Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
Im sure everyone is aware of former President Trump's famous laws about reducing the number of immigrants allowed into America. This was because he wanted to reduce the rate of Corona Virus! What a great guy! Stand-up president- really looking out for the citizen's health. I'm sure he was also interested in increasing lockdown and mask mandates - you know - to reduce the transmission of the virus!
Wait... what's that? He publically mocked people wearing masks and didn't wear them much himself? And he also continuously held GIANT RALLIES.... The hypocrisy is so blatant it literally stings.
Guys - no - Trump was not a good president. Even if we were to accept (and I'm not) that he helped our economy - that would not mitigate his disastrous response to Corona. Let's remember that disease which was WORSE - you guys remember that? Ebola? And how Obama crushed it before it could hit double digits in America? That's called competency - and now - the fact that America got Corona is not Trump's fault - but the fact that we are one of the countries who responded to it the least effectively definitely is.
This is here to remind us that no - Donal Trump was not a good president - and this only a single example of that not-goodness. It was also a rant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Because power leads to corruption, especially PHYSICAL power, that's why I would want any god to have similarly just gods to rule over them - as a back up. But in order to reduce the chances of such corruption ever happening, then they do not have the direct ability to create or destroy. Yes yes they can be superhuman and all that, but they are not so far above humans that we can't even comprehend their power.
That's a recipe for disaster, we fear what we don't understand and you should never have to fear the one protecting you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Here is you - to summarize - trying to justify a broad brush by quoting outliers; furthermore - specifically - the case of escort - the DIFFERENCE is the case of the contract - which is that they have the ability to refuse anyone BECAUSE the service is talking about the agency of the women, such a thing IS NOT the case of workers - as the difference is one's autonomy and one's doing dishes, or making cakes, or selling clothes. Their is an ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
The same is the case of ROMANTIC and SEXUAL relations - I have ENTIRELY NON_SEXUAL romantic relationships. You are entirely conflating the two - but romantic feelings are feelings of pleasure from experiencing another mental company - the same is not necessarily the same for SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPs, while the two CAN intertwine, they are not ALWAYS so - see: Asexual people who have romantic relationships.
While you are right that they do not need to be be 1 to 1 comparisons - the THING you are comparing MUST have the same consequences for both sides of the analogy. You are comparing a hand shake to a romantic relationship, the two ENG GOALS of the social interaction are VASTLY different, thereby meaning that the two DO NOT equate. Finally, the entire "majority versus all" is negligible, as the amount of people NOT in this specific majority ARE EXTREMELY SMALL.
Not to mention that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, as a MAJORITY of wealthy and RICH people still do have to work in order to maintain their wealth and therefore their lives. Also... people who steal ARE working, illegally? Yeah - does that mean that they aren't working? No - of course not. You've also just agreed to some points - like denying someone on the aspect of race is racist.
Finally - no - it doesn't mean FIRING people - it means that whenever looking for new workers you don't have a BIAS against certain people. Furthermore, the case is because they were discriminated, but the difficulty of an action does not mean that it should not be done. Which matters more, the ease of doing something for companies, or the case of people unable to find work because they are being DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, for something they have NO CONTROL over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You are apparently not aware of what I mean when I said stole - I said that the traditions are the same, but they INSERTED their own meaning - that is STEALING Easter's meaning, and relabeling it. Using traditions from other holidays is FINE - its relabeling those traditions as THEIR OWN which is STEALING
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Your definition was not a psychological one - it was one of interaction or statistics - both of which are separate frameworks. Furthermore, you don't actually rebut my definition - meaning you agree with the definition. And thinking SPECIFICALLY that humans DON'T MATTER is being AGAINST THEM. There is NO DISTINCTION. You haven't actually rebuked my arguments, only said- "well assuming that they're true, which they aren't." You have FAILED to argue against them, especially in this response, you've only responded by arguing against ONE POINT.
Answer all of the dropped points in your next response or you are going to be ignored.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
To confirm my theory now I have 1241 likes, even though I've only given 1 like to another post in the past couple of days.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Most likely? Because there's more liking happening recently, I've written more posts recently than you have, so even though you have way more posts than I do - more people started liking more recently, meaning your like gage has only recently been going up. That or more people like my posts than yours - take your pick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That isn't nihilism - not as represented by ACTUAL NIHILISTS - they are trying to relabel nihilism in order to bring CREDIBILITY to a new concept - see MODERN Liberals versus CLASSIC Liberals - they are almost entirely opposing one another in ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That is an extremely BIASED definition there- as we are talking about Bias in a psychological framework, here's a much better definition:
Bias - "1. partiality: an inclination or predisposition for or against something." American Psychological Association Dictionary
Also... .your claim is ENTIRELY false- let's say we accept your definition - saying that "NO HUMAN LIFE MATTERS" is clearly a PREJUDICE AGAINST A GROUP - the HUMAN RACE. Your argument is a non-sequitur using YOUR definition. Are you incapable of actually linking arguments together - THE ARTICLE IS NOT MY ARGUMENT - THE ARTICLE IS THE PROOF THAT MY CLAIMS ARE TRUE - SEE:
"To "prove" my argument which is actually against yours - [LINK]"Signs and symptoms of mental illness can vary, depending on the disorder, circumstances and other factors. Mental illness symptoms can affect emotions, thoughts and behaviors."Such changes in thoughts and behaviors can include:"Detachment from reality (delusions), paranoia or hallucinations"DETACHMENT FROM REALITY - which CAN - not always - but CAN include hallucination - which effectively makes the individual incapable of distinguishing bias - there is no difference between the fact that grass is green from the "moral" truth that you shouldn't kill people. Practically eliminating bias. But you've IGNORED MY CENTRAL ARGUMENT, which is that EXCEPT mentally ill people, NOBODY can be a nihilist - I DEMONSTRATED this previously in post #639."
Recall: That my argument is that NIHILISM CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THOSE WITHOUT BIAS - therefore - if there is a group that can NOT HAVE BIAS - then they are NIHILISTS - this is SIMPLE. You are dropping my argument - the ARTICLE is NOT my argument. You then say my claims were BASELESS IGNORING my sources which I PRESENTED and you IGNORED. I PROVED why you cannot choose your biases except for mentally ill people.
Finally NO - you are false - your gotchas are only focused on a SINGLE PART OF MY ARGUMENT, not my foundations nor my conclusions - they aren't even SEQUITURS. You are false in EVERY REGARD and apparently unable to comprehend BASIC ARGUMENTATION. The gotcha wasn't even RELEVENT because it relied on a STRAWMAN of my position. You wanted to point out that I had said it was impossible to be a nihlist, and then that I said mentally ill people could be nihilists - while IGNORING that my argument was "NOBODY CAN BE NIHILISTS EXCEPT MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That is just untrue - nihilism has always been a philosophic principle - and I have defined it VERY SPECIFICALLY.
"Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated." [LINK]
To think nihilistic is to believe that all values are without foundation - which is impossible for the majority of the population
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I AM ARGUING THAT LOGIC MITIGATES BIAS - that is MY ARGUMENT.
Futhermore - that is the DEFINITION OF NIHILISM AS GIVEN BY THE STANDARD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY - your "that's not true" is not an argument. You are just wrong. Continuing on, seriously, your denying it now? Here is what YOU ASKED previously:
"How does that support the claim that only mentally ill people are capable of nihilism?" (Tarik, #634)
Here is what I responded with:
"Its a simple one - because everyone has an internally biased view that gives them prescriptive moral views regardless of their conscious realization of this. Mentally ill people being capable of being chemically opposite to this is the only reason why one can be a nihilist practically speaking." (Theweakeredge, #636)
To "prove" my argument which is actually against yours - [LINK]
"Signs and symptoms of mental illness can vary, depending on the disorder, circumstances and other factors. Mental illness symptoms can affect emotions, thoughts and behaviors."
Such changes in thoughts and behaviors can include:
"Detachment from reality (delusions), paranoia or hallucinations"
DETACHMENT FROM REALITY - which CAN - not always - but CAN include hallucination - which effectively makes the individual incapable of distinguishing bias - there is no difference between the fact that grass is green from the "moral" truth that you shouldn't kill people. Practically eliminating bias. But you've IGNORED MY CENTRAL ARGUMENT, which is that EXCEPT mentally ill people, NOBODY can be a nihilist - I DEMONSTRATED this previously in post #639.
You also failed to answer the question I presented for CLARITY in the same post:
"Because of how psychology works - specifically bias. I want to answer your question, but it has to do what you view morals are specifically - so to lay the groundwork - would you agree to this definition?
You have continuously tried to play around, and have failed to stay on topic - I have EVIDENCE that you are being pedantic, not answering questions, ignoring a bulk of the points in my argument, only interested in gotcha's, etc.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
nope - I did an experiment - yesterday I recorded my like total: 1236 - immediately after I liked 3 posts. My total remains 1236
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No - because unlike you - I am acutely aware of what Nihilism is - namely:
"Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated." [LINK]
You have an extremely BIASED perspective of what Nihilism is.
You are being PEDANTIC - how do you not understand these simple things? I know -it's because you're obsessed with gotchas, dropping them, or presenting red herrings as soon as anyone cares to engage long enough. The fact of the matter is that NIHLISTS are not any of the usual population because everyone has VALUES whether they realize it or not. This ENTIRE little conversation was about people who are mentally ill are the EXCEPTION TO THE RULE - jesus how are you this daft? Do you not remember asking how mentally ill people are the only people who can be nihilists?
I literally gave you an entire explanation, and you IGNORED IT. And once again you are WRONG - I said - everyone is driven by bias - however one can MITIGATE the bias by research, though it is still bias - the aspect of LEARNING can make it less biased. However the fact that you are still learning FROM humans results in bias regardless. Appeals to emotion have NO logic or ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE bias. Logic and research is the act of mitigating bias - in simple terms anyways.
The people who CANNOT do this - are people who are unable to be biased, which only happens in mentally ill people, and only a rare subection. Please READ the entire thing here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No - I corrected you -
I sense a cognitive dissonance here because if something other than bias is what your looking for then your quote before the one abovethe position that human life doesn't matterrepresents just that.
And I responded:
"Even the position that human life doesn't matter is a moral view." is a bias
So no - you did not "paraphrase" my argument, you barely TOUCHED It. You literally only responded to a SINGLE point within it, you dropped:
- How mentally ill people develop nihilism
- How biases are in everyone
But even your one point was so blatantly wrong, all you have you do to correct it is READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE. Believing that human life doesn't matter is A BIAS - and ISN'T NIHILISM. If you think that is Nihilism you don't actually know what your talking about. You are not actually presenting my arguments fairly, you are cherry picking - you have ZERO excuses here bud, so stop making them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No - I've consistently written that Easter the traditions have been the same - the ENTIRE time - I simply said that Christians took those traditions, repackaged them, and presented them as Christian. Essentially they STOLE the traditions, would you be more happy with different verbiage? They YOINKED the traditions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No - you simply tried to set up a gotcha - you did not respond to a SINGLE point I made. Try again bud. Your attempted gas lighting is getting old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The general TRADITION of a spring equonoix was pagan, it was rebranded as Christian and as the resurrection of christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No they didn't - but they PRACTICALLY did - again: The traditions are all the same - Christians just changed the meaning and added a new shiny label. They literally stole it and said, "Well, I know this was a holiday before, on the same day and using the same traditions, but you know - but ours is called Easter" They stole the holiday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You completely ignored the bulk of my point, I find myself disappointed. I said, "Even the position that human life doesn't matter is a moral view." is a bias, so... please actually read. Respond to my questioning and the ENTIRETY of my argument or else you will receive no further responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
No - there just isn't an end - you are right - there is no end to a 2 dimensional space except for conecpts, but then we get to 3 and 4 dimensions. After that, there is nothing as far as we can prove.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because of how psychology works - specifically bias. I want to answer your question, but it has to do what you view morals are specifically - so to lay the groundwork - would you agree to this definition?
Morals - "standards for good or bad character and behavior:" From Cambridge Dictionary - from there its a lot easier to explain if I know what definition your using.
To give a more basic explanation - everyone is guided by preferences that aren't necessarily chosen by you the individual - such preferences include if you like chocolate or vanilla ice cream, soft or hard bristles on a brush, and what does and doesn't convince you. This is proven by several studies, though these concluding that brain activity comes to a specific outcome 10 seconds before a decision is actively made [LINK].
So - whether you are actually swayed by a particular tenet or such is not really your choice - though - you can fight against bias by research - anywho; this bias is created by your experience of life - peers, parents, media, etc, and therefore each person is going to be swayed by these biases, even the position that human life doesn't matter is a moral view. In order for someone to not have this, they would have to be swayed by something other than bias.
The only way that can happen is inequality of chemicals in brain chemistry - because then the biases are less biases and biologically driven impulses - nihilism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Its a simple one - because everyone has an internally biased view that gives them prescriptive moral views regardless of their conscious realization of this. Mentally ill people being capable of being chemically opposite to this is the only reason why one can be a nihilist practically speaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
No - there is no end to Pi or infinity - simple as that. Furthermore, you are not actually defending what I'm attacking specifically - just cherry picking what you want to respond to
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You have completely ignored the context in which I answered the question, that is an INCOMPLETE QUOTE: The complete quote its: "In terms of what Easter means, yes - Christians did steal Easter" You are being disingenuous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You are saying: "income" and "dating" are the same - when they are very clearly - not the same. Your analogy does not work - you speak of non-sequiturs while committing a false equivalence. That's not all though, you are also saying, that sex and race are the same - however you only defend your argument regarding work and dating - your second-from-last response:
"No, I "implied" no such thing. And yes, I did make a comparison using sex (not gender) because both dating and employment involve two or more parties interacting. Not to mention, I also made sure to make reference to prostitution which combines both sex and transactional interactions (e.g. employment.) Your assertion that the two cannot be compared is categorically false especially in light of escort services and pimps and ho's. But even if were to ignore those, we still could consider dating sites which involves two people employing the services of an intermediary. "Blackpeoplemeet.com" is "racist" in that their protocol involves exclusion on the basis of so-called "race."But so what?What if a so-called "white" parent, for example, doesn't want to hire a so-called "black" babysitter? What would/should be the protocol there?"
Your only "defence" is that there is one section in where sex and income come into correlation; however, SEX and DATING are not necessarily the same thing.
Dating: "to regularly spend time with someone you have a romantic relationship with:" So - you have made a comparison that applies in a SINGLE field, SOME of the time, in other words - it is a FALSE EQUIVALENCE to compare such a thing to ALL instances of Dating.
As for your question: If your decision regarding a baby-sitter is RACE, then that person is being racist. To actually regulate would require a massive ramp up of babysitting websites- it would have to include professionalizing recruiting for, and dispensing of babysitters - it would probably have to do-away with citizens individually choosing baby-sitters. The best idea I have is for some kind of group for people to order the service of another, without any picture or such. Kinda like how ordering food is, you don't get to choose who does and who doesn't order your food - but that is based on the promise that each driver who comes is trained to bring you your food, so would the baby-sitters all have to be trained to take care of children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
DId you... ignore everything I said? I said, and I quote "Well - not as far traditions went" I literally AGREED that in those terms that Christians did not steal Easter only in terms of what Easter means. Please actually READ
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
In order to eat in this society - yes - you do need to work, you could argue that one could be a child or an elderly person, perhaps as someone who is incapable of working in general. Those are the obvious outliers, but even if you didn't live in a society (which is what I'M discussing) you still need to put in labor of some sort in exchange for resources - which is, practically speaking, what work is.
So yes, you do indeed need to work in order to live, with the exception of the literal exceptions. The next is the argument of "neccessity" but we disagree on the extent of its necessity, I would WANT all people to be able to live without working; however, that is not the reality. You have simply asserted such as the truth without actually demonstrating it. However in order to purchase food, or home for any amount of time significantly speaking one must work. I suppose you could argue that the rich don't need to work either, then the obvious argument is that most people aren't rich enough for that to be the case. My point is, for a majority of people, working is necessary to live.
Furthermore, yes - it is absurd, because you are trying to take ONE part of work and state that as the only bit which matters in regard to its labeling; however, that is not at all the most essential parts which make work work. Perhaps you could argue that what YOUR talking about is only defined as far as interaction; however, your discussion regarding the laws of work would clearly use the LEGAL definition of work which is: "the performance of services for which remuneration is payable." - you could argue about the interpretation of performance of service, and what payable is, but these are ESSENTIAL bits to the meaning BEHIND work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well - not as far traditions went; however, they certainly did as far as symbolism went. More than 1/3 of the entire human population find it to mean the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is certainly not its original meaning.
So... practically speaking? Not partiuclarly. In terms of what Easter means, yes - Christians did steal Easter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
To consisely answer the question:
- They must act in the best interest of sentient creatures
- They must consider and accept the view of similarly rules creatures
- They must be beings of ordinary-human manipulation of matter/space
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Btw - here is the definition of god I am working off of: "a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshiped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being:"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
IF I were to accept some god to exist, I suppose there would be certain characteristics I would wish they exhibit
- ordinary powerlessness over matter and such
- some kind of other beings for checking their authority with the same characteristics
- logical
- Prioritizing the well-being of creatures based on sentience
- allows change within their doctrine
- protects the creatures it rules over
- teaching the creatures how to advance & prosper
- incorruptible
- unaging
- willing to pass on power based on traits similar to their own
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Let's do an experiment - divide a number by 0 - I want you to put a number into groups of 0.
Doesn't work does it? Because groups of zero are groups of nothing, but you wouldn't get zero - because clearly a number can go into more than zero groups of zero, afterall zero is nothing, and the number is something. But how many groups would that be? Infinite - well infinity is a mathematical impossibility - its a variable - and doesn't really solve our problem.
The rules of math are not prescriptive, they are not something that humans add onto math in order for it to work - they are descriptive they are that way because, through observation and experimentation, we have discovered that these are the rules that math follows. We do not actually know the END of Pi, so, for you to claim that you can put Pi to the power of Pi, is essentially the same as saying: "X to the power of x" it doesn't actually have a solid answer because we don't know what the total value is.
Can you round and approximate? Of course. Does it actually solve the problem? No. "They hold me back" isn't really an answer, its just a troll response. So - tell me then - how do you overcome the problem of not knowing what the complete digit of Pi is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
No - I meant about your example of heterosexuals - that is what I have been responding to the entire time - that is what I quoted the entire time - I honestly don't care about the nihilist thing - have I even mentioned it until now? No - No i have not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Lemming
As in rhetoric which precludes people from a group because of some standard - so let's say a gay guy was raped by a girl, or a gay girl was raped by a gay - by your logic they wouldn't be "true homosexuals" because they'd gone through sexual intercourse with a person who was the opposite gender. Or, to bring it to a less extreme example, if someone feels confused by their sexuality and explores different relationships - they wouldn't be a "true" heterosexual or homosexual
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
If a heterosexual slept with a member of the same sex,Would they be a 'true heterosexual?Perhaps not, but it's still a handy label.
Yes- yes you would still be a heterosexual - who you sleep with has NOTHING to do with your sexual orientation. Now - you could technically be engaging in homosexuality, but unless you were attracted to that member of the same sex you would not be a homosexual. The gate-keeping rhetoric here is gross.
To conclude: Being homo or hetero-sexual has to do with whether or not you are ATTRACTED to people of the same or different gender - engaging in sexual activity with the same or different sex is an action which is either hetero or homo-sexuality - just like a good person can do a bad thing - or a person who is skilled at something can do a dumb thing. There is the act of sexuality and the identity of sexuality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@oromagi
PW: Agreed
Oromagi - You are citing the statistic for PARTIAL VACCINATION - even though FULL VACCINATION is over 90% - of course partially vaccinating isn't going to grant the full benefit of the vaccination, that would be like saying eating a PB&J doesn't taste as good because there isn't jelly - well of course not, its not DONE.
Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
From what you've read of my debates - how would you say I would do?
Created:
Posted in:
Woo then - did some LD, and lemme tell ya - you guys are much harder to debate, I don't wanna say better, but.... well all of you are better than they were, it was interesting though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Even worse then you use to be I see - all I ask is a simple question - how is using devil's advocate constructive here specifically?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I know what a devil's advocate is - I'm asking why YOU are using it - you're pedantics are gross.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
god -you're semantics - explain WHY using devil's advocate is constructive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No.... its deliberately a dishonest tactic - explain what it would accomplish here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then argue for objective morality - why did you entertain a notion you thought was false if there's an entirely other notion that you think is true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So you've conceded? Objective morality is bunk? You didn't even try to argue it - if you realize that then you should stop believing in objective morality - if you're intellectually honest that is
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean - you're free to concede the point before you begin, but unless this is a debate I don't see any reason to argue with you if your gonna do devil's advocate
Created: