Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
"For the sake of discussion" Therefore you acknowledge that its not true - no - what do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Tarik
There is definitely a difference in how I and Secular see subjective morality - I believe there are objective ways to frame our morality, but the fact that we are attributing such things to humans is what makes it subjective. Again - is-ought - its impossible for morality to be objective - which leads us to one of two conclusions: Morality doesn't exist (nihilist) - which you've agreed I don't follow - or there is a morality that isn't entirely factual - subjective morality - in other words, BECAUSE we have minds we construct a morality - IF we hold the axiom that humans matter, THEN we have morality, bada boom - done. As you are also a human you ought to value other humans, or sentience more broadly. I've made the argument so many times.
This is my input here.
Created:
-->
@Unpopular
You refused to define what you meant by lockdowns until now, you refused to use more than an anecdotal example, you failed to use any data to support your claims - these are all important questions to be raised - the topicality of your argument, the impact of your argument - these are a priori issues - your refusal to accept these is not my fault. I don't care if I agree with your conclusions, I will continue to criticize you if you are wrong.
Created:
-->
@Unpopular
Because you are responding to the claim without clarification - it doesn't matter if 3RU7AL doesn't clarify - I've already made two entire posts criticizing 3RU7AL, don't make a tu quoque.
Created:
-->
@Unpopular
The problem is that you are assuming what he means by lock down, and assuming that everybody in lockdown did the same thing - the two are assumptions that cannot be granted
Created:
-->
@Unpopular
Though I agree with the connotations here - I disagree with how you argue it - an anecdotal example simply isn't effective in conveying your argument - attack his sources directly - they have the flaws in his reasoning, not rhetoric
Created:
-->
@gugigor
I'm hoping to one day debate Oro on something or another.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
One of the things that I think Joe Biden has done well
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I would have to agree - the fact that the GOP won't get vaccines doesn't necessarily mean that they are deplorable. They could and probably do have legitimate concerns regarding vaccines, after all, not everybody is a scientist, not everybody realizes the efficacy that they have demonstrated time and time again. Spreading a broad brush in this instance is unfounded.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I would answer that the data SO FAR - shows only causation, as far as we can tell - the vaccine is helpful - now - I am arrogant enough to say that this means it will certainly work? No - but the research spanning decades and the precedent of vaccines working in the past is enough evidence for me to at least be CONFIDENT that the Covid- vaccine is helpful and not hurtful.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
These studies all have similar flaws: They do not account for the fact that the VAST proportion of the population does not FOLLOW lockdown procedures, it also fails to account for the fact that LOCKDOWN does not correlate with PREVENTING CONTACT - the fact that several lockdowns aren't comparable, and are compared without praxis, the fact that every countries culture react to them differently - THE FACT THAT SINCE LARGE PROPORTIONS OF COUNTIES AND COUNTRIES HAVE REMAINED IN LOCK DOWN, therefore limiting the amount of control data that would testify to the actual efficacy of lockdowns.
The person who collected all of these sources are CHERRY PICKING, as well as presenting sample bias - SEVERAL (READ: MOST) don't even actually give evidence which supports your conclusion - some of them even say: REFRAIN FROM MAKING DECISION AS CONCLUSIONS WOULD REQUIRE SEVERAL ASSUMPTIONS - how thoroughly did you actually read the studies presented here? Did you comb through each one to ensure that it actually supported your conclusion? That it actually supported the conclusion of the institute you were citing?
The American Institute for Economic Research - Mediabiasfactcheck
"Overall, we rate The American Institute for Economic Research Right-Center biased based on Libertarian-leaning economic policy and Mixed for factual reporting due to the publication of misinformation as it relates to Coronavirus."
Oh - so they lean libertarian - of course they would be against lockdowns
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You, like many others, fail to consider the actual population of people dying annually: globally speaking thats around 56 million - so do some math for me - what's 56 million divided by 2.8 million?
Oh - that was a rhetorical question - its 20 - that would mean that Covid causes 1 in 20 deaths GLOBALLY - that means you have a 5% rate to die to Covid- PERIOD. Please account for population, always, always, always account for populations you are comparing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Even if you could compare dating and employment (you can't - you need one to live - you need the other to thrive - a fundamental difference there) there is a difference between sex and race in obvious ways - you even dropped this point in your response, defaulting to your comparison between income and dating as the simple praxis - the two involve interaction - if that were the case then conversation is analogous to work, and a hand shake is analogous to work - the fact that two people are interacting does not logically lead to the conclusion that the two things are therefore comparable - that is a non-sequitur.
Furthermore - that is.... racist - simple as that. Now - the actual ability to make a "protocol" out of a thing that is intrinsically hard to regulate is a non-starter in the first place
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Nope, never considered it, probably won't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Its a false equivalence in the sense that you implied such a connection - for example: "Why would one's practice of discrimination as it concerned sex be any less reprehensible than one who employs?"
Thats you comparing sex and race (also not the same) in regards to work-place discrimination - and applying it to dating - I bring it up because they can't be compared - they don't correlate. So no - my example doesn't exactly correlate with your argument; however, it does refute the comparison you attempt to make
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You.... ignored my primary concerns, and continued on with your condescending tone - you've ignored the fact that this manifesto doesn't actually solve the problem
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
It's not a terrible idea - however - I object to it in that it seems to ignore the actual reason why black people are underrepresented in politics - it simply tries to have people move to a similar region as to increase the relative population, therefore increasing their statistical likelihood to control politics... It only treats the symptoms, not the actual disease if that makes sense.
Furthermore, I'm sure not a lot of people WANT to move there, and MOVING could, in fact, be out of the financial range for a lot of the people affected, considering that due to several racists policies in the past and present has prevented most black individuals from accumulating wealth. Even further, I don't find the GOAL strong enough to actual justify the MEANS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No- I'm not moving on as you quite literally hand wave my argument: "a snippet" is wholly correct - you have failed to account for the several instances of comparison that he makes, the fact that he says he has seen the evidence, yet he is empirically wrong - you have failed to even acknowledge my argument - the fact that he blatantly strawman several positions of systemic racism, says that he will help "find" racist policies, and refuses to accept the evidence that empirically demonstrates the systemic racism in the policing system.
You have ENTIRELY failed to come up with a cogent response - and you've completely dropped your "ignore anything that disagrees with your narrative," eh? Weren't expecting me to copy over everything? I'm not going to sit here and take your bullshit claims that you have no evidence for. Here's a little hint: just because someone points something out about your favored individual, it doesn't mean that they're wrong if they aren't you. See - I have actual EVIDENCE that Harris has ignored the evidence, in fact - he spouts out claims saying that evidence supports them - yet the evidence says the exact OPPOSITE.
So - Harris is INTENTIONALLY misconstruing the evidence to claim that black people are less likely to be shot than white people, this is despite saying that he had read all the evidence, and had looked over the other side's "arguments". This could be the culmination of implicit beliefs, but the conscious decision to do such biased things so as to claim that white people are shot more than black people (victimizing white people - taking a book from religion, which, he doesn't like), so he's treating BLM and Black Americans as if they are absurd for claiming this.
In the first blip, he talks about how America is the best its been in regards to race, I don't disagree, however, to not see the obvious - that we can be the best we've ever been and still be woefully under adequate is MORE than possible. During the Jim Crow laws, America was the BEST it had ever been in regards to race, yet we would both agree that it was still very obviously racist. And this non-sequitur is what Sam STARTS with - again - watching other videos of Sam - we know that he can SPOT non-sequiturs that no one else would ever spot. he's actually cut apart a similar non-sequitur about how religion harms people
In summary: He has the ability to spot non-sequiturs, he has misconstrued evidence intentionally, treating one entire demographic's concerns as if they are "compounding", etc, etc - You're inability to respond in more than the bare minimum might have blinded you from the fact that Sam isn't all good, but I'm not gonna let you try to smoothly slide by with your assertions. Let me tell ya - Sam Harris's moral landscape was part of the reason I became an atheist, and the dude is brilliant at debates, but I'm not gonna let any bias blind myself from the fact that the dude has faults.
Created:
Posted in:
Or, and hear me out here, its because we're in a PANDEMIC.
Like, I'm not the biggest fan of Biden, in fact, I barely tolerate the dude - he's better than Trump but he's not a good president. A thing he's done right? Trying to avoid huge rallies, and wears his mask, and ya know- not spreading covid
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I think that you wanna ignore the fact that half of Sam's claims were based on no real evidence, he was talking out of his butt anytime he brought up "evidence" regarding black people beng shot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You need a transcript I see lemme get you one - feel free to check for errors:
Sam Harris - S
Interviewer - I
Start: 0:23
I: You have spoken out against BLM, you seem to regard it as a form of identity politics. Which you say, is a poison, a poison in America today, why do you say that?
S: Well, first let me say, that I-I acknowledge that racism is still a tremendous problem in certain parts of American society, and globally, uh, and that racism is - is something that we absolutely have to oppose and criticize. I mean you know it is a problem for which there is a remedy, and we have been pursuing this remedy for many many decades in the US but we've made a lot of progress, and we're now living in a moment where we are having a kind of moral panic advertised to us. Black lives matter is one of the names of this movement. You know the group's you know it's a very loose group but it's one of the groups that is making the most noise on this topic at the movement and it's as though we have made no progress. It's as though this moment in American history exemplified the worst symptoms of racism and that's quite delusional. I mean obviously, we've made a tremendous amount of progress, obviously, this is one of the least racist moments in human history, uh generally, globally, and in American history-
(interrupted by interviewer)
I: But, but, but, but may I stop you just to point out that the obvious that you sit with me- is that we're both, you know let's be honest, white, uh middle-class, comfortable educated people who represent, perhaps, the dominant grouping in our respective societies, and who are you, in the end, to- tell black Americans how they should feel right now? Because, so many look around the reality of their own lives, their children's lives and see a system that is systemically racist. Not least when it comes to the police, and they feel it is their and their duty to express a level of anger, frustration, and an unwillingness to accept that- which is surely understandable.
S: Well, it's in part understandable, what is really understandable that there is a lot of misinformation, and misunderstanding being amplified. so so if you're going to be outraged over the uh racist behavior of racist cops or the racist consequences of systems that promulgate racism whether there are actual living racists around to-to implement those systems-
I: Well-its, not a choice is it? We are surely duty-bound to be outraged-
S: No of course, now I'm as concerned and outraged as anyone is about those things but I'm doubly or additionally concerned that we not find racists where they don't exist, right? That, if we find racists everywhere then you'll find the real racists nowhere, and you're gonna do immense-immense harm in the process. So to take the variable of police violence is really important if your gonna worry about the consequences of racism and the way it's causing black men preferentially to be shot and killed in America, you have to find where in fact that's happening. Whether, in fact, black men are being shot in greater numbers, right, in proportion to, the numbers of encounters they have with the police officers, and whether they're whether they're having more enocounters with police officers per capita - If here's any explanaton other than racissm but my concern currently in Amerca is that any disparty whther that be polce violence, or employment, or wealth, or any varaible of interest, and of great socal importance ,currently on the left ,anywhere you go left of center poltcally - the only explanaton that is acceptable and this really does have the ind qualti of a kind of a blasphemy test ni a religoin, the only explanaton that si acceptable si that whtie rasm or systemci racsm. Now on the pont of polce voplence ,that s just so happens that the only data we have suggest that while while African Americans have more encounters with the policie ,uh, and there's you know thin are obvous reasons for that ,um, and they're actually n facr roughted by the polce more than white amercans are, um, they're not killed more in fact the're killed less than white americans per encounter, which s to say, if you come under the attention of the police in America, and, uh, they draw their guns on you your chances are being shot appear to be slghtly higher if you're whtie. And that breas everyobdes expectations.
I: But but, hang on - this is facinating cause it gets to the heart of your ntellectual appraoch to lots of thngs you now you are a thn a self proclamed ratonalst you say that you re determned that you determned to be drven by the evdence ,by the data ,y the scence and not by emoton and still less by things like relgious or any other faith based system. So evidence matters but fi youlook across the piece, you've related on once piece of evidence, but surely theirs an overhwelming tract of evidence about incarceration rates, what happens to black kids in schools, swhat happens to black people in employment ,how mayn jobless how black people there are- there is clearly a story in America of systemic discrimination which black people are saying right now they wll no longer tolerate wthout expressng ther anger. And when you mae the pont you've just made it does sound to some like you're lacking a level of compasson or even emotonal intelligence, or ablitiy to empathize with the situation of the other.
S: Well, no, the- first of all, there shouldn't be if I'm concerned about the real suffering r the real people, but we have to acnowlede that we compound that suffering, when we give false notions about ts actual causes so f you're gong to loo at agan and I'm you know I'm on record every tme I touch ths topic, acknowledng that we still need criminal justce reform, and the war on drugs n the S n partcular has been a dsaster and ts especally been a disater for the blac communty ,all of those thngs should go without sayng and there are changes that need to be made there. But, if you're going to ascribe the status quo actoss teh board, the fact, that ,um, that there's a kind of wealth inequalty, and inequality when respect to crme and volence in Maerican socey that breask along racal lnes ,if you gong to ascrbe that to whte racism ,or polcies that whte , ,that white people are not changng because they advantage them, rght you will contnually stumble upon errors of great consequence smply not the case that there are white racsts with ther racsm producng the level of violence we see in the black community in the inner in a place like chicago.
I: The point that many black Amercans are making right now, and 'm gong to quote you the words of just one sincere carabo who works as the social justice coordinator of the American humanists association- who's- he's addressed your podcasts on ths issue, your ntervews with other people and he say's: "Sam Harrs's defintion of racism places an underlyng emphasis on intention", and he says "that's how Sam Harris defines the number of white people who are racsit as a tiny minority; however," Says Mr. Carabo, "when discussing racsim, it is important to remember is isn't about intent, its about impact, and in that sense it involves a far greater proporton of the whte communty."
S: Well as stated i wouldn't neccessarly dsagree with that ntentoni sn't the only thng that mattes obvously if there are polices that, in effect, create racists outcomes-whether anybody ntends it or not- we shouldn't figure out what those polces are and we should change them, and thats what people tend to mean by systemc racsm or institutional racism, and I'm completely on board with the project of dscoverng that and correctng for it ,,but what we have now in American socety, are allegatoins of racism or uh the expeirence that people are having-mllions of people are having simoutanously watching a video let's say a polce shootng and you know, in the prototypcal case of having a white cop shoot a black cop. -
I: You don't have to imagine it Sam, we see it right now we're watching over and all Jacob Blake being shot in Wisconsin, we don't have to use our imagination.
S: I would tell you that that video is not evidence, in it of itself, that video is not evidence of racism. You can see vdeos of white people beng shot in precisely the same circumstances, and, um, mean we have a massve problem of guns in our society, and a massive problem of poorly trained cops, I mean that video in particular events several of these problems. One is that when somebody rushes to ther car in defnaince of polce command and opens the door and reaches in, in American society unlke in the UK, it is only ratonal for the cops to assume that that person s retrevng a gun so he can turna round and start shootng a cops in the face, which happens, and every cops knows this.
Some grammatical errors and such, but thats fine - I think it demonstrates my point - I have taken this all into account. Yes - Sam does in fact talk about Racism and Systemc Racsm, but its MORE obvous that he says that police violence isn't caused by racism, he quite literally says that you are more likely to be shot f you're white then if you are black, which is blatanally untrue:
"Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites. Most victims were reported to be armed (83%); however, black victims were more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) than white (9.4%) or Hispanic (5.8%) victims. "
And goes doesn't object whenever the interviewer says he goes by evdence and not by emotion or relgon, and correctly identifies that police traing is a problem in America, and that guns are a problem... he doesn't seem to care whether the police are right in their assessment of someone searching through their car is for a gun- because there is a gun control problem here- but you see black people, are on average, profled as a crminal whenever they really aren't- so the fact that cops shoot anyone they feel is a crmnal just highlights the implicit racism here.
I detest the notion that i "wave away parts of the ntervew that don't fit my narratve" you ddn't even apparently watch it all the way through, or actually have a think about what he was saying! He said-paraphrasng here: "well most people would say that systemc racsm is polces that have racst outcomes, regardless of intent, ,and I would be happy to help FIND those polces, but the incarceraton rate and polce brutalty just arne't caused by racsm" Is an attempt to throw off people who are only sort of care about racism, evdently like yourself, but a more critical eye would lead you to hearng- oh "finding" these polces? As if we ddn't already know of house red-districting, or profiling, etc- he pretends as if we're still in the dark. He further mischaracterizes the movement as only havng evdence from these videos - and yes- it is what the interviewer brings up, but it is not brought up by Sam that "oh, and there are other more vald arguments" instead he only responds to the weakest form of it, out of context - as the interviewer only brought up vdeos because Sam was pretendng as if we don't have videos of black people beng shot by white cops.
As for if you are racist? I'd say its likely, more so that you are implicitely than explicitely racist yes
Created:
-->
@Athias
Furthermore, perhaps these will be interesting to you:
First, a list of the clinical trials and the rigor of what is allowed as a trial:
And some studies with the efficacy demonstrating some things;
"TRIAL OBJECTIVES, PARTICIPANTS AND OVERSIGHT
We assessed the safety and efficacy of two 30-μg doses of BNT162b2, administered intramuscularly 21 days apart, as compared with placebo. Adults 16 years of age or older who were healthy or had stable chronic medical conditions, including but not limited to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus, or hepatitis C virus infection, were eligible for participation in the trial. Key exclusion criteria included a medical history of Covid-19, treatment with immunosuppressive therapy, or diagnosis with an immunocompromising condition.
Pfizer was responsible for the design and conduct of the trial, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript. BioNTech was the sponsor of the trial, manufactured the BNT162b2 clinical trial material, and contributed to the interpretation of the data and the writing of the manuscript. All the trial data were available to all the authors, who vouch for its accuracy and completeness and for adherence of the trial to the protocol, which is available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. An independent data and safety monitoring board reviewed efficacy and unblinded safety data."
"EFFICACY
The first primary end point was the efficacy of BNT162b2 against confirmed Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose in participants who had been without serologic or virologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 7 days after the second dose; the second primary end point was efficacy in participants with and participants without evidence of prior infection. Confirmed Covid-19 was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria as the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting, combined with a respiratory specimen obtained during the symptomatic period or within 4 days before or after it that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid amplification–based testing, either at the central laboratory or at a local testing facility (using a protocol-defined acceptable test).
Major secondary end points included the efficacy of BNT162b2 against severe Covid-19. Severe Covid-19 is defined by the FDA as confirmed Covid-19 with one of the following additional features: clinical signs at rest that are indicative of severe systemic illness; respiratory failure; evidence of shock; significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death. Details are provided in the protocol.
An explanation of the various denominator values for use in assessing the results of the trial is provided in Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org. In brief, the safety population includes persons 16 years of age or older; a total of 43,448 participants constituted the population of enrolled persons injected with the vaccine or placebo. The main safety subset as defined by the FDA, with a median of 2 months of follow-up as of October 9, 2020, consisted of 37,706 persons, and the reactogenicity subset consisted of 8183 persons. The modified intention-to-treat (mITT) efficacy population includes all age groups 12 years of age or older (43,355 persons; 100 participants who were 12 to 15 years of age contributed to person-time years but included no cases). The number of persons who could be evaluated for efficacy 7 days after the second dose and who had no evidence of prior infection was 36,523, and the number of persons who could be evaluated 7 days after the second dose with or without evidence of prior infection was 40,137."
"METHODSThis phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2."
"RESULTS
The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups."
Created:
-->
@Athias
Specifically this bit -
"mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person’s DNA."
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Not in the mood Thomas - my point was that my being homosexual wasn't even factored for my disbelief in god - that came after extensive philosophical thought and reading the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You see - here's the thing - you have ignored my point (and cancel culture is literally just ostracization - but I see you've dropped the point) He is not racist because he disagrees - he is racist because he IGNORES the fact that the oppression is systemic - he tries to redefine racism in a way that puts individualism as a "responsibility" thing instead of actually acknowledging the system that put them there -WHILE arguing that class oppression was systemic - he presents these two analogous ways of discrimination and never even acknowledges that they are the SAME thing. Despite the fact that people have explained this principle to Sam. the fact that this is most likely to DELIBERATE obfuscation is what leads me to draw my conclusion, not that we simply "disagree"
For example - if you were arguing that homosexuals were being systemically oppressed by society because they weren't allowed to marry or even meet in bars, etc, and then went on to say that trans people weren't systemically oppressed even though for a while they weren't legally allowed to even exist - forgive me I find you a tad transphobic for such an opponent. Perhaps I should have said MOST LIKELY racist
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I am going to block you - that's it - you have failed to comprehend my story at its most basic level
I came out as a homosexual AFTER I was an atheist you fucking prick.
Next, you have attempted to use an EXTREME MINORITY to reflect the PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION of the majority. Its like pointing out that there are murderers in the Uk, and then concluding that all citizens of the UK are murderers. Your example is not relevant as less than 0.01% of Muslims are even at RISK for becoming violent, less so are actually violent.
You have no clue what you are talking about, having ignored my instruction at every step. If you try to respond further beyond an argumentative level I will report you to the moderators. You are allowed to be wrong, ignorant even, but I draw the line at what you've done here - period. If you want further engagement challenge me to a debate and I'll take it and systematically chop your argument into pieces.
Good day.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
As I've said - if you want to categorize 0.01% of a religion as a representative part have a blast - you're empirically incorrect, and have failed to provide even the most basic response to the facts I've provided.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
No - you chose a specific part of Muslims, most Muslims are perfectly healthy mentally speaking. I don't judge an entire population by the views of less than 0.01% - in general - religious people aren't mentally ill, no more mentally ill than normal people, you've continued to dodge my actual argument with your handwaving, and its getting extremely easy to spot. Respond to my argument or you can expect no more engagement. I have better things to do than lecture you.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I have supported my claim with empirical data, you can keep with your ridiculous non-sequiturs, but I think I see why people find you.... unconvincing. You have yet to actually address my primary argument.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Whenever I said "religious people" it is extremely CLEAR that I mean as in the average or most believers - like whenever I say that people can't run faster than 25 miles per hour, I mean that most people can't do that - people in general can't run that fast - yes there are exceptions but they are that - exceptions. There were approximately 8,300 terroristic attacks in 2019, let's say that ALL of them were being carried out by devout Muslims, and EACH attack has 100 individual Muslims behind them - that means that 1 in 1,625 Muslims would be a terrorist or "mentally ill" (as you are alluding to regardless if you want to admit it) That means you have less than a 0.01% chance of being a Muslim and a terrorist - and this is ASSUMING that each terroristic attack is done by genuine Muslim with 100 different people behind each attack - in other words - giving it an EXTREME high ball and the majority of these believers are not, in fact, mentally ill. Nor terrorist. Again you are committing a fallacy. Instead of handwaving away the fact that you are making a false equivalence, actually own it.
For a more reasonable estimate take that same number, less than 0.01% chance and make it "at risk to become violent", not violent, at RISK. You are attempting to use the pedantic example of the extreme minority and somehow claim it applies to my clearly general claim.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are attempting to frame what I said - "religious people aren't mentally ill" as incorrect by giving me Muslim bombers, so yes actually - whether they are an example of the average believer is EXTREMELY relevant. You don't understand the concept - you are making a false equivalence here, they do not relate to the framing of your response. I asked the question because you are making a fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
You discussed hunting along with the same thing as fighting for our rights in your history section, perhaps work on framing the things you want to seem important. You argue that not being able to purchase assault weapons will disarm the nation because.... people won't be able to replace guns that are out of repair? What? That's a non-sequitur - you can still purchase GUNS - just not assault weapons. If your gun is in disrepair, then you can buy another one! This is not a valid argument.
You bring up UK's homicide rate, even though the US has 18 times more murder than the UK in general - so I'm struggling here - why is it relevant? Why does it matter? What point are you trying to prove? That people in UK are more likely to die by guns? Also untrue bud:
"There were just over 1.95 thousand Gun Crime offences recorded in London 2019/20 the fewest amount for this type of crime since 2015/16. Compared with the previous year there were 432 fewer gun offences in 2019/20, but this is still far higher than the 1.79 thousand reported just three years earlier in 2015/16."
"In 2018, 13,958 people in the U.S. died from firearm homicide, accounting for 35.1% of total deaths from firearms. Firearms were the means for about 74% of homicides in 2018."
America has 330 million people or so, and the UK have 68 million - dividing the number we get about 5 - that means for every five Americans there are on UK citizen - so - then let's divide the number of gun deaths in America by 5 (NOT including suicides which would make the total gun deaths in America almost 40,000) and you get 2,792. Weird, since the rate in Uk for 2018 is 2,382 - this being the extreme conservative estimate and we still get a lower number than America. What is your point?
You talk about Switzerland as an example - yet you fail to realize that the reason there are so few gun crimes is BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL:
"People who've been convicted of a crime or have an alcohol or drug addiction aren't allowed to buy guns in Switzerland.
The law also states that anyone who "expresses a violent or dangerous attitude" won't be permitted to own a gun.
Gun owners who want to carry their weapon for "defensive purposes" also have to prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license."
This is a blatant example of not looking into the cause of a correlation - the cause of the lack of gun violence is gun control - Switzerland is the perfect example for MY argument. Furthermore - guns are not "figures of safety" Most studies show that guns are associated with higher level of guns violence, not safety, that is an anecdote more than actual argument:
"Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not."
"Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm. Physicians should continue to discuss with patients the implications of keeping guns at home. Additional studies are warranted to address study limitations and to better understand the implications of firearm ownership."
"A recent study published in The Journal of Preventive Medicine offers new support for the argument that owning a gun does not make you safer. The study, led by David Hemenway, Ph.D., of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, examines data from the National Crime Victimization Survey — an annual survey of 90,000 households — and shows not only that so-called “defensive gun use” (DGU) rarely protects a person from harm, but also that such incidents are much more rare than gun advocates claim."
So that argument that Guns are for "safety" is simply not supported by empirical data. I would take you less "mockingly" if you actually provided valid data to support your conclusions, or at the very least sound arguments. Neither of which have been presented, only a failure to engage. You completely failed to acknowledge the following argument from me:
"Then, your false equivalence regarding car accidents and chainsaws - you fail to account that whenever someone is killed by a gun they have the INTENT to kill with a gun, and they are much more easily able to kill WITH A GUN. You see, you can run from a chain saw, you can hide behind metal, hell, you can throw a heavy thing at the person carrying it, and they won't be able to dodge. If you tried any of those things, you are much more likely to be shot than you are stabbed or cut.Furthermore, people dying by cars is simply a truth by how many times people drive a day, times the amount of people who drive total - you have failed to present a representative total comparing the deaths of cars to the death by guns, based off of how many people use guns and how many times people use cars - actually factoring in context will massively shift the numbers (TLDR: people use cars waaay more than they use Guns, so of course there are more deaths via cars)"
Which is, the majority of my argument, you just kinda truck along as if I hadn't said anything. So your gall to call me self-righteous? Yeah, that makes me a tad angry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Interesting argument - you've made several flaws - how is the government banning specifically assault weapons (something you do not need to hunt, and most do not have the training to actually defend themselves with) "disarming" the nation? Banning assault weapons and (I think) making laws where the government actually disband the manufacture of assault weapons for civilians period would reduce the use of assault weapons.
Then, your false equivalence regarding car accidents and chainsaws - you fail to account that whenever someone is killed by a gun they have the INTENT to kill with a gun, and they are much more easily able to kill WITH A GUN. You see, you can run from a chain saw, you can hide behind metal, hell, you can throw a heavy thing at the person carrying it, and they won't be able to dodge. If you tried any of those things, you are much more likely to be shot than you are stabbed or cut.
Furthermore, people dying by cars is simply a truth by how many times people drive a day, times the amount of people who drive total - you have failed to present a representative total comparing the deaths of cars to the death by guns, based off of how many people use guns and how many times people use cars - actually factoring in context will massively shift the numbers (TLDR: people use cars waaay more than they use Guns, so of course there are more deaths via cars)
Your argument is not actually sufficient for much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Mostly because unlike gender, race is only tangible in the aspect of culture, furthermore - unlike gender - there is no psychological study demonstrating that everybody has a racialsexuality or racialromanticism - perhaps you have a type, but to not want to date someone specifically because of their race is not equivalent to not wanting to date someone because of their gender- it is a fundamental false equivalence you've made
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So a strawman, can you give me a definite example whenever somebody was "ostracized" by a collective group for pointing out that a criminal was black?
The reason why Sam is racist is because he KNOWS of the systemic plights that black people face, he knows of the data demonstrating white privilege, yet he seeks to do nothing but philosophize it away, as somebody spring to be one, I hate it whenever people attempt to dismiss empirical truths because they don't understand causation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Why does it bother you? It shouldn't - do you want to go use an AK-47 to "hunt"? You don't need an AK-47 to hunt, you don't need assault weapons to defend yourself, unless your a highly trained operative, most people can't even use an assault weapon effectively, much less efficiently.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Do you consider them an example of the average religious believer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Um...
"Tianwen-1 is China's first independent interplanetary mission. The probe, a combination orbiter, lander and rover, launched from Earth aboard a Long March 5 rocket on July 23, 2020 in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. "
However that's not my burden its YOUR - you have claimed that ALL space missions are run through Nasa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
And I'll tell you I did believe, pretty hard too, I would say that's a broad statement that doesn't account for most - an anecdote at best
How ironic that it would loop there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I don't think this person understands what graphic design is
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Tarik
Stephen you know I'm an atheist - or you look at my profile which is very clear about my position - I'm an atheist and an anti-theist. Furthermore, it was quite obvious "how" I became Christian, I was raised one, as most people are in the United States.
Tarik - I did not discover I wasn't straight until after I had been an atheist for a year or so, so my own personal coming out there didn't really influence my position about Christianity. However, the entire "homosexuals are abominations" to the lord made me extremely uncomfortable and eventually quite angry. Why were these people being isolated by the bible, and not rapists, or slave handlers? No, the "abominations" were innocent people who happened to feel uncontrollable attraction towards their same gender, and what was wrong with it. It was one of the first cracks in the facade that was Christianity. Next was really the fact that ANYBODY could ask for forgiveness and get it as long as they were "sincere". A woman who was good but simply refused to be Christian went to hell, but a rapist who was sincere in apology went to heaven? The injustice was fervent in my mind, and I began to slowly doubt my axioms.
I believed I was being hasty however, sure, maybe these few things weren't quite right, but that didn't mean that god was evil or anything like that. So I read my bible, intensely. Cover to cover a couple of times, taking extensive notes and writings, and yeah that allowed me to come to the conclusion that god was bullshit. After that I sought out philosophical education, and I became less and less enamored with the idea of religion, slowly adopting the positions I now hold
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Huh, thought I had - I was raised a baptist, I was a youth leader, did the whole bible camp, I even gave lectures/preached to the younger congregation. I was pretty into the bible thing for a while.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Where is your evidence then? You're claiming that the crew is alive - give me the evidence directly. Furthermore, no, you have gone on and on with assertions, but failed to provide a speck of actual evidence - furthermore, putting people in boxes only shows yours inability to refute an idea, not how "correct" you are. You have also failed to acknowledge my argument from Physics. I am left with only one conclusions - that if your conspiracy is true you cannot prove it to be so - and that it is most likely not true.
- Provide evidence that "Nasa" is lying (beyond unwarping pictures that become warped with perspective - that's a simple editing knowledge bud, please study some photography before you start making claims about it
- Please provide evidence that every single space committee must attain permission from NASA before exploring
- Please provide evidence that the earth is flat
- Please provide evidence that the use of gravitational potential energy used to power Gravitylight, isn't using gravity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Please demonstrate that claim - furthermore - it doesn't do anything to actually address my point - EVEN IF I buy your argument regarding Nasa, that doesn't at all explain how physics works and how we can demonstrate they work on so many different levels. It doesn't explain how our knowledge of cosmology successfully influenced (and even helped advance) fields such as biology and chemistry. You have a claim without evidence, its an assertion, and on top of that - much more compelling arguments to not buy the flat earth. I've essentially been talked at for how much demonstration you've done. I've provided a list of over 30 different companies to you before, right before you blocked me in that other flat earther post, and you have yet to actually give me evidence that all of them require substantiation that they all need to get approval from Nasa - furthermore - you have yet to demonstrate that Nasa themselves are lying. Its just assertions, you know how uncompelling those are.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
You still on the "religion equals less developed brain" thing eh? Let's say i buy your interpretation of the study, then that proves that there is a correlation between a degraded brain and being religious, that would not prove that religion is the cause, nor would it mean that people who are of "degraded brains" are more likely to be religious - I'm sure I could find a correlation between eye color and religious belief, but until you show me a comparison of the "religiously addled" brain and the "atheist one" you have no basis for your interpretation. Having evidence and having proof are two different things.
Specifically, the study you cite has the same problem - or at least this specific reading does. They have solid evidence that there is a mental failing which has occurrences of out-of-body happen, however, their linkage to actual degradation of the body is weak - they have a correlation, but not causation. Many many people seem to confuse this fact, that correlation is not causation, and by itself its fine, but it does not ultimately demonstrate a premise. The exception is whenever it is impossible to find causal evidence; however in the working of the brain I find it hard to believe that there isn't causal evidence in there.
Overall - saying that religious people are mentally ill is not only stigmatizing to mental illness, but also... factually incorrect - now - it is acceptable to perhaps claim that they are, in cases, delusional, but to paint such a broad brush is typically a fallacy, (It also makes no one want to interact with you cause you seem like a tad bit of an asshole)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So... they have a symbol that's the same? Please explain how that gets you to- everything they say is a lie. Because science, cosmology, and even biology is all based off of the same framework - we have lights that work off our understanding of gravity - for example - Gravity light - by storing potential energy we can power light bulbs, and the only way that potential energy could move anything if is gravity was a factor - IF gravity is a factor it is simply impossible for the earth to be a "disk" regardless of Nasa's pictures or the like - even IF Nasa and co were lying (though you've yet to explain the 30 other companies not related that have found the exact same thing) physics would not support your conclusion. The only bit of the universe we've found to not apply to our understanding of physics is pre-big bang - which is not what we are discussing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your goal is to attract those who believe they can engage with the inciting question no? Which, most interestingly, would be theists.
As for my view - any being with plausible psychology - any being would most likely have a self-actualizing ego. Anything with a will to live, especially a being that has some sort of motivation to create, has to have this ego that appears naturally. Its a defensive mechanism against the notion that you as a being, as an individual don't matter - and its the core frame behind why humans have motivation. Seeing as most mythical interpretations of god have us modeled after him, it would make sense that most popular god's would have this psychology even moreso.
Therefore that leads us to the obvious question, how would a human react to having unimaginable power? They would eventually abuse it - the historic and psychological precedent has long been set for such an occurrence. The fact that there is suffering only reinforces that view - my point is that, essentially, any god would abuse their power. This is why we have checks and balances, this is why we avoid things like monarchies - because people, in general, are corruptible. This is all assuming that this god starts out as "good" and not as some sort of fiendish being.
Specifically considering how the god of the bible reacts to Satan simply wanting the tyranny of heaven to end, I find the latter much more likely. Satan is literally an Iron Man villain, motivated by the deeds of his former boss... only to be dealt with by the metaphorical "children" of God. Reads to me like an Iron Man Villian don't know what to tell you, anywho, all of this says to me is that a god who is "all good" not only does not exist in the Abrahamic interpretation but is not likely to be the case, ever. That is my interpretation as an anti-theist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That was me suggesting the "best" argument I could have given as a Christian - I don't think any god can be justified as... just in our current universe. Especially as an anti-theist.
Plus - given some engagement could help this thread get some attention
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So you're saying that the free will argument isn't one used by the popular Christian? Because I disagree and laugh at that assertion bud. I am presenting a theocracy, whether you want to acknowledge it or not
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
As someone who's spoken with a LOOT of theists, and I used to be one, who believed in the trifecta god (all powerful, all knowing, and all good) People will usually argue that; "Its all because Human's have free-will, its all their fault? You don't want us to be robots do you?" Now - I think the argument is incredibly flawed (I mean I could get into the whole: heaven is good and we have free will there, but he can't do it for pre-snake earth?) but I won't get into toooo specific of details. Just wanted to put this here because I don't see any Christians coming to actually defend their god.
Created: