Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
Now sure I understand you here, could you please elaborate?
Had it mixed up with link.
I don't think quote needs to be highlighted whenever it is being used.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Is there anywhere you can highlight whenever a Bold, Italic, Underline, Unordered list and Ordered list is being used?
It is kinda difficult to judge whether or not my next comment after an underline or bold comment will also be bold.
This is an inconvenience by the way.
Quote doesn't have to be given a box opens up which people should be aware of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
*Doesn't know where the platform development section is*
*Gets mad*
*Yawns*
Lol. I didn't think you could be so emotional, oh wait I'm talking to Stephen right? Guess this all just plays out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Guess you don't want to do right instead carry on making threads when threads about this specific topic already exist.that I posted in the wrong thread.
BECAUSE DO NOT NEED TO!!!!!! MY SUGGESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED BY DebateArt.com AT POST TWO AND FOUR!!!!!!!!!!!Now go away, you are becoming as irritating as a fly around a horses arse.
If it wasn't clear, I was talking about next time. I don't know if you space in your mind when you have so many anecdotes talking about Christianity and Islam. Heck the amount you talk about it, it is almost as if ISIS are about to chop your head off or a priest is going to butt rape you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Is this supposed to be a joke? science and spirituality can work harmoniously together they do not contradict one another. Religion needs to stay out of the way of science and science needs to stay out of the way of religion. They both study two different natures of reality, one the natural and the other the supernatural although we only use those terms to distinguish one perception from the other. I embrace science wholeheartedly because it gives insight to how the Creator produces what we see currently in our universe whereas spirituality gives us insight on the soul, the nature of the soul and God. In a perfect world we need both not just one or the other.Science is a neutral study, it makes no claims about the Creator because that is not its field of expertise because it cannot reach that reality, this is where we hand the ball over to spirituality just like if we were to hand the ball over to science to demonstrate how the physical world operates. The question becomes do you have the courage to LET SPIRITUALITY be on your side when it comes to that nature of experience like you trust science to tell you about the physical universe.
Oh so spirituality works with science but I have no way to prove it, okay.
Wow you didn't pay attention even in your own thread. That is sad.
Don't know what you mean but I think you mean I believe something to be true? I don't think you are ready for the nuance I will drop but I will still tell you anyway. People believe things irrespective or respective of evidence. I believe things with evidence. You on the other hand don't. Now you might be a person who knows the evidence is shockingly missing for spiritualist but still believe it to be the case but I don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Which is worse?Choosing who to date irrespective of political correctness?Or being forced to date in respect of political correctness?
I guess it depends on how much it is brought up. If you are talking about me just going out with a minority group then I don't think I have a problem with it but if they can't stop talking about how white people are x and they are y then it would be pretty boring conversation to have. I think it is very rare for me to learn something new from that.
So if you mean force as in my personal restrictions or state restrictions then that would be worse.
Don't know how I could like someone based on it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Because if you need everyone to agree on something to be considered unified, that would mean that literally no country on earth is unified.
Yes but smaller groups as in two people are unified together to go on a date. The word can still have meaning. It doesn't need to be used to cover a lot of people if it doesn't meet the bar. I guess it can work in much larger groups but I think the more people involved the less likely it will be unified.
I would say we are more unified than a country having a civil war, wouldn't you? Even though we aren't in perfect agreement about political issues?
Depending on the time frame and the data around it. For the sake of this I'll say sure they were more together but not unified. I don't know how I feel about you using more unified. Unified by itself means together as one and more added to that defeats the purpose of the word. Unify is to be together as one. Adding that more to together as one doesn't go in line with math. Example:
100% = Unified
101% = more unified?
Percentages go up to 100% not 101% if we are saying how much everything adds up too as in the complete portion of a cake. I don't know where you got the extra piece of cake when it certainly doesn't fit into this complete cake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Can you give me a hypothetical instead?If you want me to find something that everyone in America agrees on, I physically cannot. I can find trends that the majority of people are in agreement about.
Consciously just means that it is something they choose to believe.
Your question was "Name one thing an entire country consciously agrees."
No. Don't know why you wanted me to answer it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Not true show me where. I didn't say any such thing.
"Not sure what that means but it was more a suggestion than a demand or a request."
This implies you can't suggest things to DA on the platform development thread. If you want to be to much of a coward to own what you implied then go ahead.
Ok, and I have admitted that I may posted my SUGGESTION in the wrong thread AFTER YOU had pointed it out. SO FKN WHAT!!!!. Why the song and dance FFS!
Why are you so mad? Instead of clicking the orange button you could've realized. on your way to clicking that. there is a "platform development" section. You have done this more than once and I believe that you have been on this site long enough to know what that section is. I don't believe that you haven't seen that thread nor do I take me being the first thing you had about where suggestions go. It is not even a good idea if you wanted to attract DA's attention because he replies on the platform development section. I can't find a positive of what you are doing unless you are another insecure person in the forum section increasing their rank. Not the first and I doubt the last.
I made no demand either, I made a fkn suggestion, so again what the FK are you banging on about!!!???
Well why not add it to this thread? The only person that is stopping you from clicking on "New topic" then deciding to simply lay out your suggestion in the platform development section is you. Try and actually use the pinned thread or don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
Something can have a negative connotation without you intentionally making it the case.
Take for example:
A kid saying the n-word.
N-word bad but kid knows no better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
In terms of literal citizenship, yes. In a more philosophical sense, he could or could not be. I don't know if he is maliciously lying or if what he said was wrong at all.
What he said is wrong is a matter of values.
So you are saying even though Nick is anti-American history he is still American?
Not by your definition, no.
Please do find a different definition. I found almost all of them pretty much be the same as the Merriam Webster one.
Like I said, there are even big disagreements among conservatives. There are disagreements among Jews and Christians. These are groups of millions. America has 317 million people, so it would be incredibly difficult to find something they all agree on. Not to mention, you would have to interview 317 million people to actually know if they are 'unified' which would be very difficult to do.
I didn't make the claim that "We are unified in our culture", you did.
that means we weren't unified.
Under my definition yes.
Name one thing an entire country consciously agrees.
What do you mean by consciously?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Inferno
Well guess the best way we observe the world can't substantiate the supernatural. I'll wait until it does. I am not going to believe in things without evidence.The supernatural cannot be explained verbally. It cannot be measured by science. These are events that take place in a parallel universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
That doesn't explain why the comment was negative lol.
If you don't think what you said was negative then I can't help you.
You are basically saying you have no negative reaction if I said do you want to die?
Die has a negative connotation. Against has a negative connotation. They might not be as severe but still negative.
I just didn't want to be the first person to respond without it being a question.
Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Inferno
What is this in reference too?
Another thing, I wish someone was able to replicate this and report these findings to a qualified individual but alas, none have the courage to have science be on there side when it comes to the supernatural.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
Why do you believe my questions implied you had a negative response?
You framed it like this "Got something against Batman?"
A less negative response would be what do you think of Batman?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Oh so why are you here?Me and zaradi have been members of DDO for 10+ years. Who the heck are you lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Who are you again? I should ask Zaradi as well but they can't even answer a question so..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
Why was your questions framed implying I had a negative response to Batman?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Sure that might reach it but then people will just move onto other subjects of disagreement and argue over that. I don't think there will be a time when there is nothing to argue about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It was a suggestion, I didn't even suggest it was a "need" or request it was a need of mine.. What the hell are you going on about.
Even a suggestion can be filed under platform development. What are you talking about?
I didn't make any excuses, at all. What are you actually talking about?
Call it what you want but you are at fault by not using an already dedicated sub to suggestions.
OK I suggested something in the wrong thread. Why are you making a fk song and dance about it!?
I want you to add it in the platform development thread. That is all. What, do you think I want to publicly humiliate you?
OK, i'll bite, you got me again, what distinction are you banging on about?
You said only demands and requests go in the platform development thread.
You said this thread was warranted because it is a suggestion.
I argue that even suggestions can be placed under platform development thread. I make no demand to DA. I simple suggest a thing or ask things. He has no obligation to accept or even answer back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There is already a thread dedicated to your platform development needs.
I'll take your excuse as a bad one. You can suggest things on the platform development section so the distinction isn't actually a distinction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If a culture can't survive then it is bad if we value survival. Simple. If almost every single culture has survivability checked then we can talk about other things we value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
But isn't he still an American?I don't know what Nick Fuentes said. If he is knowingly lying and wrong, I'd say that is rather anti-American of him.
There is nothing that every single American agrees on.
So your statement that Americans are unified cannot be substantiated?
and it appeared you were saying that disagreements mean we aren't unified.
How can Americans be unified if you can't point to a single example of unification of any kind?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
At it's core, logic is primitive cause and effect.
This doesn't matter when theists appeal to things that they cannot verify to understand the world. God created cause and effect. This logically follows from whatever God says. It can be appealing to scripture or making it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You said "Accepting this history" makes you an American. Is Nick Fuentes still an American if he deals with Historical Revisionism?Well, don't use revisionist history. That is why I said to accept the good and the bad. Revisionism is usually used to ignore or downplay the bad, but it can also be used to downplay achievements. Both are bad. Just accept what actually happened.
Well, that was because I said we don't all have to agree on everything to be unified.
Give me a specific simple example that Americans are unified on something.
The conditions would be:
- Has to include every single American
- Unified as in everyone agrees on something.
If this is not met there isn't a single thing that all Americans agree on.
If you are going to say Christmas. Think about it and if you want to add that in again then do it but know that I already have a counter to that.
Are you saying that, to be unified, we must all agree on everything? I think any good democracy needs to have its disagreements.
Unification is essentially 1 not 1 - 0.21 = 0.79. 0.79 is not a complete number as in everyone does not agree. The numbers should be self-explanatory given you didn't challenge them earlier.
In order to be unified on anything Americans must have a single thing that they all unify under. I don't respect I would say an unintentional change of what I am asking. Please read what I said earlier. I specifically asked for 1 as in a thing not everything. Meaning "Are you saying that, to be unified, we must all agree on everything?" is an unfair characterization of what I am asking.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Logic varies from person to person because they value different things.People already know what logic is
Rational Skepticism is like a muscle, the more you exercise it, the stronger it grows.
Do you have data that people do have this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Accepting this history as your own is part of being an American, whether you like the history or not.
Historical revisionism is used by white supremacists to rewrite what occurred in Germany and state there is some sort of global conspiracy.
Most Democrats still support more gun freedom than is allowed in nearly any country.
You said and I quote "We are unified in our culture". How is America unified when everyone doesn't support gun freedom if I accept your findings?
Unified: brought together as one
As one doesn't leave anything up. It is like if I said 1 + 1 together equals 2 but then later retract my statement and say 1 + 1 = 2 then - 0.21.
Our culture is a bit more divided that it used to be, but it is still rather intact.
Read earlier statements, I have already addressed all that needs to be said for my part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Sorry completely forgot to add you as a receiver.
History: We each accept American history as our own history. The Founding Fathers are important figures for us.
What is American History?
Attitudes: General sentiments most people share. Freedom is a big part of it in America. We like it. A lot of people like gun freedoms. To different degrees, yes, but in general we want to have them. European countries are quite different in that respect.
The gun freedom is heavily contested. The attitudes of Democrats is far strict than Republicans. I don't really know how they have similar attitudes. Care to explain? You are missing a clear difference between the two parties.
Traditions: Things we do annually. Christmas, Thanksgiving, and other holidays are examples of traditions. Our business etiquette is distinct.
Have you seen the outcry with almost every single themed holiday? Example: Thanksgiving should be called native Indigenous day (I don't know if I got the name right but close enough)
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I guess you like another person on this site are insecure about their ranking on the leaderboard so you have to add 3 comments that you were able to fit everything in one.
I don't care about your excuses for this, I just want you to post everything in one comment. Anything but that I will not reply too.
My goal is to get them to present a logical, skeptical argument against some religion they DON'T believe in, and use that to establish common-ground.
Easy counter, my Religion is not contradictory. They can apply different standards to other Religions compared to theirs and you will get nowhere. They would have to admit they are not using the same standards but at that point I think you are talking about a minority. I think theists pride themselves at looking at the other positions and coming back to the Religion they started with. Meaning they were not able to find out they were using different standards in the past, think that they did and use that as justification as they are wrong. Even if you can clearly point out contradictions that conform to what they think you will still hit a brick wall. The answer to you might not be worthwhile because you would find out they are switching topics instead of admitting to their mistakes or using circular logic. Both negate anything traction you can make.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Have you heard of Historical Revisionism?We know how the ancient Israelites interpreted these laws. This is not up-for-debate.
I guess Christians do it by not acknowledging the changes in texts.
The "interpretation" of these particular statements is not in dispute.
It can be. People might not value what is historically accurate instead whatever conforms to what they value.
If someone tells me they believe in "objective morality" you can be sure I'm going to ask them for unambiguous "objective" examples.
I don't even know how this follows by my previous statement. I merely pointed out the world isn't sentient as in capable of answering your questions but here you are pretty much talking after that conceding what I said and saying but I still want answers. You also confused people and matter. These two are different things. I wasn't talking about people, I was talking about matter.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes I think so.I feel like we argued this before.
It is shared history
What do you mean?
attitudes
What do you mean?
traditions
What do you mean?
This isn't group-think.
I'm dropping this. It is a psychological term and I haven't read stuff about that so I am going to drop it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
most Christians don't believe all the other flavors of Christian "are going straight to hell"
Okay then. Even though they are practicing the wrong sect they are still going to heaven. Everyone else will go to hell then.
Which sort of begs the question of why they're so divided on doctrine that they can't even meet in the same building (if they agree on the "important stuff" can't they just ignore the rest?).
It is multifaceted like pretty much anything. I would say the most important thing is that in order for anything to be gained in some sort of coalition both sides need to concede ground, I don't think they are capable given what they think is at stake.
by applying simple logic.
The problem is that you are using your own standards against theirs. If they actually thought they were wrong why would they still be following something they don't believe in?
These are real-world questions that demand "objective" (not-opinion-based) real-world answers.
That is you talking not the world. The world doesn't owe us anything. That is you applying value to something.
This is not up-for-debate.
Anything that a person is willing to be on the opposing side is up for debate. Whether or not it is deemed socially acceptable which is why people still push race and IQ stuff.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nope. You are wrong because my priest says so. No way of the other-side considering your position because they believe the "specialists" when reading the Bible.(EITHER) the holy scriptures are subjective ("open to interpretation") (OR) "objective" ("NOT open to interpretation").
(IFF) the holy scriptures are the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god (THEN) there can be no variation in its interpretation.
Common defense would be all the other sects are wrong.
(IFF) there is variation in the interpretation of the holy scriptures (multiple Christian denominations) (THEN) the holy scriptures cannot be the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god.
You don't know that. You are making a claim about something we cannot know. We are using this world's rules to apply to a place we don't even know exists.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your standard is different to theirs. Given this you would have to appeal to their standard in order to get them to change their mind. The problem would be of course not knowing the standard but asking them afterwards. what would I have to do to change your mind. They can sincerely state what they think would change their mind and still won't or lie about it. There are other options but I stated the two most relevant ones.How do I know what god wants me to do?
I also like to point out that Spinoza has already provided everyone a perfectly air-tight, logically-coherent, proof-of-god.
Most if not all theists adhere to that understanding.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How exactly do I determine what god says?
It doesn't matter. You can see it here already, people shift the burden of proof so they don't have to defend what they hold. For you to even sufficiently say God doesn't exist you would have to see what we can't currently see now and hope that is enough because I don't think it is enough for blinded ignorance.
The holy scriptures command god's people to treat foreigners as they would treat each other (native born). And yet, Christians seem to be the first in line to express their outrage about "illegal immigrants"!!
That isn't a contradiction to the true premise of whatever God says. If you say God says this in the Bible then they can default to well you read it wrong and appeal to a priest who said you were wrong.
The premise itself has to be verifiably true.
It can be verified by saying I believe it to be the case and testimony. What you use to verify something is not the same as what others use to verify things.
How exactly do I determine what god says?
They can reject circular logic as a reason to reject what they are saying or they might not even think it is circular.
Created:
Posted in:
Define culture.We are unified in our culture
not expressing group-think.
What the majority does as in vote Democrat or Republican is group think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I asked you a question and you assume my side. Are you going to answer my question?So you're okay with the elimination of the Native American culture, both North and South?
Add me as a receiver next time.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
"which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system"
So basically God exists because the logical system deems it to be so. Okay.
"consistency"
Doesn't actually mean they have to adhere to any form of real world ways we use to define consistency. They can be contradictory and still call themselves consistent. All they have to say is whatever God says goes. It doesn't matter if you show that people are pro-life to one thing but another they are anti-life, the thing that you need to show is that God didn't say that and at that point you have already conceded grounds that you accept the Bible in some sort of way thus giving them ground.
"(which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise)"
Okay then, a simplified version of the earlier paragraph. True premise: Whatever God says goes.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
"Logic (from the Greek "logos", which has a variety of meanings including word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason or principle) is the study of reasoning"
From your link. Nothing about coherence or incoherence and you are still avoiding my definitions and your very own link confirms what I am saying.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I gave a definition. You are deciding to add stuff that is not a part of logic.SOUND logic is coherent. UNSOUND logic is incoherent.
Logic can be incoherent. Just say it is reasonable to be incoherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
A two party inherently divides a country. One wants open borders another doesn't. The "cultural unity" can only be met under a one party system. Dictatorship, Monarchy and others I am missing.cultural unity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What is so good about a culture or civilization if it can't survive against other more survivable cultures?Countless cultures and civilizations were lost due to open/weak borders. Open borders only favors the stronger and more aggressive cultures.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A thinks God is real and says it is reasonable to say so.
B thinks God is not real and says it is reasonable to say so.
Neither of them can find common ground when it comes to challenging those positions given both use different forms of logic.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
What happens if people use different types of logic?
Created: