum mechanics?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Don't you think we would see something breaking the cause and effect rule by now or maybe Quantum researchers don't have the evidence yet to state that?"fundamental quantum unpredictability"
tautological indeterminism is the most reliable, defensible, and most comprehensive position.
I didn't see the tautological part of it. Do you want to explain that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Was the ban due to the n-word or the homophobic comments or both or something else?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe in tautological (in)determinism.Free-will is logically incoherent (provably false).
cool.
Do you the example you use that states tautological determinism?
Created:
So God is not creation in your mind. Okay you have just admitted it is nothing. People who even think about it in their mind are wrong. Glad to know that.What you call intellectual is simply creation. The Ultimate Reality is God, not an explanation.
Why is The Ultimate Reality God? Because that is what we mean by God. Can you think of anythingg else more worthy to be called God? Of course you can't, but it matters little. This is what we mean by God.
You are not demonstrated anything nor providing evidence. I can simply say what you said in the way I want it to be. There is no argument to counter to even talk about. This is just your opinion not supported by anything.
There is nothing even comparable to God. I tell you, God can not be circumscribed, not even by the mind. I believe in The Incomprehensible God. The One True God. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
You can't even lie about willing to change your mind. Why should I be willing to change my mind when you haven't even stated you would or told me how I would go about doing it.
I'll ask another question. What God are you talking about? The multiple Gods of Hindus or the Biblical God. Please tell me how you get to that.
Created:
Posted in:
For Users:
Ramshutu: Remember him from that one time followed by many others he stepped into the politics forum. Gave me a sanity check that I wasn't the only one to see Greyparrot's conspiracy theories as what they are. I think TheDriedPriateRoberts was also involved. Wouldn't be surprising.
Virtuoso: Cool guy. Is more active on the site than I think any other moderator.
Don't have a third pick for users. If I understood orogami's profile whatever it was then he would've got it for being frequent and assuming it would be worthwhile to read.
For Debates:
I only know about 2 of the debates before clicking on them right now. I can't vote on either.
For Threads:
Goodbye: Mainly because people believed him and he got 31 likes on his forum post.
Minimum wage: Found it funny with what Alec proposed.
Don't have a third yet again.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Still hasn't answered my questions. Ad-homs and pretty much calls me the denier. Deflecting from his well stale position that God exists because the definitions said so. No what caused the big bang no infinite regression can't be possible angle instead defaults to 3-4 words. This clearly reeks of anti-intellecutalism and note this isn't an ad-hom because it is the best representation of your position.As you are a nihilist, it would be foolish of me to try and prove anything to you. It takes an awful lot of denial to come to the nihilistic conclusion.
Besides, if I did prove something to you and you believed it, you would cease to be a nihilist.
Could I not change my mind? Could I not change my username?
How about you, what would it take for you to state God is not real?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The only "fault" is the Big-Bang.The cog is not "responsible" for its own creation, function, or failure.
What would you call yourself a determinist or person who takes the position of free will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't because everyone is the same. That wasn't my question. I was making you a thing outside the world you currently existing seeing a cog in a machine that breaks. Would you say that is at fault if you believe in determinism?How would you define "morality" in super-lifelike-robot world?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
?Yet, here you are identifying yourself with the doctrine of negation.
Neither I accepted what you said nor did does the link even state that. I am guessing I hit a brick wall in your brain and you have gone through your dialogue tree.
Nihilism is atheism, pure and simple. The denial of absolute truth or ultimate reality
Demonstrate how they are inherent to one another.
I'll wait like I'll wait for every single other claim you have yet to demonstrate. At this point there is undeniable "truth" that you are incompetent. Guess some people are too far gone.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So here I can simply state I don't confine to the most extreme kind but I won't. I will instead say can you demonstrate to me that I am comparable to the extreme kinds of nihilism? I'll wait."That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs no 'thing in itself This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind. " ~ Fredrich Nietzsche
Created:
If you can't avoid attacking me personslly while you are complaining about me allegedly attacking you personally, you should probably just keep it to yourself.
Deflection. Next time try and put effort into your comments.
This shows you have two different standards. Things you don't agree with you give a long winded link to. Things that you do agree with you sum it up with 4 words and a dictionary. This implies you try so hard to go out of your way not to use the same standards when comparing your belief in God and lets take this your defense of your position on nihilism which is a double standard fallacy. Do you have a response to the allegations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I was trying to ask how is a cog an individual?To illustrate how justice is still fully-functional in a hypothetically deterministic universe.
How do you define individual?
When you say "judge" and "blame" it strongly suggests there has been some level of infraction.
Outside morality. I am simply saying did x occur because of x's fault or because of something else.
It's a primary axiom of all humans who wish to contribute to the gene-pool.
Okay. I understand. My arguments are not referring to the axiom it is outside of it.
Please try to be slightly more specific.
You have already answered it.
I didn't respond to the dog part because I think I made my point more clear without it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If he did say that. I am not using science. I am simply asking you to answer a question. Define a word and maybe later on defend God with more than just 3-4 words.I believe the standard theist attack is, "you have faith in your ability to reason", "you have faith in science".
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Your username is the real nihilist, dude.
You serious? I give you the chance to defend your ad-hom but you don't. Really goes to show how little you can do to defend your side. At least with God you gave me 3-4 words. You don't even give me a single one here.
So to you I say that I do what I do for no reason.
Definition of nihilism if you can. Do also link it to a dictionary as well.
Also, there cqn be no reasonable doubt concerning God's existence.
3-4 words is not demonstrating God's existence. It is simply showing what little you can do as an agnostic to present a case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The "cog" is a "potentially dangerous individual" and the "machine" is a "peaceful and civil society".
Why did you define the cog as an individual?
I did state you had no connection to it so why did you state it as potentially dangerous?
I wasn't making a metaphor. It is simple a machine.
It's merely a practical matter of either repairing or replacing the cog.
Wait I am going to bring up something else you said:
TRN:Determinism as an axiom, do you consider judging people based on actions they have no control over fair?3RU7AL:Yes, 100% fair.In exactly the same way that it is fair to incarcerate a rabid dog.There is no reason to "blame the dog" for its rabidity.There is no reason to "punish the dog" for its rabidity.But it is imperative that we facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society, and a small part of that involves mitigating public risk.
You say you have no reason to blame the dog but you say it is imperative to incarcerate in order for us to live in a peaceful society. Excluding the imperative of it facilitating a livable society would you still blame the dog?
Is the imperative to facilitate a functioning society an axiom of yours?
I'm still not sure what you're asking.
I think I gave a question earlier that might help you understand what I am saying.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You have an awful lot of faith for a nihilist. Expecting answers for your questions.
Faith? Please tell me what this has got to do with faith. I asked a question. You are not answering instead resort to ad-homs. Guess preaching love is all that Christians do. They don't actually act upon it. Mischaracterizing me and what is going is not a good thing to do. You are doing a bad thing and Christians suppose to practice good. Do I need to find a verse on insults?
You have made nihilism your identity. If arguing against nihilism is an attack on you, it cannot be helped.
If it wasn't clear your point was a non-sequitur to what I asked. A question isn't a direct contradiction to nihilism unless we are using Mopac's dictionary or maybe that doesn't even go inline with what you say. You are so adamant in finding a definition for God why not for nihilism? I already know the answer but I want to see if you are actually not knowledgeable on what it is you are talking about.
Besides, you started this. Your question pertains to me, not the topic. You aren't doing anything different.
If it wasn't clear there is no site policy to follow what was stated as the topic. If it is please to report me to bsh1.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Basically a cog is broken and the machine breaks. You have no connection to the cog or the machine and you believe in determinism. Do you still judge them like would you still blame the cog for breaking?Please be slightly more specific.
I stated no connection so that you can't use potential threat.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If it is all meaningless anyway Mr Nihilist, why do you say anything at all? Why concern yourself with what I say?
I asked a question to you and expected an answer. It being meaningless doesn't change that. So are you going to stop ad-homming me and answer the question?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So why carry on speaking your mind when I am sure you have tried to state your opinion and people chose to not believe you?No, I am saying that if you don't believe, you have made that choice. It would be your choice to believe as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not judging based on threat.Like what? A conceivable threat? A probable threat? A hypothetical threat? An empty threat? An implicit threat?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Are you saying God made people not to believe in it?I do not believe I am capable of making anybody believe anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If they pose a credible threat to themselves or other members of society, then they should be isolated and treated humanely in order to facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society.
How about outside a credible threat?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe it is fair to incarcerate a rabid dog?Do you believe it is fair to blame a broken cog for the failure of an engine to function properly?
Why ask me questions when I wanted your answer?
Can you answer it first.
There are practical, utilitarian reasons to remove dangerous actors from society (to mitigate harm and facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society), even if the dangerous actors themselves have no-real-choice.
I agree but it doesn't answer my question.
Created:
This is different to the claim that one that leads to not analyzing answer.I am saying that there are hundreds of thousands of practical applications for various real inventions that came about as a result of trying to learn about the world. Do you deny this?
One that leads to the conclusion that uncritically accepting unverified answers to questions produces superior practical results to seeking the actual answers without making the unjustified assumption that said unverified answers happen to be true?
Remember? Your just making another point where there doesn't need to be one. Instead of defending your original point which calls out people who analyse you then make another statement about pragmatism. Do explain yourself.
There are those that are content to let the mysteries of the universe remain mysteries. I have met many of them. I doubt they are in the majority though, if they were then we would still be a hunter-gathering species.
Like you said we would be regressive with "we would still be a hunter-gathering species". Don't know how this is relevant so I'll leave it at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Liberal.What are your political views?
Public Healthcare.
Socialism bad.
I guess there are others if you are willing to talk about your political views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
You pick.What topic though lol, I kind of want to do something political because I do so much religious stuff but I think our political views line up pretty well
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I'll do a new topic then from that we can decide if we want to do that again.I want something new though that we haven't done before
I guess if I win we can do that debate or if you win we don't do the debate. You can decide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
I'll challenge you again.
With laxed rules. Mainly the round stuff. Basically opening arguments round 1. Last round final rebuttals and conclusions and no new argument. In between rebuttals and arguments.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What is my case?
Edward was able to invent something new because when he had a question for which he did not know the answer
In this case Jack didn't invent anything new instead found nothing and was unhappy during that time.
Your other case was the philosophical point you made which wasn't even all that good given the same argument can be levied back at you.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Your point doesn't even help your case. You look to others when you need evidence just like thiests.
My story,
What is consciousness?
Sam: I don't know. Not really bothered by the answer.
Jack: I don't know either but I am dedicated into finding out what it is.
20 years later
Sam is happy doing what she likes not spending time on things she can't answer whereas Jack spent most of his time trying to find an answer to the detriment to his hapiness.
The story is really short but it highlights I can also make anecdotes. One that makes theists look better. Don't ponder things you can't understand. Live with not knowing or you will spend time on things without a sufficient answer. Sam can be a theist but I didn't really make that clear. Mainly because I used her to state what most people would do about the question. Move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
How about a group debate where it was you and Ramshutu vs bsh1 and Castin?Then that would go to Ramshutu
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
One that leads to the conclusion that uncritically accepting unverified answers to questions produces superior practical results to seeking the actual answers without making the unjustified assumption that said unverified answers happen to be true?
Tell me are you a scientist researching said thing or are you simply parroting from a qualified scientist?
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Any chance for a TLDR?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you consider taxes are form of government coercion?
Would you consider rules anti-antithetical to freedom?
Determinism as an axiom, do you consider judging people based on actions they have no control over fair?
Created: