Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@coal
You are simply wrong, and I have already provided the evidence to back that up - simply asserting your views is hardly convincing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
I'm right behind you - I'll challenge you to that rematch sometime soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The difference is that in one instance, their is sexual desire fueling possessiveness, and the other simply desire for them - as a person in all - while the latter can also be attuned to the former, that is the basic answer.
Furthermore, I believe you would have to separate a mother from their child to see a relationship like that happen nonsexually, the fact of biological evolutionary drive is strong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That sounds amazing! I regularly use libraries when I'm researching history and records, but I've never gotten the opportunity to visit the Library of Congress.
Created:
-->
@coal
I don't see how people can think that the government will screw it up, but not private industries... the guys who only care about profit - in other words - the guys who have much more motive to screw people over, and if their caught - "Who cares" people will dismiss, just industries being industries, but the government gets a lot more flock - an entire cabinet can be gone by next election cycle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
And no - as I said - he's good at cutting off mikes of college students - that's about it.
I mean, any closer examination of his arguments, and well... the holes are gaping... like his response to climate change - which was people should just sell their houses if the water level increases. If you can't tell why that argument isn't good... well.... I see why you like Shapiro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Um... you do realize that Alex does live debates right? Have you actually researched the guy? He has a podcast and has went to several other people's show for structured and unstructured debates all the time - I'm not talking about his arguments in videos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
I would disagree that Shaprio is good at debating, he's good at cutting off mikes of college students that don't have 5 years of media training, that's not really debating - that's called selective listening. He's good at talking, that's what I'll give the guy - that he's really good at talking for long periods of time, that's it. Sam Harris is probably one of the stronger logic debaters, Jorden Peterson is... he's good at rhetoric, same with Christopher Hitchens, I think Matt Dillahunty is really good at debating - though obviously, that doesn't always translate to his show - his debates are - I think - better than a lot of even top debaters. Alex J. O'Connor or cosmicskeptic, is really good for his age, and have gone a round with William Lane Craig and some other debates with a lot of success, I think he's top level too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
A platonic relationship is different from a romantic relationship in several regards. The most easily explained would be to degree - for example - you can have physical contact with just friends, in a lot of cultures hugging, kissing, and even cuddles is considered friendship - it has to do with how much of a connection you have to a person while also having dominating feelings towards them - or feelings that have you do things without you necessarily meaning to do so. To a degree of feeling physically uncomfortable by not spending time with them. It also has to do with companionship in general - being dependent on another for steadiness and other emotional needs. Finally its a possessive emotion, even in forms of polygamy.
Familiar love is different from romantic, but not very different from strong platonic love - familiar love is essentially the strongest form of platonic love. You don't typically find pleasure from the other's personality, it is a type of love that is formed through connections made by experience - so yes - it is possible that a familiar love can become romantic - it does not usually happen because those feelings aren't usually deriving pleasure from another personality or company, if you do start to feel happiness spending time with them it is usually the difference of inherently and externally feeling that pleasure (and no I don't mean anything regarding sexual urges) - familiar and platonic relationships are fundamentally built on social and biological connections, mothers have an internal feeling (typically) towards their offspring. Friends find things in common that they can share, partners have an internal non-biological feeling for each other- usually from the subconscious - though if you consider the the effects of the brain biological and neurological that can technically be the same thing - to put it better - mothers feel an evolutionary connection to their offspring - this is not the case with romantic partners.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It's about who we feel affection for and may include who we seek out to build a life or family with.I'm not excluding any platonic elements from romantic relationships, but you're suggesting that you bear relationship(s) absent of any sexual element which contradicts romantic relationships being romantic relationships.
I'll get to the rest later, I just wanted to bring this to your attention, did you notice that one word there? In the middle of the sentence? "May"? Because I did - I ALREADY agreed that romantic and sexual love does typically align, but they do not ALWAYS align. You are seemingly deliberately misreading texts now so they agree with your conclusions, can you please take your time to analyze things? Because its apparent you don't - if this is representative of the level of thought you put into these replies I'm starting to think I should just leave you to your own head - because you clearly aren't taking this seriously enough to comprehend words correctly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You said that it could not be translated as their is no original manuscript - if that is the case - and you can say that a rather large collection of contradictions aren't valid - then the true meaning of the bible, period, is not valid. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Because they are BARELY so, did you ignore my entire explanation as to how? Because in that paragraph you skimmed over I gave my explanation - I don't see the need to answer a question I already did, that would be redundant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That doesn't disagree with me - I agreed that our traditional sense of free will does not exist - were you reading? You even quoted the section that I said "Free will doesn't seem to exist" - please read before attempting to refute me again.
Created:
Posted in:
-Greyparrot
You've moved your comment- the same comment - to under my own. I've already responded to that - please respond to my latest response or not at all - your choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-Greyparrot
So you think having minorities allowed equal rights to everyone else is "unequal" - I think you are fundamentally ignoring the point - and you didn't really answer my question, you only deflected. I see you are stuck in your assertions, telling me to do research with your loaded terms and all, instead of just presenting the arguments yourself - you seek to apparently strawman and assert. That's fine, I just expect some proof beyond Wikipedia articles.
Created:
Posted in:
-Greyparrot
You seem to believe that regulations are increasing inegalitarian principles when the opposite is empirically true, for example, the regulation of which citizens institutions are and aren't allowed to refuse has increased the freedom of Black, Asian, and Chinese Americans. Governmental policies have become increasingly egalitarian. These things are moving away from Jim Crow laws - "social justice" - as you put it - is increasing equality, not decreasing it.
Created:
Posted in:
That is where you seem to miss my point - in fact you even agree with it - unrestricted regulation. Yet, even our prohibitions of killing is regulated, if someone attacks you with intent to kill, you are able to kill in self-defense. So it then seems that you would agree that freedom through restricted regulation is something we ought to strive for, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-Greyparrot
You have spoken on sorts of killing, but not the majority of it, which is - the petty and desperate murder that is most common - do you or do you not think that such regulations are fair? Even though they limit our liberty? - We are not discussing the US per se, but what the US ought to be, so while I agree that a society ought to protect the freedoms of people, you seem to balk at the idea of protecting freedom by regulating. Which is surprising, because the entire idea of a social contract is that we give up some of our liberties in order to form a functioning society.
Created:
Posted in:
-Greyparrot
So you think that the government prohibiting our freedom to kill another in order to let our lives be guaranteed - to allow us to be free - is ridiculous?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I much prefer the piano, not that I play, lol. Though I wouldn't say that such a correlation is necessarily true. Temper and high deductive thinking that is, though as I said, there is indeed a correlation.
Created:
Posted in:
-Greyparrot
What of people who seek to enhance other's freedom through government? I am legitimately curious as to what you think in that regard.
Created:
Posted in:
A question has been popping into my head recently, why do I get so angry? Sometimes I thought that anger was entirely deserved on the part of whoever pissed me off, other times I don't. Now some, like RMM, have only pissed me off in this regard - but I realize that even if RMM has no ground to stand on here, and perhaps I do have legitimate reasons for being mad, that doesn't mean that I should be mad. I've taken a step back, and decided to ask it - why do I get so angry whenever someone speaks to me with condescension?
Well - foremost - because I'm insecure. There's a part of me that tells me that I'm wrong about everything that I talk about, no matter how well-researched, and unlike my skepticism, it isn't satisfied whenever I see if I can debunk my positions and fail - it appeals to nothing about my logic or rationality, only my raw anxiety. Sometimes a voice doubting your conclusions, actually always, is necessary, but those voices which attack your character as a reason for your arguments being wrong is no help at all. It fundamentally hinders my ability to reason, as I have to take the time to address inherently irrational rebuttals. People like RMM appeal to that part of me, or even Coal talking to me like a 12-year-old. So, I get angry, I lash out with my words - in my youth I probably would have punched something or had a breakdown. I've always been overly emotional, but I thought I had mitigated that part of me, and while perhaps I have - not to the total extent.
So, even when people like Fauxlaw and I fundamentally disagree, he still shows me respect, he acknowledges that I have something worthwhile, which allows me to discuss sensitive issues without much anger being involved. So take this as an apology to people who've I've upset with this, and I will attempt to curb this kind of stuff, but that doesn't mean that I will accept condescension without batting an eye, it means I'll acknowledge it and move on. Thanks to anyone who's reading, you actually decided to read my little rant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Regarding your second response, I would agree - as my post no doubt makes clear - that an accounting of the historic and cultural impact of perceived differences in race is very necessary. But you can do that without buying into a falsism - no need there. I notice that you leave the vast majority of my claims unchallenged, do you agree with them? If so - why did you see fit to not mention them at all? If you didn't the same question goes, and then it would further ask me if you had conceded the point? Please make an attempt at least addressing each point, even if you are simply saying, "In agreement" or "I'll get back to you on this" it would vastly increase my comprehension regarding your views on my arguments.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Would you then conclude that because someone was lured into a backroom they deserved to be murdered? Similarly, would you think that a little girl who saw the red flags but went with the stranger anyway deserves to be raped? There is a fine line between explicit consent and coercion. IF someone is not making an informed decision, THEN those people are not at fault. THE EXCEPTION is whenever someone is WILLINGLY ignorant - there is a very big difference - and even THEN it doesn't always apply. Biases, misconceptions, and other people pressuring them can all make someone who is willingly ignorant make a decision which they are not responsible for. IF we take your value at face-value, pun not intended, THEN every person who has been the victim of a crime is at fault. From that perspective then, justice and the legal system is useless - what injustice is there to assign retribution for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You have made claims of such, but you are simply empirically wrong - just because you do not ACCEPT romantic relationships as nonsexual does not mean that they AREN'T:
"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" [LINK]
Again - SEXUAL AROUSAL can be, and often IS a part of the equation, but it is simply untrue that it ALWAYS IS. Now - this IS in contrast to the popular triangular theory of love perspective; however, I, and several other researchers, would contest the inherent connection of sexual attraction to romance - it is simple not always the case. While this is not the full study, it does provide some insight into the issue I think would be useful here:
"The processes underlying sexual desire evolved in the context of sexual mating, whereas the processes underlying romantic love--or pair bonding--originally evolved in the context of infant-caregiver attachment. Consequently, not only can humans experience these feelings separately, but an individual's sexual predisposition for the same sex, the other sex, or both sexes may not circumscribe his her capacity to fall in love with partners of either gender. Also, the role of oxytocin in both love and desire may contribute to the widely observed phenomenon that women report experiencing greater interconnections between love and desire than do men. Because most research on the neurobiological substrates of sexual desire and affectional bonding has been conducted with animals, a key priority for future research is systematic investigation of the coordinated biological, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional processes that shape experiences of love and desire in humans." [LINK]
Furthermore, the actual study which popularized the triangular theory of love did not actually PROVE that romantic and sexual love are not separate, they simply concluded that because there was no evidence, and because of the high correlation there is likely not:
"Is there evidence that differentiates brief occurrences of romantic love from those of sexual desire? To our knowledge, the answer164 GONZAGA, TURNER, KELTNER, CAMPOS, AND ALTEMUSis no. Select studies have assessed romantic love and sexual desirewith self-report scales, treating romantic love and sexual desire asglobal sentiments that generalize across time and context. Subscales of the Triangular Love Scale (Sternberg, 1997) that measureintimacy and passion commonly correlate at .60 or higher" [LINK]
I would like to draw your attention to the publish date, 2006, in other words, while one cannot fault the researchers for coming to their conclusions at the time, as new evidence emerges, we cannot simply default to the position we "proved" in the late 90s and early 2000s, it is simply outdated research. Do not mistake my insistence for ignorance, I have done the research here.
Furthermore, to address your question - the key difference is the SORT of labour being performed - in one instance you are giving up some energy and general physical work; which, unless abused, has little effect on one's mental health. In contrast, sex-work requires an extremely intimate level of physical labour, which - regardless of outcome - has profound effects on mental health. As I briefly explained earlier, there is an essential difference here.
Perhaps you are confused by insistence on this matter, or find me hypocritical, but do understand that there are impacts to sex, ones which do not exist for most forms of work - social, physical, mental - while there are of regular jobs they are so too a much lesser extent. Its the same reason why some jobs are required to provide more legal protection or physical protection for workers than others - in this case - these people are getting more physical protection. You did go on about analogies and how there are exceptions to my rule - there are exceptions to every rule - the fact that you can point out a couple does not change the fact that it applies to the vast majority of the populations - and yes - by the fact that you have attempted to come to very specific conclusions with these analogies and did not take into consideration the actual portions which dictated the things you are discussing, your analogy still fails. You are trying to compare a sex-worker refusing sex to a worker refusing labor because of characteristics, but fail to realize that consenting to make someone a burger is different from agreeing to have sex due to the affects of such labour on individuals.
I've tried to be much more level-headed here - I want to stop leading discussions into a fire, so here's my attempt - I apologize for any previous slights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
IF there are no original manuscripts to compare translation, AND you cannot accurately describe the actual meaning of the text, THEN that text is text which any conclusions is inherently worthless.
You cannot hold the bible up as something which describes instructions if you cannot translate it - you can claim that you have individually have the ability to translate it, but you would need proof of that assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
For example, though you do not choose whether you prefer one thing to another - you can choose to go against that preference - while could argue that ultimately leads one back to another preference which you did not choose, you ULTIMATELY did go against a preference. So though libertarian free will is quite silly, I think that this form of "Will" is still something that humans have. As we do see people who change principles and such, such things are caused by external events, and internal thought - sometimes you choose something consciously without subconscious thought -as the the fact that the experiments I have read are not ALWAYS able to read subconscious neurologic activity before the action happens, just most times.
This would suggest that while what we perceive as "free will" does not exist, we have some type of control over our actions. The question is to what degree
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
There is an argument of internal versus external free will - that is why I no longer consider myself a hard determinist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Well, for example, which would you say is needed more to solve discrimination - individual responsibility or systemic accountability?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It comes down to what you prioritize, what principles appeal to you most, and to an extent, policies that appeal to you superficially. This is a combination of what principles are encouraged by your parents - to how you reacted to such principles being put on you. Even down to how you view the principles you don't align with. For example, a person in Europe who is a conservative is much more likely to agree with someone on the left-wing than a conservative in the U.S. The Overton window essentially.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Nope, you just don't know what you're talking about - same as most people -
Race - "one of the main groups to which people are often considered to belong, based on physical characteristics that they are perceived to share such as skin color, eye shape, etc.:"
Do you actually CHECK your terms before you spew them out?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Android - cheaper and phones which work just fine. I don't need a much more expansive device for nominally increased processing speeds.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe I gave you a trifecta of choices - I see you've failed to listen. Blocked it is then
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Race isn't genetic - for example - a lot of Hispanic people have very similar melanin levels to white people. Furthermore - genetically speaking people who are "black" have more differences among them than they do compare to white people. There are no specific features of a black person or white person - physically or genetically - which seperates them except for the color of their skin.... which again - is extremely inconsistent with what we classify as "race". For example - Obama is widely considered a black man - however one of his parents were white, despite the fact that if an Asian and a black person had children, they could say they were either without any callback - Obama couldn't call himself a white man without people saying he's not. My point is that while yes, melanin is to a small extent a genetic property, it is much more accurate to say it is an epigenetic one, and a result of the environment. I suppose it would be that we could very easily gain back the melanin levels in our skin - even white people - we call this TANNING. So... in other words, to call race "genetic" is kinda like calling a puddle a pond. I mean... sure you could, and be kinda-technically right if you squint, but not practically no.
While I often disagree with Greyparrot, it is true that such a thing is fairly arbitrary - what race you are - beyond what the society you live in believes to be associated with what "color". For another example - Spanish colonizers were often referred to as white by the indigenous Africans. You see - it depends on your frame of reference, your paradigm if you will. It is the fact that people have read into these differences and seen these people as lower than others, typically themselves, that racism persists. Its the fact that its seen as something genetic... race - isn't a thing - not practically. For example - whiteness - what is it? A peach or tan skin tone? Well no - before the 1930s (when Americans needed Irish people and other immigrants willing to work for dirt-poor wages for the large infrastructure in development) Irish people weren't considered white. Even though they had roughly the same skin tone, no, historically, being white is the absence of being black. So while you and I can wax philosophy about the melanin levels all day - that has never been the actual cause of race. That would be humans. Now ethnicity that's caused by genetics - you see - there is a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Also - also consider - the voters aren't axiomatically right about things. They can be swayed one way or the other while being wrong - you can be wrong and win a hundred debates, and be right and lose them all. As Zed said, debates aren't always about being right.
Created:
Posted in:
Perhaps I came off as hostile - apologizes that happens whenever you piss off by acting like a hypocrite. I'll give you the same choice - admit you were wrong - actually ARGUE back - or leave me the hell alone. You blocked me, and I just wanted to get the point across that you were acting according to sterotypes, then you asked me a question, now you've just pissed me off. So - now thats off the table. 1 - admit your wrong, 2 - argue back without dropping points, or 3 - leave me alone. Any more of this bs and you'll be blocked back.
Created:
Posted in:
"Equally, I do not see the negative correlation between (the absence of) dating a particular race and being racist"
You have agreed with me then - recall:
"Furthermore - no - you happening to not date white or black people is not what makes somebody racists - "
Let's review some more of your claims:
appeal to emotive TYPE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE A POINT SEEM IMPORTANT strategy,
No, I type in all caps to emphasize - whenever you seem to not comprehend a point I TYPE IT IN ALL CAPS - for example:
"CORRECTING YOUR SCIENCE"
You remember that whenever you claimed - quote:
"Now you're just flat out lying about scientific facts"
Whenever I, in fact, had several scientific studies to back up my claim: RECALL post#86 - no - I am not "lying about scientific facts" - yet in post #88 - you COMPLETELY DROPPED IT! Why? You call me toxic, yet you make a blatant attack on me without even bothering to correct yourself after I show you are wrong. So - these so called "emotional appeals" are to get it through to you that don't know what your talking about. And unlike you I can actually back up that claim.
I said - IF you refuse to date them SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE - then you are racist. Are you actually reading a single thing I post? Are you gonna respond to the fact that I have actual science which proves you wrong? Are you gonna respond to the fact that YOU are perpetuating racism - even according to your definition? YOU Are the one who is insisting on stereotypes that are empirically INCORRECT!! Rhetoric? that's fucking rich coming from you - please give me a SINGLE CITED ARGUMENT you've made in this thread! GIve me a SINGLE point which you've stuck on long enough to PROVE. CITE A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF YOU REBUTTING MY POINTS! Cite a single example of not dropping a subpoint a post after!
I want you to PROVE that you are actually not being the biggest hypocrite here - because I have the proof that you ARE.
Created:
Posted in:
I told you I'd leave you alone after CORRECTING YOUR SCIENCE - you call me toxic and say I'm lying about facts, yet whenever I show you the actual truth of the matter - you don't even acknowledge it. As far as I can see - YOU are the one being toxic, whenever someone doesn't agree with you, and persists in that disagreement, holding your responsible for your claims - you start to get upset. Fine. I don't expect people to behave rationally, I don't always behave rationally. But if you want to call me toxic, then maybe drop the "do what I say, not as I do" thing.
Furthermore - no - you happening to not date white or black people is not what makes somebody racists - it is SPECIFICALLY not dating someone BECAUSE they are black or white or Asian. THAT is the racist thing - if you say - "Well I'm not attracted to 'x-physical feature" fine - because those DON'T CORRELATE WITH RACE. The stereotypes that encourage this are media and geographically based. To buy in, and to treat people of those ethnicities differently because of those stereotypes IS RACIST. Everyone is racist to some degree, its a fact of human psychology.
We ought to mitigate and lessen this racism to as low as it can get, to correct our misconceptions any time we catch them, and stop buying into stereotypes because its popular
Created:
Posted in:
Lying? No - YOU ARE MISRPESENTING SCIENTIFIC DATA
Now - I will leave you alone AFTER I respond to your claim - then have fun thinking that intellectual transparency is "toxic". I don't give people any less BoP because we agree in some areas, as many people seem to think I do.
"The possibility of such gene networks shifting their interrelationships wholesale in the course of humanity's brief foray across the globe, and being skewed in significant ways according to ''race'' is ''a bogus idea,'' said Dr. Aravinda Chakravarti, a geneticist at Case Western University in Cleveland. ''The differences that we see in skin color do not translate into widespread biological differences that are unique to groups.''
Dr. Jurgen K. Naggert, a geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Me., said: ''These big groups that we characterize as races are too heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way. If you're doing a DNA study to look for markers for a particular disease, you can't use 'Caucasians' as a group. They're too diverse. No journal would accept it.''"
"In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B).
If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B)."
[LINK]
"Scientists have known for many decades that there is little correlation between “race,” used in its popular sense, and actual physical variations in the human species. In the United States, for example, the people identified as African Americans do not share a common set of physical characteristics. There is a greater range of skin colours, hair colours and textures, facial features, body sizes, and other physical traits in this category than in any other human aggregate identified as a single race."
[LINK]
You are simply INCORRECT regarding what you believe to be true - you are buying into a STEROTYPE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No - average genetic and physical measure is more different from black American to black American than it is from white to black American - you are buying into a STEREOTYPE. Furthermore, speaking of the average physical ability of each race it has to do with the INEQUITY IN WORK available in each race, but as we have been decreasing such inequity the rates are FALLING. As assimilation increases the difference you speak of is being reduced. However, this does not actually affect the fact that such cultural factors are not EXCLUSIVELY RACE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Even though we don't see an actual change in the decline in unemployment from Obama to Trump (post-covid) - Obama's rate of decline in unemployment annually is IDENTICAL to Trump's - he did not actually CHANGE ANYTHING REGARDING RATES - he simply took credit for what Obama started. Furthermore, again, you have always defaulted to YOUR OWN WEALTH as an example, but have you considered the actual average wealth of an American during Trump's presidency? Because that would be much more convincing in proving that Trump was a good president.
"More recent trends in household income suggest that the effects of the Great Recession may finally be in the past. From 2015 to 2018, the median U.S. household income increased from $70,200 to $74,600, at an annual average rate of 2.1%." [LINK]
Simply put - you were suffering from the LAST RECESSION not Obama's policies - as we get farther away from the recession average wealth inequality is lessened - that's how economic trends work. You know - before Trump's response to Covid bombed the economy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There have been no studies that can VERIFY that someone has an involuntary attraction based on skin tone - in contrast - you see plenty based on gender and the like. You see the difference is that the level of "urge" is an ordinary attractor - for example - I prefer vanilla ice cream to strawberry ice cream. There you can have a culture been brought up in - but that can be race inclusive! In the case of homosexuals - one is not sexually attracted at all to the opposite gender - and this is NEUROLOGICAL - not PHYSICAL - as gender is referring to the societal and neurological make-up of gender. So no -the two do not equate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I don't disagree - lol - hence why I only use it for obscure comic stuff
I don't see it as a debating site at all - its more like a - hey-what do other people think. Rarely are answers super cogent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
RACE and GENDER don't equate PERIOD - not identification, not the psychological research behind attraction - the two do not equate AT ALL - being HOMOSEXUAL is not the same thing as being attracted to WHITE GUYS - there is a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nevets
DebateArt isn't an "answer question" community. Its a debate and discussion community - though the niches are similar they aren't identical. Furthermore.... As some people have already pointed out, Quora is much more suited than DebateArt for it. I actually use Quora, and wouldn't really consider using DebateArt for the same stuff - I do admittedly only use it for my comic questions, but the point remains.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Because GENDER and RACE are not equivalent. It is a false comparison
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Um.... yes - we call it empathy. How policies effected you - this is IF we accept that you are correct in interpreting why you've been effected as you have been - is BARELY scratching anything. Just because YOU specifically made an increase in profits does not mean that TRUMP actually did that - again correlation does not imply causation - furthermore you aren't even CONSIDERING how people were affected by Trump's policies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You can say that - but someone simply saying "Athias is correct" or "-insert name- is correct" without anything else fails to convince me of anything.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Well... I mean if you had omnipotent power, then no, "dying" or "sacrificing" yourself temporarily doesn't do anything except piss me off. It's superficial. Jesus spent three days there - and he is LITERALLY GOD. You know - the dude who made hell. No - it would show more love to... maybe - end world hunger? Stop cancer? Something like that - ya know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I'm sorry -policies which he supported and pressured and campaigned for.
Did you think that I was being literal? Seriously? That's your nitpick?
Created: