Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
You are simply false - some asexual people have extremely low libido -typically is only a non-attraction - that is all. Please stop it with your ignorance, its rather annoying. Your argument in the debate you challenged me to only reveals that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. When it comes to gender and sexuality, I do not trust a single assertion you make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
And offence, but if that's not an appeal to popplum I don't know what it is - its a bad idea - because - unlike in real life stuff - forfeiting here is just not publishing an argument in time - that's not actually "forfeiting" - and it also has nothing to do with who won the debate. It feels like a cop-out to just make an autolose feature like that - its not accounting for a lot of stuff
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
The fact that there was a high INTERVIEW RATE does not correspond with the rate of cases observed, in other words less than 40 cases of rape were in that statistic you cited - because you read it wrong. You see - I'm taking my interpretation straight from the actual study, you are misinterpreting it, and your condescension is getting annoying. They, in total, interviewed that many people - but the amount of people's case s they actually followed (as in - knew whether the person alleged with rape was arrested and charged) was less than 40. As I said - a small sample size.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Then pray tell - what is the obligation that the poor get from receiving benefits? Because the only thing that occurs to me is taxes. There is no obligation.
Also... yes - taxes are a form of a social contract
Created:
Posted in:
So that people understand - "sexual" as a root toom is referring to one's sexuality - so to say "a" and "sexual" means to not have a sexuality. That means that you are not attracted to any person sexually -for some, sex does indeed feel good - just because you aren't attracted to other people doesn't necessarily mean that the act itself doesn't feel pleasurable. (That's not how things work) Some asexual people still have sex, because A) It feels good, and B) because it makes their partners happy. However, some asexual people just.. don't feel good when they have sex - through a combination of neurological and sometimes biological factors.
This is just mopping up some misunderstandings.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Now - I agree that social mobility is not at all what the American Dream purports it to be, but that certainly isn't because of programs WHICH RAISE SOCIAL MOBILITY - no - its the insistence that capitalism will solve all your problems, the harder we go pure capitalism, the harder our mobility will fall - especially whenever we see the end result of capitalism, monopolization.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Actually -we call it being intellectually honest - I do not KNOW that you have a bias, it is merely being suggested by the information presented- it actually is an argument, just one your afraid of using - you know - admitting when your not quite sure. Of course, you could not be afraid at all - but then it just seems like you can't help but get caught up In semantics.
Created:
-->
@Athias
So your claim is that the programs that left-wing advocate for, don't actually help the poor, they come back to the rich? Wait -this is literally just a spiel about not liking taxes, but... you know - if people have enough money to afford stuff like healthcare, rent, and food - then they can get a job and actually afford their taxes... ya know - unlike whenever you can't get out of poverty.
This really just seems like you not liking taxes - we call it a social contract.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Let me be clear - how does the left-wing exploit poverty? Because it just seems to me that you have a bias - you know - talking about specific things applied to an entire political ideology, and ya know - not a general concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you don't stop with all the dishonesty people'll start thinking your lying - or maybe you just don't read the stuff you cite:
"Because only 24 women and 8 menreported during their interviews that theyhad been raped in the 12 months preceding the survey, the annual estimatesshould be viewed with caution. NVAWSmost likely underestimates the actualnumber of annual rapes because itexcludes rapes of children and adolescents and those who are homeless orlive in institutions, group facilities, or residences without telephones. Because ofthe small number of Asian/Pacific Islanderwomen identified by the survey who hadbeen raped and the small number of menidentified for several indicators (e.g., several race/ethnicity categories, relationshipbetween early and subsequent rape victimization, injuries sustained during arape), NVAWS could not develop reliablerape prevalence estimates or conduct statistical tests."
Do you... just like only using studies with a horrendously low sample size? Or you know - ones that say: "NVAWS most likely underestimates the actual number of annual rapes," the study literally says to take its results with caution, but nope - generalizing andy here likes to pull it off as if it was all-authoritative. Oh what else is that? Is that a 20 year old source this time?
"The National Violence Against Women Survey( N VAWS) was conducted from November 1995 toMay 1996 by interviewers at Schulman, Ronca,Bucuvalas, Inc. (SRBI) under the direction ofJohn Boyle.a The authors of this Special Reportdesigned the survey questionnaire and conducted the analysis."
Your getting closer there, but dang it - your off by 20 years. Furthermore, the mere fact that someone was not prosecuted is not necessarily evidence that they did not do the rape, ESPECIALLY not 1995, but you know... that's even without the data being 20 years old, or the sample of actual rape victims (yes - 8000 people were interviewed, the actual number of people who they studied the court case of that rape is the ACTUAL sample size used for that data).
And... what? You have made a comparison that is just... again, absurd - your height - which can be more than two things, does not apply to this - but if something can either be TRUE or FALSE - the crime either happened or it didn't - then their is no situation like this. Let me ask you - what is the third scenario in this situation - the rape allegation was true, the rape allegation was false - and? What's the third thing, I'm waiting. No - that's you going with something either be dismissed for lack of evidence, but we were not originally talking about THIS study, we were talking about the:
"Rumney study that took multiple studies from 1974 to 2005,"
Which reported the rate that allegations were FALSE - do you know what that means? That means if an allegation is found to be NOT FALSE - as in THE ALLEGATION HAPPENED - then it is? Come on, you can do it- it means its TRUE! The amount of mental gymnastics you try to pull is astounding. Just admit that you didn't actually read more than what supported your conclusion and get on with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Which... isn't the case - like - this is me having an extreme problem with how you try to report statistics, as you do in an extremely intellectually dishonest way - not even trying to establish my own claim - just point out how batshit wrong yours is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
First off - what you've done here is treated every study like it has the exact same validity - and ignored that the "study" that was cited to have a "90%" false allegation rate was 1981, and from less than 20 allegations! What? There are 98,000 cases today annually - I have a problem with you citing "the maximum is 90%" and taking it as anything more than bullshit. Its like saying: I surveyed 100 people about their favorite color in 1995, 85 of them said blue, so, therefore, a maximum of 85% of people's favorite color is blue - that is still extremely disingenuous.
Furthermore, please specifically cite the study which says that "17% of rape allegations are proven true" - because let me tell you something that should be fairly obvious - if something is reported as rape, and that report is found to NOT BE FALSE, then that thing is NECESSARILY TRUE. Again your blatant lying here is gross.
Created:
-->
@Athias
And by exploit do you mean tries to seek an end to it? Because aside from that I don't get what you're insinuating their bud.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If your talking about government in general, typically, the right-wing is much more authoritarian than the left...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
"Based on the study, the false reporting rate is at a minimum 1.5% and at maximum 90%"
Like your lying is so blatant that its kinda gross - rapes are reported TRUTHFULLY at between a rate of 90 and 96 percent according to the study that Wikipedia cites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Um... did you just cite a study that was Wikipedia...? Also -actually reading the section is pretty helpful, wouldn't you agree?
"DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of cases in which there was sufficient evidence to conclude that allegations were false, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%"
So the alegations of rape are false around 2 - 10 percent of the time.... and you wonder why people find you disingeniousm but despite that - this is from an extremely old source, 1993... like - seriously? This isn't really a good source for 2021 regarding the amont of allegations that are true or false. Ya know.. cause there are more allegations now, 40 years later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Um... no - sometimes its made up, sometimes its a traumatic experience, sometimes its a hallucination - there are so many different explanations I could list them for a while. The fact of the matter is there has been no actual studies to verify this stuff, because if you COULD prove it, you could do that - but the fact of the matter is that a majority are mistaken in the interpretation of their experience. Sometimes its lying, sometimes its an honest mistake - and sometimes its a coincidence. There's not much else to it.
Created:
Posted in:
My time here at Dart has led me to meet a smattering of believers in the above, though I grew up surrounded by Christians, no one really ever talked about ordinary spirits much. So even as a Christian I only believed in spirits like the Holy Spirit or a spirit that only left the body when god came to judge us. Nothing more, nothing less - people who believed more were pretty rare. To the point that when I read that Jesus exorcised evil spirits from pigs I excitedly told people that Jesus could do that. (Don't judge 12 year old me). Now, as an atheist and a hard naturalists, I find more and more people who do believe in spirits, and its not that there are actually more people that belive in spirits now - its that there are some things I just accepted axiomatically that require a spirit to be a thing.
For example; soulmates, they kinda.. well assume that you accept spirits to exist or superstitions regarding grave sights. All kinds of things, a lot of things about ethics, in general - when I stopped believing in spirits I stopped believing in a lot of other stuff - though I was only ever lightly aligned with the position. My point is - spirits are such a widely accepted thing, and they propagate so many other assumptions, I wanted to know some other examples of things that you find are dependent on the existence of spirits, whether you disagree or agree with their existence. For me, the biggest thing that I changed in my framework was how I viewed conception, birth, babies in general - after I stopped believing in spirits was the first time I considered that abortion might not be bad.
What are some examples from you guys?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Brother D Thomas is a Christian rhetorically (he probably doesn't actually believe in god - at least not the Christian one) - and even if he does believe, he has the same interpretation of the Christian god that Atheists typically have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
The earliest mentions of "Jesus" are impossible because the name Jesus is a translation into itself, the earliest mentions of the Hebrew translation are the books of the bible - that is all - you historians reacting to these claims, but not actually verifying them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I've been called a consequentialist, and in a way I am, though obviously, I am extremely left-winged, because consequentialism isn't necessarily not caring for what came before - its valuing the consequence over that prior thing. To me, the things that build up to something is a part of the consequence. For example, let's say that there was a man who shot someone, that man was raised in poverty, with little education, etc - though that person is not entirely at fault because they had no choice in their uprising, I would still say that that person should go to jail - because regardless of the fact that they had no choice in the matter, they still have a thought process that is harmful to others. Now, here is where I probably differ from most, I don't think the consequences for that man should be equal with what he did.
Ethically speaking, he murdered someone - and that requires justice in any consistent framework - but ethically speaking - that consequence was derived from things outside of that man's control. Therefore instead of focusing on punishing that man, we should focus on rehabilitating that person. Justice is largely what we make of it, but I believe it is to attain retribution for a wrong. In this case, retribution is preventing that man from hurting other people, but instead of letting him rot in prison, I believe that if you simply change the mind of the man, then you can both attain justice, and save the liberty of the man. There is also, obviously, always a blend of being in and out of control. Ignoring the free will debate for a second, there could have been a opportunity where that man didn't shot that person, so because that person "choose" to do that, he should have consequences - or so the theory goes right?
But, as also mentioned, he was not entirely in control. It then comes down to a pretty simple dichotomy for me - to determine if they deserve to be the thing that justice takes - was that "choice" coerced. For example, if a boy robbed a store, that's typically considered morally wrong, but if he did so because he was starving? That's more complicated. Because he was coerced by his surroundings. However, there's obviously the argument that that store owner is being harmed, and that even if you are being harmed - harming others is not the answer, etc, etc - essentially - even if a choice is coerced - if you are harming others is justice still deserved? It depends on your idea of what consequences you believe to be just. Me? I think that the true one that should deserve the justice we lob onto the individual is the society that shaped that individual. If someone was murdered, it is not necessarily the fault of the murderer, it is the fault of the institutions which brought that man to murder.
Speaking pragmatically however, even if that is the case, that person should still probably be separated from society, though not to punish him necessarily. It is certainly the case that the faults of society were not errant enough to warrant murdering someone, or that the person is simple too dangerous (regardless of whose fault it is) to keep around others. At the end of the day, it comes down to what you believe the purpose of justice to be, or so my philosophizing brain tells me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
lol - I actually started with Naruto - I finished all the way up to the middle of the Land of Waves Arc in my first session of Naruto
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Um - you know - that the conclusion necessarily follows your premises, and that your premises are true? This is simple syllogism stuff. And yes - intention does supersede rules - always has - always will. For example - when someone says: "What's up?" We don't think them literally asking what is up above them, we know that they mean the colloquial definition there - "What are you doing? "how are you" etc - in fact - the English language ignores rules so much that we have an entire category of words that don't mean what they would suggest based on the words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
If you wanna see some of the more experienced fighters, Anthony Joshua, Deonte Wilder, Tyson Fury, etc, etc - some really good boxers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I haven't watched it yet, but I can tell you why people like watching other people beat each other up - in my case specifically Boxing - because I love to see the intense level of skill, strategy, and athleticism that these people have built up - I find the strategy in boxing some of the most intense of any sports, if you go into a boxing match without a plan specifically for your opponent in any more than the amateur level - you will probably lose (unless... you have like a weight class advantage or something like that)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Thats not the point though - the point is that the events that have led up to you pushing this button happened in such a way that mean you would only ever push the blue button. That's how determinism works
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
That's not really an answer though - even if you were aware that is was possible or you to have pushed the red button in some universe, how do you know that you were physically capable of ever hitting the red button?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Frustrated for sure- angry is a term of relativity - to simply show me being aggressive is to assume that me angry is simply aggressive - its simply not in your epistemological wheelhouse to determine anger whenever you don't have a solid example of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The people doing what the police do need to be able to handle and care for people with inadequate mental health - this is something that is absolutely necessary - and the police fundamentally don't care about mental health outcomes - even though they are the most important of all outcomes - we care about physical outcomes because it determines your mental one - people seem to forget this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You see - the problem is that they are supposed to provide care for individuals with inadequate mental health - they aren't psychiatrists - and thats the problem.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Or you know... stopping the problem from getting worse - do you think we can just.... absorb all the CO2 from the sky? Seriously? Do you think we have a vacuum cleaner for our skies? The green new deal isn't trying to suck the CO2 out of the sky, its stopping any more from getting up there.
Also.. the more coastline flooded, the more coastline there is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Oh? So you don't know? They're required to respond to calls of distress in general - which are considered an emergency - things like dissociation and self-harm are considered in those criteria - yet these people are treated like criminals - lets not even mention the high rate (regardless of racism) of people killed by the police annually. Historically speaking, the police are racist and corrupted.
You can call it "bs", but any good done by the police can be done by a new department that doesn't have it harms
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
They should be abolished, at least in the US - its a historically racist and corrupt department - that started as a slave patrol.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Um... so you see - the rising of the temperature (specifically in Antarctica) the ice sheets begin to melt, and then there are a lot more water in the oceans - and we see more general flooding on the coastlines, we see more CO2 be released into the atmosphere, etc - but you know what that does? CO2 being released into the atmosphere causes more increases in temperature. You see - its not even the fact that the temperature is rising by 1.5 degrees celsius - its that the temperature has been rising over 10 times more in the last 100 hundred years than it did in any other 100 year interglacial period prior - the earth is heating up at a much more increased rate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
that'd be outdated, not to mention... ya know - shifting the responsibility. Regardless of if people give "shit" to the police, they shouldn't shoot people. Furthermore, I think that the police should be abolished, there should be a much more highly trained, regulated, accountable, separated departments. Like - people who patrol don't go to de-escalate crowds, or respond to mental health calls - or wield guns much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Yes - we made up math - kind of - but the principles of math are from observation not prescription - the same cannot be said for grammar. In other words - the intentions behind the words mean much more than the semantics.
It's pretty simple - just give me the reasons, and if they are true and logically consistent with your conclusions - then oh - there ya go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The use of anything grammatically is entirely arbitrary based on the syntax of the people using it. Language is human-made, it's not some concept we observed to be the state of the universe like math or science - it is things we made up.
And, no.... no I don't - if you know that my claims are bullshit, that they're wrong, then you know why you thought them wrong. Merely stating that they're wrong isn't enough evidence for anyone but someone who listens to dogma - if you don't have a reason then you have asserted my argument is wrong, and convoluted with no substantiation - which would mean you less than credible.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
It seems you've failed to choose either of the choices I presented. As such, I see no point in replying, you've proven my point
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Notice that you fail to substantiate your assertion.
Furthermore, the homophobia I address is you conflating pedophilia with homosexuality - they different sorts of sexual attraction. You've even failed to actually rebut my point, until you do - you will receive no further response. It is clear to me that you aren't an intellectually honest interlocutor - so - either properly rebuke my argument or you will receive no more response. That is all.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The reason pedophilia is harmful is because it a sexual attraction to undeveloped humans, to humans who can not give informed consent- that is not "unrelated" - that is you trying to hand wave away valid points. You can continue to insist your assertion all you like, but that is all they are, assertions.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
No - it proves that you have no functional understanding of sexual orientation.
So, let's say we're discussing actions - the mere fact that we ought to be able to behave freely, does not mean that killing be illegal is contradictory - it means that normal behavior and killing are two different categories of acting. You are making a continued false equivalence in your homophobia.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you referring to pedophilia? Because that harms children.... children, fundamentally, cannot give informed consent. Stop
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I don't think there is any such thing as a "spirit"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It sounds vaguely authoritarian, and while i can agree... to an extent - only to the extent of prohibiting freedoms to harm another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
My Hero AcademiaVerdict: 7.3/10My Hero Academia is one of the best Shonen starters. For one, it has a lot of the tropes that you typical see in Shonen series that get you interested in the show without a doubt. There are definitely arcs that executed well and there are some great moments in MHA, and I think while it is cardboard, I think it is the best for new people
I honestly like MHA more than AOT - now - AOT is better than MHA, no question, I just personally like it more, lol. I think that the newer arcs of MHA in the manga make the anime even better, the war arc is probably one of the better war arcs in shounen, and the time-skip with Deku is very good thus far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The mind is nothing more than an emergent property of the neurological processes of your brain
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
There is a difference in not choosing your sexual identity and not having (free) will - its like saying because I said you couldn't choose your skin color that I was appealing to determinism - that's ridiculous - simply stating that something is not a choice of a person is not an appeal to determisim.
If one cannot predict or explain the process by which a person finds himself to be LGBT, then you can't deny that choice is involved.
Next, no, that is a non-sequitur - we do not know how neurons specifically fire, does that mean that the process of neuron's firing is inherently a choice? No - you've presented a nonsequitur - either we know the cause or we are the cause - no - it is possible to not know the cause of something and it also not be a choice - like the formation of black holes or the firing of neurons. Furthermore, I did not say "we don't know what causes sexual identity", I said "we do not 100% of the cause of such things" - if you quoted me entirely you would see me literally cite that the general cause is biological and neurological wiring..... this is perhaps one of the biggest strawman's you've made thus far.
Yes, sexual expression is a choice, but its also freedom - heterosexual people are not persecuted for their sexual expression, the fact that homosexual and bisexual people are is a blatant case of oppression. IF heterosexual people can express their sexuality without consequence, THEN any other sexual expression like heterosexuality should be able to express their sexuality without consequence. Of course, you aren't always allowed to express sexuality, but in general, heterosexual people are not oppressed on a case of receiving job opportunities or receiving medical treatment.
Your claim that being a criminal is in any way more in your control than being LGBT has no basis in reality. We know for a fact that there are multiple scenarios under which becoming a criminal is basically predictable. We have no such situation for gay people
This is ridiculous - we know that certain conditions make you more or less likely to become a criminal, but we know that in general there are people who undergo those situations and do not become criminals. The fact that this happens is not evidence that they do not choose to do so, it means that trying to hold a specific demographic who have been induced towards more criminality cannot necessarily be held responsible as a demographic, but individually that is not the case. Furthermore, there are circumstances which people are more or less likely to be criminals - that is not the case for gay people - we know that there are psychological, and biological causes of being gay - we simply do not know the exact causes.
"Harm is the moral standard of today. In the past, the moral standard was more based on religion"
So any harm done is justified because there was a different standard? Because that's untrue - the subjective axiom of valuing well-being has been present as long as their been sentient creatures. The standard hasn't changed, just that we actually recognize it. "Religion" being the standard of harm is ridiculous, as religion does not have standard morals, and they are not interchangeable - it is another non-sequitur.
" interpretation is always subjective, regardless of which thing is being interpreted. Even if all humans agreed that morality is about the axiom "reducing harm" the interpretations will be subjective"
No - not necessarily - the interpretation to the question 2 + 2 is always 4, the interpretation to the question of where do we live is always "the earth", you can be more or less specific, but when dealing with the empirical the interpretations are empirical, they are only subjective whenever you introduce further bais. For example, cutting your arm off empirically causes mental and physical harm to the individual - therefore that interpretation is objective. But, furthermore, this is also operating on a different definition of subjective here
"1.1Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence" [LINK]
Drop all the fallacies and maybe I'll consider responding again.
Created:
Posted in:
For the murder of one George Floyd Derek Chauvin was found guilty on all three accounts that he was charged on: second-degree manslaughter, third-degree murder, and second-degree murder.
Though a part of me wants to celebrate that a part of our system is finally taking accountability to our police forces, the victory is hollow, the decision could be appealed, or (more likely) this will happen all over again and the guy won't be charged. It's also, absolutely ridiculous how this farce could go on this long, why are so many people so insistent that this person killed another person, most likely because of racism? But we can't even get their can we, because we can't even agree that George Floyd was murdered - and that's really the ridiculous part.
How are such intelligent people so dismayed by the thought that their role models might just not be as good as they thought they were, that they completely preclude the idea of murder even being an option. Before the doctor's testified that Floyd died because of the knee, people were all too happy to accept the Coroner's report to get the drug levels in his system. Before the police chief came out and testified that what Derek did was completely out of line with their training, people were more than happy to use the police manuals as a guide.
Why is it that every time something contradicts their views, they suddenly lose all of their self-awareness?
Again, I would like this to be a victory of accountability, but truly - its not - its another step in a long and grueling journey to equality, an equality that not everybody believes that people deserve, and, just to be blunt, let's stop pretending that its anything else. Some people, just don't want black people to have the same justice wrought for them as white people, I really hate to paint such a broad brush, but given the preponderance of evidence, that is the only reasonable interpretation to make here. I'm sure most people disagree, that's fine - you can prove me right - right here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Oh boy, if you interpret what was said anywhere on this website as "angry" you don't know me very well.
Created: