Theweakeredge

A public servant ought to be a sidewalk, as we all are  - I mean  -you effortlessly allow people to do such things as take away your freedom of robbery? How you let others walk all over you! How detestable! Public Servants do this even more - because they have to give away their freetime to serving others - what sidewalks.

My point is - that's kinda the point - to be a sidewalk.

Yes because forgetting your mask is equivalent to lying and propagating a virus which increased the global mortality rate by 15% - yup that comparison checks out. Furthermore, I've already demonstrated that my "allegiance to Biden" goes as far as I can throw him - not very far. Its not the case that I like Biden as president, he is merely preferable to Trump. I literally have a forum exclusively about criticizing Biden, where I argue with people seeking to defend him - but you know - about actually important things... not him losing his mask. :\

As long as all sexwork there is consensual, then no - it should not have any effect on rape statistics. However, industries like the owners of P*rnhub and such are extremely coercive, to the point, that yeah - I would consider sexual harassment - especially because a lot of contracts are being signed without lawyers present, and predatory advertising is a big problem with the industry. 

So - in summation - as long as the industries aren't being coercive little shits, it shouldn't impact rape stats at all - however - there are industries that are coercive little shits, that should impact the rape stats, but I doubt they're being included, I would have to do more research. 

No. Nuance because there is nuance. Again, the fact that some asexual people don't meet your standard is none of my concern, its simple just not the case that people have to apply to your specific definition to be asexual. The reason I call you homophobic, is similar to why I disagree with you here, you do not care about the identity of those people - you only wan to make obviously false equivalences and hold them to your own unsound standards - then pretend like others are being unreasonable for not accepting your own unproven standards. 

No - the latter two lines are making nuance - which you apparently don't understand. 

Yes - I cited those two definitions to provide examples of the context of sexuality that I'm referring too - if you don't like that I'm referring to that specific context too bad - I know what I mean when I write "asexual" - again - the fact that it doesn't reach you arbitrary standard all the time is not something I care about. 

Because, again, you are not understanding - its more than just physical ease of access -its also an ease of "ethical" access - they know they will be punished  - which is a type of access - how can you get away with it.

According to the sexuality I was bringing up? You know? Referrring specifically to seuxality in one of the labels of attraction? Kinda like homosexual and heterosexual definitions? Also  - I have went out of my wy since the OP post to talk about how yes- there are indeed a lot of asexual people in how you would regard them, but there are asexual people in this regard too - just like how heterosexuality and homosexuality is TYPICALLY defined as an attraction towards a gender, asexuality is TYPICALLY defined as not being attracted to anyone, you can throw a fit with Zed all you like about how it doesn't reach your arbitrary standards, doesn't meant that its good objection.

First of all - you seem to completely have missed the point of me being up grocery stores, like utterly failed to interpret basic messages - you know how there's an aisle right next to the cashier? Yeah? That's what I was talking about accessibility equals more people doing that thing that they have more access to - no governments do not magically get rid of crime, but the fact that it is less accessible makes it happen generally less. Which... again - is basic stuff. 

there was more than 40 rapes REPORTED, but the cases that were actually followed - yeah that was less than 40 - hence my objection to your statistic - also - we are talking about the percentage of rape reporting that are true - hence - in order to get an accurate number of the amount of rape allegations that are true - you have to go to the RAPE REPORTS, not the total rape convictions - because so many things happen that make simply repeating the total number of people arrested for rape non representative- but even if your number was the one we'd use here - 17,000 rapes STILL isn't represented by less than 40 respondents. 

This is literally copied and pasted from the study, talking about the limitations... and you know - again - ignoring that its 20 years old

The mere presence of a government constitutes order, it being practically effective or not is beside the point, its the principle of the matter. In a place where there is no order over one another, there is no way to actually deal with crime - thus - these thing happen more. Furthermore... what? Its called marketing strategy, capitalism? I thought you liked capitalism? Anywho - I believe the government OUGHT to protect people In grocery stores from capitalistic advertising, but guess what? Because its a GOVERNMENT, there's a process there- you know, that way there is a system to let other's have their voices heard. 

Being asexual is a label of sexuality AND an adjective in general. I was the one who wrote the topic thread, I know what I was intending to write - its very easy for me to tell cause I WROTE IT. 

Necessarily speaking - if there is no state there is literally nothing stopping people from doing more crime, and in general, whenever something is easier to do - people do it more. Grocery stores have known this for years, apparently, they are way ahead of all of the super-duper intelligent people here. 

Killing someone, stealing something, raping someone - etc etc - we are trying to maximize the benefits from individual interactions? No? It seems to me that unless you can guarantee that everyone in a given population cares enough to not do crime, crime will exist, and more of it 

So what one "ought" to do is decided entirely by each individual? Regardless of its logical consistency or sustainability?

it is your assumption that their assumption is what they are at consensus at - it is repeatable and controllable observation - same as any other field of science. You've continued to assert to the opposite but failed to actually prove it. For example: PSTD - we know of its symptoms because of repeatable, controlled, observation - backed up by field meta research. Your assumptions are borne of ignorance and bias. 

Zed posted a non-topical definition - the application of sexuality is a label of attraction - that is how sexuality of a label of an individual works.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Nope-  a consensus CAN be like that - however the "scientific consensus" is composed of all of the theories, laws, and hypothesis which are most strongly indicated by the evidence. You can assert otherwise, but you'd need to actually prove that (and you have a tad bit of a hard time actually presenting evidence).

Um... because given the definition of other sexualities- sexuality IS limited to attraction. 

And do you know what that consensus is made of? " controlled and substantively reproducible observations" just like literally every other field

So you see - there are more than 90,000 rape cases annually - so using a statistic that gets it samples from less than 40 cases is non-representative - it is simply not a large enough sample size to represent the entire population of rapes (not even globally - just in the US) - so that "17.6%" is wrong at best. 

My results are:

77.8% Left,

75% Liberal

My approximate quadrant:

Perhaps most famously (or infamously I suppose) touted by Athais in the DART discussion, but to be honest I know very little about the ideology aside from the very basics, so I'm doing what I always do when I'm curious about something - ask - what is Individualism? What makes it consistent? What makes it inconsistent? How is it pragmatically helpful? How is it better than x or y? Etc, etc.. 

There is a subtlety at hand I feel is being ignored - the label of a sexuality has to do with one's attraction to others - broadly - asexual people do not have sexual attraction towards others, but SOME asexual people do enjoy SEXUAL acts  - it is merely the case that they do not feel any attraction towards any particular person - other asexual people feel nothing or feel repulsed from sex. I have said this over and over. 

Um... if a lawyer can't show up because they can't adequately argue for their client? That's DEFINITELY something that should go through 

I'm talking about sexuality in a specific context to the definition of homosexuality and heterosexuality - having an attraction to something - that's how all these definitions work. You've said I redefined it - please provide a dictionary definition - I'm getting my interpretation from Asexual people and the definitions of OTHER sexualities

Furthermore - here is what the definition says:

Asexual - "the state of having no interest in sexual relationships:" - or having no attraction to another thing - nothing about this definition means anything about feeling libido DURING SEX - people don't seem to understand this, but are not actually providing any evidence to the contrary, you "say" you do, but so far its just assertions

you are being purposely obtuse - sexual and sexuality are different. Please read clearly, I do not feel the need to explain things to someone as intellectually dishonest as you.

Perhaps I should word it better - you can still feel general pleasure from having sex and that is WHOLY separate from being attracted towards others, because pleasure from sex is not purely attraction - though a lot of asexual people neither feel pleasure from sex nor attracted to others - some do indeed feel pleasure from sex. 

Specific? I've said nothing more than chemistry until philosophy was brought up - I've BEEN being specific

you've made appeals to your own rationale, but no, you have not pragmatically separated the fields.

The mind is nothing more than an emergent property of the brain, psychology is necessarily neurology (see now I'm making the claim you thought I did previously) - and as such - each claim made is based on the consciousness and its principles which are NEUROLOGIC 

No - I have not said they are the same - I have said psychology is BASED on neurology. There is a difference - and as I said - like neuroscience? Because neuroscience goes off of the exact same principle, how you ascribe something being a "soft science" is how ALL science is. 

Wrong - the metrics that are "normal" are simply what has causally been proven to be most healthy for the average of humanity - which is the EXACT SAME WAY that lots of things are measured. Why is one thing being subjectively measured and claiming to be quantifiable any different than any other thing? Answer: It's not - you have a specific bias against psychology 

I already gave you the definitions - that's all the demonstration

And sexual can also include general discourse about intercourse.

Just as everything else, it is based on the interpretation of observation, solar flare spots are subjectively measured, it has to do with a metric supplied, you don't like the metric of measuring behavioral responses. Because all of that is BASED in neurology, that's how ALL Psychology works necessarily. It does have quantified conclusions because you can quantify behavior ande use neuroscience to hold up conclusions, its rather a simple thing. You not understanding speaks more of your internal biases than anything else. 

Something being sexual is a general description of intercourse, sexuality is a specific label for individuals regarding attractions. Your questions are ignoring that simple differentiation. 

What? Yes of course its rape - again - sexuality DOES NOT MATTER when it comes to rape. I actually did respond to you I said: " An asexual person can indeed rape other people - would it be of sexual attraction? No" You are being purposely ignorant or an asshole. Choose one and go away, or actually respond to the stuff you copy and paste, because you might as well be a cult recruiter bud.

And I'll say semantics as much as I like - you were the one who attempted to try redefine asexuality  - shifting the burden is typical of you though, so I don't know what I expected

"soft science" as you say us based on neurology, psychology is much a "soft science" as cosmology is. That is to say not at all - yes emotions are "subjective" but being subjective does not mean that it can not be qualified - nor does it make it somehow "inferior" to what you would call hard science. All science is based on interpretation of observation, the difference is that we have less ways to numerically quantify emotions, though we are getting closer. 

I wouldn't call it an itch necessarily, I would call it being your priorities in regards to your position. Most times I take a response as a response to something I've said, and even if I know that I'm right (if I believe that I'm right) that doesn't mean I'll stop responding, I care more about convincing people in general than having the self-satisfaction of being right - if that was why I did stuff, I wouldn't even bother to post. 

No... because someone's sexuality and forcing yourself on someone sexually (see the words are different sexually and sexuality) do not correspond. An asexual person can indeed rape other people - would it be of sexual attraction? No. Doesn't mean its not rape, again, seeeemantics. 

then psychology would lecture Faxlaw about survivor's guilt, about victim-blaming, about gaslighting,  and all sorts of principles that contribute to survivors of horrendous tragedies bottling up their emotions instead of reporting the crime. 

A couple of things, no time for a comprehensive reply (not like you actually ever respond to me more than once so frankly I don't feel the care to do so) - generally - you are forgetting the numerous examples of times when one of the debaters simply does not have access, or the mental fortitude to show up to a debate at a time, but are winning the actual argument. The mere fact that someone forfeits IS NOT evidence that that person lost the debate.

The reason why online debating is superior to in person debating is SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE you have more wiggle room - we should want to AVOID these things -if a lawyer doesn't show up to court, does that mean that case should automatically be ruled to the other side? Regardless of who is actually on the side of the truth? Because if that's your view then you care more about decorum than you do truth, and I can't respect that kind of thing. 

Asexuality - as in reference to homosexual or heterosexual is referring to who you are attracted to

Heterosexual - "sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex:"

Homosexual - "a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to people of the opposite sex"

In general you are correct - and a good portion of asexual people simply do not have libido, do not derive pleasure from sexual intercourse - however - people who simply feel no sexual attraction towards others also fit into this category - as in specific reference to sexualities - not sexuality. 

I like this test more

Socialists, Extremely globalist, Libertarian (though again - I don't think it's quite accurate here), but wooo boy - I am even more of a revolutionists. 

I'd really rather not - and I unblocked you. Just letting you know

Pretty much the same thing

You know - I like mafia plenty, I've played a lot of it in the past - but its kinda annoying that its the only forum game here -so- going to the people here: what are some games you'd like to see here in this category - aside from Mafia?

No - because you see there are these things called emergent properties - mathematics are an emergent system from the information interpreted as numbers via the universe - chemistry is inherently under the subcategory of philosophy - and the original POINT of the thread is discussing the mind and how it does or doesn't relate to the brain - so yes- chemistry was also an important part here - regardless of any other semantics.

The entire field of psychology would like a word with you

Social Contract - "an agreement among the members of a society or between a society and its rulers about the rights and duties of each"

Perhaps you could attack it semantically, technically taxes themselves aren't a social contract, but paying taxes is indeed a social contract - the agreement implicitly signed whenever you pay taxes is that you have a duty to help pay for the government's expenses and that government will create infrastructure, work, income, etc.