Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"d? That is, a child cannot establish "giving a large part of [its] 'trust'" to its parent?"
It cannot be given without coercion, no - but notice that a familiar relationship is different from a romantic relationship - even by your definition. I showed they were common by literally quoting various websites that separate the two. I know what I mean when I write or, and you taking an atypical definition of or (as in not the one typically used for the word or) is your thing - if you find it regressive, fine - I just don't accept your interpretation there.
Well, you made the claim that "the divide is arbitrary" and that my arguments are full of extraneous details... you have the burden of proof then, as you have that burden it is your responsibility (intellectually) to provide the proof, don't expect me to outline it for you. If you know I'm wrong, then you should already have the proof, otherwise, your claim was unsubstantiated, aside from an attempt at moving the goalpost, I don't see the point in asking "what evidence".
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
No - it doesn't mean in the courts or the government, that's you tacking on extra stuff so that obvious examples of oppression aren't oppression. Furthermore, how does you point out that me saying that morality is subjective have anything to do with the interpretation? Because that's what I was responding to - you said that the interpretation of morals is subjective, no - not if we accept an subjective axiom - because the axiom "you ought to value human well-being" isn't necessarily what causes the most "good", it cause the most human good, yes, but to say that it causes the most good period, is just false. That's why the axiom is subjective.
Now you appeal to determinism, but their is a key flaw here, even if I were to accept that argument - you miss the fact that you have to still put people away so that they cause no more harm - LGBT people don't cause any more harm than the average citizen, but I would deny your appeal to determinism in the first place - if determinism was true then we would be incapable of changing our implicit biases, but we can, the things that we want - they can change - and even if it in accordance with something else you have still done something which is "willfully". Therefore, no, your red herring is not effective at distracting the conversation.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Um... yes - they have explicit authority over who is and isn't hired - so to use that authority by purposely not picking certain workers for something they have no control over. That is certainly an unjust use of their power - the free market has nothing to do with this - because we are talking about equity of opportunity, and that is something LGBT people do not have. They are using their authority over who is and isn't hired to unjustly discriminate against a specific demographic, literally every single point of your definition is checked. At least you tried to respond this time.
You defined power as: "possession of control, authority, or influence over others" .... so, like, being able to influence whether someone has availability to medicine that they need? Or a job that they need? that is very explicitly a case of someone using an authority they have over others, unjustly, against a specific demographic, again, it is oppression by your own standard - you are metaphorically shoving your head in the sand and ignoring obvious points here in order to reach your, sorry not sorry, bullshit conclusion. It reads more to me that you simply don't care that LGBT people are being oppressed than don't believe that they are.
You are smart enough to realize that I have laid out very obvious cases of oppression here.
And no.... the axiom itself is subjective, not the interpretation of that axiom - you are cherrypicking statements now. And here you are making another bullshit non-sequitor - the oppression of a group and the punishment of an individual who did something wrong are two very different things. We have the exact same moral axiom then and now, and murderers did something wrong period - if you accept the axiom that you ought to value well-being (and everybody has to), then they did something wrong. This is not the case for someone who is simply gay. You are just wrong. Blatantly now. You see - there is a reason for the treatment of murderers, and that reason does not apply to how LGBT people have been treated historically.
You have cherry-picked, made false equivalences, and non-sequiturs - please read thoroughly next time and make a note to not misrepresent my points.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
No... you are fundamentally wrong here - you see - here's why most parents aren't as good at teaching as teachers are - they aren't teachers.
Yeah - that's it - where teachers are required to have a degree in education, parents are not, and such degrees are documents that demonstrate that this person has learned how to teach people things. In contrast, it is parents who are usually incredibly biased, they do not have the education which actually allows them to accurately relate the facts back to their children.
Furthermore, we can see a clear benefit to public schooling - according to a meta-review of studies regarding crime rates and education:
"The following is a list of empirically supported findings about the connections between crime prevention and education:
- Most studies have found that graduation rates are generally associated with positive public safety outcomes and lower crime rates for communities.
- States with higher levels of educational attainment also have crime rates lower than the national average.
- States with higher college enrollment rates experience lower violent crime rates than states with lower college enrollment rates.
- States that make more significant monetary investments in higher education experience more positive public safety outcomes and lower crime rates.
- The risk of incarceration, higher violent crime rates, and low educational attainment are concentrated among communities of color, whose members are more likely to suffer from barriers to educational opportunities.
- Disparities in educational opportunities contribute to a situation in which communities of color experience less educational attainment than whites, are more likely to be incarcerated, and are more likely to face higher violent crime rates."
Another study notes the clear causal effect of more education and earnings:
"edian weekly earnings in 2017 for those with the highest levels of educational attainment—doctoral and professional degrees—were more than triple those with the lowest level, less than a high school diploma. And workers with at least a bachelor’s degree earned more than the $907 median weekly earnings for all workers."
It is quite clear that there are benefits to receiving public education - and to "abolish it" would be to allow all of these things to go away. Furthermore.... no - you are doing what's called a lie - apparently, you believe everything the 1776 report tells you - I would like you to please define Marxist for me, cause I don't think you can. They... should be pro LGBT, that's a good thing, by "anti-white" do you mean teaching that white people have a privilege, or oppressed black people for centuries and still do? Because that's not "anti-white" that's called taking accountability.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
You don't seem to understand or grasp what I mean when I say morality is subjective. Morality, as a principle, has to be subjective - it is simply impossible for it to be objective. Logically speaking anyways. However, given that we are all humans, there are certain axioms that we must accept for our existences to not be anti-thetical, one such axiom is to value the well-being of other humans - we necessarily must accept that axiom otherwise your own well-being would not be valued, and your existence would be invalidated.
So, as the people who oppressed LGBT people were also humans, they have to necessarily accept that what they did was wrong - yes - the morality itself is subjective, as humans all of our morality has to be, but given the axiom that we all accept, or have to accept, it is indeed morally wrong to oppress those people yes.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
You are simply making a non-sequitur - this is how you define oppression:
"unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power"
So... would you say that purposely not hiring people because they are LGBT is not an unjust exercise of power? Or realtors doing the same for selling houses, or SOGIECE doctors refusing medicinal service to these people? These are all, by definition, unjust exercises of authority - that is literally the definition of oppression - they are being oppressed. You can continue to assert that they are not oppressed, but your not actually responding to my point here, merely restating your point.
Created:
-->
@coal
See - that's the thing here - you are false - none of this is where I get my data or my research for gender identity. I get my evidence from hard correlative neurological studies. Largely, the male and female brain are the same, the differences are extremely minute - yet - given the small differences that we do see - transgender men have the same differences in the brain that cis-men do, and vica-verca for transgender women. Furthermore, the mere fact that something is an internally subjective experience does not mean that the principle is inherently unscientific or unquantifiable.
For example, pain, a largely subjective experience that can be quantified largely due to how often we talk about pain. The identification that happens is indeed internal, and dependent on a human's subjective brain, but the actual process of your internal gender identity is an objective process of brain chemistry, and as we study more and more into this, we only get more and more evidence. Psychiatry discussing inherently "subjective" processes is not an issue, especially not whenever those processes have objective foundations.
Never, did I say that it was a "bandwagon" I said: and I quote:
" It's not that there are more trans people, its that if trans people come out they aren't hung"
You have either not read this line, or completely misinterpreted it. It is not that more people are "jumping on the bandwagon" its that it is more and more acceptable to be trans, so the trans people who already exist are reporting themselves as trans for the first time. You see - you do not "choose" you gender identity - just like you do not choose your sexual orientation. The mere fact that the actual identification is "subjective" takes nothing away from these scientific principles - all experience is subjective - the act of quantifying our experiences is what makes them "objective" - so epistemologically speaking - you have exact same problem for everything - its just that we can relate a lot of those other things in ways that are "less subjective", though what is considered subjective is, ironically enough, extremely subjective.
Created:
-->
@coal
I fail to see how trans-gender individuals receiving gender-affirming treatment is "pseudo-science", the science is rigorous behind gender identity. It's not that there are more trans people, its that if trans people come out they aren't hung. We saw a similar thing with the statistics for gay and bisexual people a couple of years ago, its merely the fact that people are accepting that trans people exist now.
Except some people aren't - because let's just say it together now - gender identity is neurologically sound science that determines an emergent property of the psychological properties of your brain.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Care to substantiate that? Let's say I accept your assertion - that teachers are inept (in most if not all teaching circumstances) - then that means parents are even more inept. Its not about if your students retain the knowledge per se - because teachers are literally taught how to make knowledge stick and parents have literally no idea, the general population would retain even less of their education - but they also have no idea what they're talking about in most cases. Neither of my parents have a clue how to factor conic sections, or solve for the direction of a magnetic field, how to write a thesis, or anything remotely advanced - because a lot of people do retain stuff they learn, but that doesn't mean that they should teach it - because a lot of people don't know how to teach, or are incredibly biased, or incredibly bad at teaching.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Um, but parents are not professionals of science, the majority of US citizens can't name the three branches of government, much less teach their kids. It doesn't really matter if the parents are against or for science, its the fact that parents aren't qualified to teach any of this stuff. School needs to be mandatory in order to educate the population, your suggestion would only segregate those who are more educated from those who are less, making the gap wider instead of closing it. You should not have a right to take away an education from your child.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
I am curious - how do you think that LGBT people being disproportionately, killed, hired for jobs, in poverty, etc, "an exaggeration" whenever it is caused by authorities using their powers unjustly? Because that is the precise definition of oppression you gave me.
Furthermore, my point is that by the new generation understanding these people more, understanding that the dogma they learn about them is false, the more likely the are to not oppress them. You treat people differently, because you, typically, feel they are different from you, that can be mitigated by fighting ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You've stated my argument - then call it convoluted and wrong.... I fail to see your rebuttal, you merely asserting that it is wrong isn't evidence that is, nor is the fact that something is complicated make it wrong - love it complicated.
Also - that's merely you failing to grasp everything that entails the word "consent", because that is part of being in a relationship at all - it typically requires giving a large part of your trust, and the mere act, the label, is big enough that you have to ask to ensure that you are indeed in a relationship. Maybe it seems silly to you, but different individuals have different needs in that department.
Btw - I made it very clear where I contrasted them:
"ANY ROMANTIC OR SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP"
You see, I would know what I mean when I write something, cause I wrote it, and I can tell you - that the word or - means to connect two different possibilities - just as it does in the quote above (which you have failed to actually account for, completely dropping that point).
You claim the divide is arbitrary, prove it - you've alleged that I'm wrong all this time - fine then - stop dallying around and actually provide a rebuttal, you stating that its arbitrary is like me just saying - "Oh, no you're wrong." You don't, "to look past extraneous and irrelevant details", you claim you know what's extraneous or irrelevant, then ignore the main point - the problem is that you don't know what the main point is - or you ignore it purposely.
Because the main point of those little definitions was to prove that the definition of romantic and sexual being separate is not "atypical" as you ascribed, it is quite common - and then you decided to completely dodge the point by comparing it to a post in a completely different context. That is what I mean, whenever you analyze a point, you completely disregard the main intention behind it, you try to be a stickler for details, and as I said - Fauxlaw is much better at it than you are.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
That's... untrue - western societies are certainly not more intrinsically capitalistic, and capitalistic does not equate to privacy - you're making a lot of false equivalences.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Why? Do you want to leave history to parents? Or Science?
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
You are right they aren't always synonymous, but in this case, it is oppression, at least by your definition of oppression
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well, no, that is the foundation of our bodies, but that is not all we are. Would you agree that a state of a person's mind is more indicative of a person's individuality than the superficiality of their "gametes"? Which aren't even the only thing which determines what is typically considered "sex", that is actually mostly the hormone exposure as well as a how chromosomes are replicated.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
The discrimination against LGBT people IS the oppression
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Aside from the rhetoric, the only real rebuttal is that black people commit more crime.... and that's - just false - proportionally white people commit more general violent crime. There is an argument that there is a period of time that black people committed more robbery proportionately - if you accepted most likely biased sources sure, but generally, the race that most populates a country commits the most crimes proportionally.
Also.... did you know this little statistical thing that happens whenever you focus on a specific demographic? That demographic begins to be overrepresented in your stats - that is a general fact that happens whenever you hyperfocus on a demographic, such as what happened to black people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Okay - taking your argument at its face - we can't be 100% sure that this is the case, but the evidence does suggest and point towards this being untrue..... so - are you arguing that there is a preponderance of the evidence that the ark couldn't have happened, but... ya know, we can't be 100 certain that's the case? Because if so, that was never my argument, I am arguing - most likely - it was impossible, we can't be 100% certain of almost anything without taking some axioms, and have stated as such a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
There was a mass extinction 10,000 years ago bud... there were more species back then.
"During the late Pleistocene, 40,000 to 10,000 years ago, North America lost over 50 percent of its large mammal species. These species include mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, among many others. In total, 35 different genera (groups of species) disappeared, all of different habitat preferences and feeding habits."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
"First things first, the women did the right thing by resigning herself. To make mistakes in such a field despite years of experience can not be tolerated. If a pharmacist were to give the wrong drugs to a patient, they would be fired and likely sued for negligence. I don't think that she meant to kill him, but can she use her brain? She had 5 seconds to distinguish between a gun and a taser and she couldn't do that? Pathetic"
Um... so that "mistake" - which we can totally prove is a only a mistake - can be rectified by simply resigning? Can we not see how this is a problem, she should be charged, at the least, for manslaughter. I mean, why wouldn't she, she accidentally killed a guy right?
"No I do not think this was an intentional act. He was pulled over for having an expired registry. If you have a warrant for an arrest, if you are caught, the cop can pull you over. The guy ran and fled, and a taser can be used at the time"
Riight - you see - the problem here is that black people tend to be shot more than white people, and also tend to be unarmed more often than white people, so.... the general trend would suggest that this person did it intentionally, right? That's what the general trends say, now, we can't automatically assume that's the case - but we can say its at least likely to be the case? Right? Now, what evidence do we have that this person did this accidentally? That a taser and a gun are the similar enough in size, shape, and weight that one could mistake one for the other.... a problem - guns are on average twice the weight of a taser, they are longer, and are shaped radically different.... and cops are trained for fast response - so... the evidence seems to point away from the assertion that she made a mistake.
So, in conclusion, the evidence -in general- seems to point that she didn't make a mistake, and the evidence in general points away from the assertion that she made a mistkae. So.... most likely they purposely killed the guy? That's what the evidence most likely suggests, no?
"while I do think the officer should resign, I do not think it was race motivated. People make mistakes and to think that a mistake can't be made is foolish. Sadly it was a fatal mistake. I do think she should be charged with negligent homicide. First or second degree is not right for the case"
Negligent homicide? Its interesting that you point this out now, you see, it assumes that they made a mistake, but furthermore, it goes against what you said before: "First things first, the women did the right thing by resigning herself", No, the right thing would be turning herself in for homicide? Right? Why is resigning herself seen as a good thing whenever its about as good as slapping a bandaid on a 3rd degree burn? It seems that you don't believe she should be charged that strongly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Um... yes - yes we can - because of the implicit context of the story, we can be fairly confident that there was no DNA bank, you are inserting a theory that could have explained it, but there is no evidence that is what happened, furthermore - there are at least 5,000 different species of mammals, at least 8,000 different species of reptiles, etc, etc - even discounting the majority of the species, we still have a boat which is 6 to 7 times more than any human vessel, and this isn't counting the food and water that would have had to be stored to feed them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well then, so then you accept that millions of species would have had to have fit in a single ship - completely discounting the fact that the structural integrity would be completely compromised, their simply is not enough space to fit them all in one place.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
From a study in 2019:
"Through an analysis of 2015 survey data of a representative sample of more than 300,000 federal employees in 28 agencies, we identify widespread informal workplace experience inequalities: LGBT workers fare worse than do their non-LGBT colleagues in the same organizations on measures of perceived treatment, workplace fairness, and job satisfaction. Beyond analyzing broad LGBT workplace experience inequalities, we argue that these LGBT biases do not operate uniformly across the LGBT population or across organizations.1 Past work demonstrates that the meanings attached to sexuality differ by racial identity (Pedulla 2014) and take on distinct characteristics in different occupational settings (Tilcsik, Anteby, and Knight 2015). Consistent with our predictions, we find that informal workplace inequalities are intersectional: LGBT status beliefs are racialized and gendered in ways that exaggerate these processes for LGBT-identifying women and people of color."
A meta-review of other studies:
"Low-income LGBT individuals and same-sex/gender couples have been found more likely to receive cash assistance and food stamps benefits compared to heterosexual individuals or couples.
- Among women 18-44 years of age, 29 percent of bisexual women and 23 percent of lesbians are living in poverty, compared to 21 percent of their heterosexual counterparts.
- 20 percent of gay men and 25 percent of bisexual men 18-44 years of age are living at or below the federal level of poverty, compared to 15 percent of heterosexual men.
- A study of transgender adults in the United States found that participants were nearly 4 times more likely to have a household income of less than $10,000 per year compared to the general population"
And another statistical study:
"We started by combining all transgender people and lesbian and bisexual women (or gay and bisexualmen) into one category and compared them to cis-straight women (or cis-straight men). In Model 1for women in Appendix Table 3, being lesbian, bisexual, or transgender has an odds ratio of 1.17,showing that being a lesbian or bisexual woman or a transgender person made it more likely tobe poor after holding constant age, race, language, urbanicity, disability, education, marital status,employment status, health, children, and year of the survey."
Overwhelmingly, LGBT people are treated unequally, and discrimination is the direct cause of such inequity - I don't need to cite a single example, I can cite multiple studies backing up my claims - I don't deal in anecdotes.
Furthermore, the principle of "gender and sexual identity" has been an intrinsically psychological and neurological - a scientific fact- for a long time. The individual experience of such are subjective, yes, but the general idea of gender and sexual identity is scientific. For example, the individual experience of pain is subjective, but the general principle is scientific. The principle of gender and sexual identity - those are the principles
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
God created all of the species as they appeared, no? If you don't accept evolution, and only sparse microevolution, then most of the species which inhabited the earth must have already been there, furthermore, even if we were to take a mere 1% of the current species of animals, and pair them up, that is still 17,400 animals, more than 3 times more passengers than the biggest cruise ship of modern times. Combine that with the amount of food, clean water stored, and room for them to mate, and you have a literal impossible boat, and this is taking that most of the current species suddenly appeared in the last 4,000 to 5,000 years - contradicting the bible and evolution.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Um - so you would say not being allowed to be married (something guaranteed to every citizen of the majority age) isn't an unjust exercise of authority? Would you say that discriminating against gay people because of something that they can't control is not an "unjust exercise of authority"? Both are in my book - and both most definitely fit the definition of oppressed you've provided.
Furthermore, we are not talking about the specific identity of any individual, we are discussing the broad range of sexual and gender identities - these are scientific principles - the mere fact that we do not know 100% of the cause of such things does not make them "not" scientific principles, for example, we do not know why atoms whose electrons orbit in a singular direction emit a magnetic field, but we know that this property of magnetism is a scientific principle.
You have a tendency of making non-sequiturs
Created:
Posted in:
There have been a lot of superficial stuff - I meant general character traits - apparently my peers ability of interpretation isn't what I expected it to be
Created:
Posted in:
MisterChris has officially usurped Ragnar as the number two debater, congrats on this achievement despite your relative inactivity on the site! So, to field a couple of questions to MisterChris, what do you feel about the accomplishment? Do you feel like you could one day achieve the number one spot? Finally, do you think you'll stay at number two?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Mmhm, yelling at people because they're Christian isn't gonna convince anyone of anything, plus I acknowledge that religion can be individually helpful for people-so no reason to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
This entire thing is you insisting you're right - if you have no further valid arguments to make then I don't see a reason to respond. There is no "atypical definition of romantic" being used here - several different sources cite these things (romantic and sexual) as different forms of desire.
- "Sexual attraction comes from a sexual desire for something or someone, while romantic attraction is the want to have a romantic relationship with someone outside of sex." [LINK]
- "While sexual orientation is the tendency to feel sexual desire toward people of certain genders, a person may have the tendency to fall in love with certain people. We might call this romantic orientation—the desire for intimate and emotional relationships with people of particular genders or sexes. It's about who we feel affection for and may include who we seek out to build a life or family with." [LINK]
Perhaps the definition is atypical for you, but it is not an atypical definition in general.
You just plainly state: "you're wrong", while ignoring reasoning. Perhaps you feel you've already addressed them, I don't, I feel you like to insist until people agree with you after your initial appeals to "logic" run dry.
I plainly state: "even if you're right" so here you are addressing the thing you would reach after you've rebuked my other response - which clearly, at least to me, means you didn't fully comprehend the writing there. I feel more and more confident in winning our debate by the response. You have a tendency to ignore the central point, well purposely anyways, and try to get your opponent on the details, make em' bigger than they are - Fauxlaw does that much better than you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
No... you have made a false dichotomy, simply because you can arrive at the same conclusion in multiple ways does not mean that one of the ways are neccessarily false. For example, in a doublt cross section (let's say a store) - you can arrive at the end of the path by going straight twice, but you can also go right, up, left, and up again, and arrive at the same place. The mere fact that you can also arrive at perceived qualia by mechanics does not mean that qualia cannot emerge from chemistry.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Theories? These things are scientifically authenticated, rigorously tested and demonstrated, people seem to not know - if there was any community that want debunk it's own work - it would be the science community. Typically, if they have all of the evidence, and its accepted by the consensus, its true. My point is that people should be getting comprehensive sex education, and that includes: If you don't feel any sexual desires towards others, if your gender identity doesn't match your assigned gender, if you don't have heterosexual feelings - you do realize that a direct cause of LGBTQ oppression is because a lot of people don't understand them right?
None of these are "theories", not even in the scientific framework, that would be extrapolating general principles and coming to a conclusion based on evidence - these are just the principles themselves. Should they be taught these people were, and are, being oppressed? Absolutely, you realize it was only a century ago that homosexuals were hung at stake right? You realize that it was less than a decade ago that gay people couldn't even marry? You do realize that gay people are still regularly discriminated against in the job and education field? You do realize that trans people receiving hormone blockers can have them removed from their parents?
These people are still oppressed. And a large portion of it is because people don't understand them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Well congrats on the self-discovery, even if I think your conclusion you've drawn from the experience is false, I still think the experience is important to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
The pertinent question, how does one fit 26.1 million animals on a single ship? Apparently, even the largest of today's cruise ships hold only 5000 people? But animals, and extremely heavy animals, not to even mention the fact that is a difference of 5000 times.... yeah, it is pretty hard to accept that story as anything more than fiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
A high man in a stupor, but his "kicks" was about the equivalent of a toddler stamping on your toe. Furthermore, his pressure was directly on the neck, not on his shoulder, not on his head, his neck. I did indeed watch the video, and no... you do know the point of putting the man in the car in handcuffs right? Also... did you just say "superhuman strength", yup, I no longer believe that you are a person who is intellectually honest. I have zero confidence that anything you say is more than an exaggeration so that you see what you want to see.
Also - funny to see your lack of sources, because your making a lot of claims buddy,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Um.... to summarize what happened:
George was "resisting arrest" in a largely nonviolent manner, he was in a stupor, nor=t dangerous.
Eventually, the cops, Chavin, got George into the car.
They opened the other side door
George, probably being high, went out the door - because of course he did
George was subdued and his neck was crushed by Chauvin's knee (you know, after he had already been prone)
This continued for 10 minutes until George died of suffocation
You do know that the technique isn't allowed by the police handbooks, right? Like - its not like their is some debate if the cops approve (and I don't approve of the cops at all), but even they realize that he fucked up? Its such an obvious mess up by Chauvin, even if you agree that they were completely in the right to subdue him with the technique initially, it is impossible to justify it for up to 10 minutes.
Um... in case you hadn't notice, your larynx and your throat are in your neck - you know - the things you need to breathe. So even if suffocation wasn't the direct cause of death, if not enough oxygen isn't allowed through the heart over a prolonged period of time, say... 10 minutes, your brain and body can start to suffer permanent damage and then you start to die - its almost like breathing is a core necessary function of living, and restricting the organ that allows that is a bad idea if you want the person to live.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The assumption here is that socialism and white supremacy are the same things... that Liberals *become* socialists whenever a conclusion happens to be a socialistic action. Question, whenever you fish do you become a bear? No, of course not, merely doing a thing that is a property of something else does not actually make you that thing. The fact that people support socialist things do not actually make them socialist. You, typically, support socialist things because you are already a socialist, you do not become a socialist because you start to support a thing - not typically.
Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the difference between socialism, communism, Leninism, and marxism - they are not at all equitable. This is... yet another strawman. It doesn't matter how "cringy" you find it - it is much more cringy to continue to make all of the strawmen and pretend as if it actually applies. People who support racist. So, similarly, a racist does not become a racist by supporting a racist thing, they are typically already racists who then support that thing - because people who aren't racist, definitionally, don't support racist things.
This is all.. you know... barely mentioning how different these two things are.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes - you do realize that philosophy is the questioning of things? As in, in general, philosophy is the foundation of every applicable and studied subject in the course of human history, also, the answer to a philosophic question happens to be chemistry - not that hard to parse I don't think. To nitpick the detail of thing (incorrectly might I add) actually has nothing to do with philosophy, because that isn't answering a question, asking a new question, or discussing a viewpoint - that's like one of the only things that doesn't fall under philosophy, ironically enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
No - we think our qualia exist - we believe that qualia is something different than property or a duck's instinct because we perceive it - that isn't actually "knowing" that it's not a physical process nor even knowing that it exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Well... fine then - as far as I am aware you have convinced exactly zero theists, you could always correct me, can you?
Created:
Posted in:
Also I explained why I think you lost, in theory, KF looks much better than wrestling, but I need proof that these are moves that are actually practically useable in fights - so in a fight - I need more evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
How is my post "elitist" when I'm advocating for moving people up the list? I'm asking about what people think about the idea in general? Not saying I approve of it, if anything I disapprove of the system we have here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
You are avoiding the question, and directly ignoring my criticism - you could google anything, and get results that agree with you. Present your results - you have a burden of proof by necessity of your claim, you are quite literally running away from any criticism because you believe yourself to be above it - that's not being "an influential, intellectual fellow" that's being a dipshit. And excuse the ad hominem, but some parts of me think you won't even acknowledge it, because you don't ever acknowledge the criticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Your consciousness is purely the emergent properties of physical properties- your appeal to qualia is uncompelling - there is no actual evidence that qualia actually exists - it is simply the preception of creatures with complex brain chemistry, simple as that.
Created:
Posted in:
While we have a leaderboard regarding the top 10, not all of them are very active, a good amount of the top spots are extremely careful about which debates they take - as far as I'm aware - Undefeatable, Fauxlaw, and myself are the most active of the top 10 - what do you guys, the top 10 and in general, think about this strategy? What do you guys think of this form of ranking debaters in general? I would argue that Fauxlaw should be higher on the board by his raw abilities in rhetoric, and Athias should be on it for his deductive prowess, but neither are. What do you guys think about this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
If you were serious - you would provide a single study demonstrating your point - instead you appeal to google? Google? Again - anybody could do that, for any topic - you simply do not have sound epistemology for any of your beliefs. If you'd like you can challenge me to a debate on the matter of IQ, and then I'll stomp you where you can't pivot without consequence.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
So you have continuously asserted, explain why exactly neurons can't create consciousness? Atoms are what create complex living organisms, DNA fuels instinct, and evolutionary norms, we know the basic neural network of humans are responsible for memory, we know that the pattern and cortexes of the brain create creative thought, and we know the same is true regarding logical deduction, we know that human experiences such as love and happiness are totally explained by chemical reactions, therefore it is more than possible that the brain is an emergent property of chemistry - and no - you agreed that that harmlessness is a new property by result of the change in structure, anatomically and atomically, structure is what determines the function of a particle or cell or organ system - so something having a new structure is the exact proof that new things can come from combinations of things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mandrakel
I've given you the proof in the other forum we've discussed your "confidence" in IQ tests is precisely the same as Theists' "confidence" in God. At least to me, you are essentially an unreasonable theist bud.
Created: