Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That is bullshit - sorry to be blunt but it is.
I'll explain why - you are thinking in a matter-of-fact hierarchical way - that it is both necessary and required that there be people below others. A couple of problems there - those people are only "below you" because of how you framed the discussion - the matter of fact is that those who keep up the infrastructure should be valued higher than they are. Furthermore, keeping up the infrastructure, even if you wanted to value it lower for some arbitrary reason, could easily be combining other jobs that could be keeping up the infrastructure. The entire:
"It doesn't matter how rich you might be, if there is nobody willing to patrol the streets and remove the garbage and work for minimum wage at your local grocery store, then you will certainly starve to death."
Is built on assumptions and presuppositions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then what needs to be done is equity of opportunity, actual equity, not what we have now. However that does bring up a good point - how do you quantify "working hard", because its certainly true that people like farmer's work remarkably hard and they (typically) receive significant pay, but I would argue that Teachers also work very hard, and provide just as much of service; however they get paid barely anything.
Raw capitalism will never deliver equity of opportunity or of "rising through the classes" - its inherently hierarchical - that doesn't mean I think that it should be hierarchical, it should, in fact, not be hierarchical. Especially not something like income.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think people forget that it's the people that actually make up the economy... so if you increase the average income of the average American, you stimulate the economy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You have simply asserted them to be privileges, I have explained why they are necessarily rights - please actually rebuke my points. You have just repeated a claim over and over, that means quite literally nothing to me.
Nope. The Declaration states you have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,
This doesn't contradict my statement, in order to have life you have to have food, water, and shelter - kinda like to have liberty you can't be enslaved, hence why slavery is not only a moral evil, but unconstitutional
but as you have the right to life by automatic means, that is the only aspect of rights for which one personally has no ownership of their own power to provide.
Nowhere is that stated in the constitution, that is asserted to be true by you - and furthermore, some people aren't able to provide food, shelter, and water for themselves, hence the people who starve, the homeless people, etc - furthermore this does not address my point.
Nowhere do you find any other right for which you have no personal responsibility.
Irrelevant
You liberty is yours to obtain and maintain if you do not have it at birth With your liberty, you choose to take on other rights, but only to the extent that you agree with the requirements of maintenance and allow them to all others.
So if you're kidnapped the government isn't obligated to restore your liberty? If you are enslaved there's nothing wrong with that constitutionally? You are simply ad hoc inserting your own bias into the constitution, we see a bunch of assertions with no evidence to back them up.
Your happiness is on you, entirely, to obtain. Same with your income, housing, food & water, your healthcare, your employment, your transportation.
Explain how happiness - shelter, food, water, and healthcare are equivalent? The latter things are all required to survive, happiness is not. You have inserted employment and transportation, I made no mention of them, stop with the inserting things into my argument.
For all of that, you are personally responsible.
Why? And demonstrate that assertion
Even your due process depends on your personal responsibility of comportment, and comes into play only because another may seek to take away your rights unlawfully. You do not automatically have due process until you go to court to seek a redress against another who has violated your rights, including the government.
That does not mean it actually correlates with the principles of the constitution, furthermore, you have a right, as given to you by a societal contract, to not be killed on the street. I am arguing that the same thing applies to food, water, and shelter, just as you have a right to not be enslaved or killed because you are suicidal, and you have completely ignored my argument.
What makes you think you have these rights with no personal responsibility to them? A syllogism? Most syllogism make false claims of logic
Then actually address my logic. This is the last response you will get until you actually address my arguments - otherwise, you will be ignored because you are simply making red herrings and strawmen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
This brings a very obvious conflict of priorities, the agency of women versus the "genetic ending of men"... the second means nothing to me - it does not, in any capacity, affect how a man would live there life, and the potential future generations do not have any moral value, else every sperm would have moral value, and that is blatantly absurd. The problem I have here is your definition of "inferior" you have genes that make your life much more challenging and fatal, certainly, but to label something "inferior" there must necessarily be something which is "superior" and above that something which is the "most superior".
The fact that your genetics makes your life harder to live does not make them inferior to my genes, or Sumihugme's genes, it means that those genes are less suited for long term survival, which tells us nothing about the moral "value" of such genes. Do you mean that your genes are not as good at surviving as our genes? Sure, but I fail to see how that makes them inferior, that would be enabling rhetoric that is inherently flawed, aka Eugenics. Or in this case, Degenics. Polyamory is a common solution to this problem, as it is actually more suitable for how the human experiences love and relationships.
Modern monogamy and the dogmatics of marriage have made this seem "unappealing" or worthless, hence the objectification of women and the rejection of prostitution. To people who would objectify women, it seems as if women are objectifying themselves on purpose; however, that is certainly not true. Just a fireman uses their strength to put out fires, prostitutes use their sexuality to service others. I see no fault in it as long as there is MUTUAL CONSENT. That means that if a prostitute suddenly says no, that means no. Just like if a fireman were to not want to go on a mission, they would not go - because they are putting their lives on the line.
Prostitutes are putting their agency and sexuality on the line, they should therefore have complete consent on everything. That is the only way to stop the objectification of them.
That was a ramble, essentially I disagree with the notion that Incels are "right"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So then... you do not have a right to water, food, shelter, or medicine? Even though you need those things TO LIVE, if you do not have those things, THEN YOU CANNOT LIVE. The government GUARANTEES a right to live, therefore it MUST guarantee a right to all of the things REQUIRED TO LIVE. It is quite simple
But all those things are not rights, they are privileges.
So you have asserted
The government does not guarantee to prevent taking your own life. In fact, with the exception of 7 states [HI, CA, OR, WA, MT, CO, & ME] suicide is a felony. It is not in those 7 states because they say it is a crime that cannot be punished for obvious reasons. And, in several states, now, assisted suicide is legal whereas suicide is not legal. Curious.
You literally ignored the point, that does not matter, I did not say that the government protects you from taking your own life. You have failed to address the cornerstone of my argument, let me give it back to you, read it more slowly this time:
For example - it does not matter if you do not want to live, the government will protect your life. We do not suddenly not care if somebody is murdered because they were suicidal. Fundamentally speaking, a right is not a privilege, and regardless if you "work for it" you are afforded that right. This means that IF such things as rent, food, clothing, water, etc, are all rights to have, THEN they should be afforded to the citizens as a measure of upholding said rights.
TLDR: It does not matter that you do not want to live, the government is still required to protect your life - it does not suddenly become legal to murder somebody because they are suicidal - just like it is not suddenly justifiable to let somebody starve because they "didn't earn it"
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Incorrect, I corrected you with the only measure of love we can demonstrate, you did not provide an alternate definition you simply asserted that I "do not understand the English lexicon", furthermore, I literally said in the same sentence, "for the sake of conversation I will pretend to be a Christian, okay?" The syllogism was an example of your argument, or at least what you were using - until you have corrected the framing of your rebuttal it is cherry picked
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I do not feel inclined to answer to a cherry picked rebuttal, either rewrite it with all of my points in, or not at all. I may or may not get to this one though
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I did indeed miss it, my apologies
Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it is the means by which we follow the two great commandment [Matthew 27; 37 - 39]. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."if we cannot live the first commandment, the second will never come to pass. If we cannot follow the second commandment, the first will not endure. Both are part and parcel of "charity." It isn't about the money, or any other commodity.
Let's break it down a little -
Charity is the pure love of Christ,
one problem, er... two problems
1. How can anything which emotion be "pure", as far as we have evidence for love is only a connection of chemicals in response to a repeated pattern - the more you experience which another the stronger those patterns become and the more "love" you feel. Love is real of course; however, I fail to see how it could be "pure". I furthermore fail to see how love and charity correlate.
2. "Pure love of christ," - I do not believe that god or christ exists, so I don't find this definition useful out of principle - however, I will continue to address the definition for fairness of conversations. For the sake of conversation - let's say that I do believe in Jesus and god, that sound good?
it is the means by which we follow the two great commandment [Matthew 27; 37 - 39]. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
In syllogistic form:
P1: You ought to love god
Con: Therefore, You ought to love your neighbors
The problem here is that one does not necessitate the other - it is possible to love your neighbors and not love god - let's take my atheist self, I "loved" my neighbors as a matter of knowing and caring for them a long time. I did not love god.
A. if we cannot live the first commandment, the second will never come to pass. B. If we cannot follow the second commandment, the first will not endure. C. Both are part and parcel of "charity." It isn't about the money, or any other commodity.
A. Blatantally untrue
B. So... If, I do not love my neighbors, then I do not love god? Please explain
C. I fail to see the deductive connection between love and charity - if you have preconceived notions of charity - which you do - because the bible never says the word charity - please share that, because otherwise, you are simply suggesting a new definition with no reason for it. In the current state of the world, commodities and money are much more valuable than a stranger's love, especially because you cannot be sure if that stranger actually loves them - perhaps you do, but I see no way you could argue that all people would fit that mold. So practically, this definition is useless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I would agree in both regards; however, it would be remiss of me to not point out that between Biden and Trump, Biden is an infinitely better option
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
We see such a reality whenever the government-funded the research on Covid-19, we blazed innovative new technology which will be empirically helpful to our population
Created:
Posted in:
Thought I would throw my two cents in.
IF our government guarentee's certain rights, THEN those rights ought to be held up regardless of our "drive"
For example - it does not matter if you do not want to live, the government will protect your life. We do not suddenly not care if somebody is murdered because they were suicidal. Fundamentally speaking, a right is not a privilege, and regardless if you "work for it" you are afforded that right. This means that IF such things as rent, food, clothing, water, etc, are all rights to have, THEN they should be afforded to the citizens as a measure of upholding said rights.
So that begs the question, are these things a privilege or a right?
Well... if we were to claim that having food and water was a "privilege" then people in Africa would be in a pretty tough pickle, no? I mean why should we care, they aren't working for food and water? Obviously, that's absurd, we give them food and water, because they need food and water to live. The price on protecting freedom is literally irrelevant, it doesn't matter, because the government ought to protect our rights.
Therefore; the government ought to uphold the right to food, water, and shelter
"Depriving people of their access to food and water, impeding their access to health services and wantonly destroying their housing constitute clear violations of the human rights to food, to water, to sanitation, to housing, to health, and to freedom from inhumane treatment, protected under international human rights treaties,” the experts said."
Would requiring people to work not impede their access to shelter, food, and water? It obviously does.
How would we implement such a bill? Well we would most likely start with how we would pay for universal healthcare, which would be by starting to raise taxes for the wealthy, why are so many getting rewards for "charity".... that kind of breaks the entire purpose of charity, should we not give the breaks to those who are unable to afford it, rather than those who make millions?
We could also take some money out of our hilariously overinflated military budget. Considering that global international conflicts have been going down in the past century, and more and more nations becoming democratic, our need to be out in the world has also been necessarily reduced. We do not need progressively bigger and bigger budgets for our military, whenever our military is becoming less and less used.
How would you do such a system? There would be a required calculation to say how much it would take to live in region in the US, and those funds afforded to them - for those saying that it would bring up inflation, perhaps, but that would be met by the fact that more people would have money - IF everyone had access to these things and free healthcare, THEN the disparity of education would be met, therefore increasing how much the average American could contribute to the economy.
This is a rambled-mess of my thoughts and ideas on the matter after reading this thread.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
It is indeed a proper tactic, hence why some hearsay is allowed, and some is not - because some does not rise to the level of the evidentiary burden required to allow it in.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The purpose of charity is to help others, that is literally in the definition - do you perhaps have another definition - because unless you do I will not reassess, the information given does suggest a reason to do that. Just you telling me I should, which, unfortunately for you, I don't really take something at a word whenever the claim is disputable
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
No. Let's take a look here - Speculation as in something which is proven true or untrue - the big bang is has buckets of evidence behind it - Benjamin is simply asserting that something is true because the creator might fit. There is a clear distinction, furthermore, "beginning" of space-time, that is what I was referring to. The universe technically existed before the big bang, as energy, the big bang was the cause of space and time, and therefore the beginning of causality. Before that nothing there would be no time for which causality would rely on, very simple stuff there.
You could try to strawman such an idea all you like - however it simply reveals your ignorance with the given topic. Which is key because instead of actually debunking it, you go a paragraph long making fun of the idea, then you say its nonsensical. Thank you for your opinion, its not relevant.
Created:
Created:
Incorrect Greyparrot
"Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts." [LINK]
Video evidence can indeed be hearsay
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
You can still enter the evidence, and even use it as hearsay. Which is used all the time.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
And when the people said that they didn't consent? Furthermore, I have talked to guys and girls that I find sexually attractive, that doesn't mean I want to f*ck them. Typically it's only people I'm attracted to personalities, but then I don't care much about sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Um... there are several loopholes, and there have to be complex establishment and reasoning for the laws - its simply not feasible from a legal standpoint
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Um... if you admit to doing it, then it is indeed legally responsive, and unless he can demonstrate that it was just "hot air" it is an assumption to say that it was. And yes, I have been in a locker room, and no people didn't randomly admit to sexually assaulting people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That wouldn't be the entirity of the law, check out some slated legislature given gun restrictions, take this 24 page bill from the 1960s: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf#page=1
Or take this 260 page bill from last year: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr5717/BILLS-116hr5717ih.pdf
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I would agree - I would say that Tyson has much more advanced technique, but the fundamental and basic technique employed by AJ is beautiful. Almost every single punch lands straight down the centerline, that's what gives him such hard combinations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Uh.... that is factually untrue, especially senators and congress people - you can't just make a broad policy, all policies are very specific, this is how a lot of legal matter has to be, otherwise, you get extremely vague text law, which isn't a very good thing.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Wait... so you think that admitting to sexually harassing women is just "locker room talk" jesus christ man, I thought you had some decency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Paper work and democracy -- getting everybody to agree on specifics - even if they agree on the broad policy - takes forever - because people are stubborn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I am aware of drawing, and given Tyson's heavy favor for movement and feints, it certainly isn't possible - however I'm not talking about purposeful openings, I'm talking about the inevitable openings that are opened by the fact that Tyson flows between so many different styles and relies on feinting and movements for defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I agree; however his "fluid" style makes consistent openings - I think AJ's fight IQ will take advantage of these openings, furthermore, I've noticed that Tyson tends to wear down his opponents - typically AJ can end a fight in a round - even without momentum. It's true that if Tyson can confuse and outmaneuver AJ he'll win, but if AJ spots consistent opening I expect Tyson to go down.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Then give me evidence of both, I was only discussing Trump - what is the evidence that both have committed sexual assualt
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I would have to disagree heavily, Tyson is too loose to stay to one technical style, in a recent fight he completely flipped and used a pressure-counter fighting style. Now, is he more creative with his boxing? Yes. AJ however, is just a better technical boxer, that's his bread and butter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Time is indeed a dimension
The fabric of space-time is a conceptual model combining the three dimensions of space with the fourth dimension of time. According to the best of current physical theories, space-time explains the unusual relativistic effects that arise from traveling near the speed of light as well as the motion of massive objects in the universe.
You are simply factually incorrect.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
One didn't admit to it on video....you know, so there is a quite a hurdle
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Give me precise evidence of everything he did, then I'll answer. I would do it myself, but I am currently busy.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
He... word for word, said, he would grab females by their genitals, that is literally textbook sexual assault - though its funny how predictable your response is.
Created:
Posted in:
Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury - some of the most popular boxers from the UK today - apparently scheduled to have a match this December. I'm curious about what people think of this fight, I'll go into the basic styles of both boxer's and their records:
Anthony Joshua "AJ"
Total Bouts: 25
Wins: 24
KOs: 22
Losses: 1
Stance: Orthodox
Height: 6'6"
Reach: 82"
Basic Style:
AJ is a master at the fundamentals - he uses jabs with textbook efficiency, for offense (applying pressure) and for defense (creating distance). He's a patient fighter who waits for openings and goes in with extremely powerful hooks. Especially with his progressively lower weights in his most recent fights, he is able to bob and weave most punches, and he can effectively cut off the ring. AJ uses textbook offence to dominate the rounds, and his patient but ferocious power to finish his opponents.
Tyson Fury "The Gypsie King"
Total Bouts: 31
Wins: 30
KOS: 21
Losses: 0
Draws: 1
Stance: Orthodox
Height: 6'9"
Reach: 85"
Basic Style:
Tyson is... unpredictable, that's the best way to describe the heavyweight; however, one can pin down his best features - that most certainly being his defensive fighting. He has masterful leg movement and is a master feinter, that along with his huge reach and height advantage makes him one of the hardest boxers to hit consistently. He uses his unpredictable nature to keep his opponent on the backfoot, keep them thinking and not fighting - using his signature unpredictable nature he takes advantage and wins.
What do people think about this potential megafight? I'm very curious
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
So.. are you just ignoring the fact that Trump admitted to committing sexual assault, and his only defence was "I never claimed to be a perfect person"?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Whenever you are wrong enough I stop caring about ignorance. I typed in bark - and I got both definitions, and when I typed in queer, I got both definitions - you have literally no idea what you're talking about. And yes, trying to peddle in pedophilia as a gender-sexual orientation is homophobia, pedophilia has to do with being attracted to young people, not gnder - the LGBTQIA+ is an acronym for gender identity and attractions - pedophilia does not fit inside of that category. I have already explained this, but you ignored that, just like you ignored the last rebuttal. You have literally zero proof to back up your assertions and you continue to assert them, as you always do. Then you have the gall to call me crass? I'm sorry I like my assertions to be substantiated, unlike yourself.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Uhuh... got a source? Also also, you are aware that there were.. dozens of people who claimed Trump was sexually assualting them... and... well he even admitted to it... you remember that right?
His brilliant response was, "I never said I was a perfect person."
Uhuh.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Hence my reasoning for Biden being my least favorite of all of the democratic nominees; however, which would I prefer a harasser or a serial harasser? This is very literally the lesser of two evils. I believe that Biden should be investigated for sexual harassment, of course, as should Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Our universe is four-dimensional: the regular three dimensions and time
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
precisely, and ironically more concisely than I explained, lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That image is showing how gravity affects other objects - this is because objects with enough mass will impact the fabric of spacetime, this is what gravity is. It is simply showing the path that something would be attracted to the earth by.
This would mean that since the moon orbits earth at an 11 degree tilt, it means that anytime the moon goes below earth relative to the north pole would mean that the moon breaks a hole in the space time continuum.
No... the moon is orbiting the earth BECAUSE OF how the earth's mass affects the fabric. The two are not independent factors, they are directly linked, which means that the shape of the fabric of space is dependent on the objects which lie on it.
Considering the following: IF we were to rotate the image on it's side, then the moon would be orbiting the earth's "pole". The reason why it doesn't usually is because of how a spheroid impacts a flat blanket, which is how this image is simplified, consider four people are holding a blanket loosely. You drop a bowling ball in the center of the blanket. The "poles" or "bottom" of the bowling ball is what impacts the fabric. Thus the moon can't orbit the earth as you are speculating.
It would also mean that if you launch a rocket from Antarctica and it gets a far enough distance away from earth, then that rocket would make a hole in the space time continuum. If you launch a rocket from the north pole, you won't get this.
That is incorrect. You see the "fabric of space" isn't two-dimensional. It is actually four-dimensional, add in z-axis there. It is not a fabric per say, that is simply an analogy used to explain it to people who don't understand it quite.
"A rubber sheet is two dimensional, while space-time is four dimensional. It's not just warps in space that the sheet represents, but also warps in time. The complex equations used to account for all of this are tricky for even physicists to work with. " [LINK]
Think about it kind of like this, the "fabric of space" is more like an "ocean of spacetime". Its a bit less intuitive so follow along, please, whenever a bowling ball is placed into the "ocean" water is displaced, and the displacement of the water forms the same pattern of gravity that the curves in a blanket would make. You see the space moves in accordance to objects with mass, not the other way around, therefore the spacetime would make the pattern around the rocket, that is because anything with mass has gravity. Hopefully this explains things for you.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Homonym: a word that sounds the same or is spelled the same as another word but has a different meaning:
And if I type in "Bark" to the searth window, here's what I get:
Its almost like, just because the same page lists two different meanings of a word, that doesn't necessarily mean they are related - because if two words are spelled EXACTLY THE SAME, then they are the same word except for the meaning - which is the difference between Bark and bark and Queer and queer. You are not only trolling, you are trying to disguise your homophobia, which frustrates me enough to be spiteful.
Created:
Posted in:
Yup, its essentially shotgunning someone. A couple things - it is extremely arrogant of you to assume this was all specifically for you. Now, I made a single post with the intention of you seeing it, but I decided I wanted to create a page with all of the arguments against a flat earth, since you are certainly not the only flat earther. Furthermore, this was not a debate. You are, and I can guarantee this one, assuming each of these things are false due to your own position.
Also, no, most of these were not using Nasa or any other corporation as a source. Just good old science.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Please just stop. Your trolling is getting annoying. Bark is one word with multiple meanings, just like a lot of words, just like Queer, look up the word: homonym.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
For humans? Sure, can you demonstrate that humans objectively have the patent on morality? Because I don't think you can
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
perhaps, but its still subjectively engrained there
Created:
Posted in:
@Greyparrot
I read the article you posted, and another one by hover.org
From what I've read there are a couple key arguments against unions:
- They can lobby legislature in an undemocratic way
- They will often disregard public interest for self-gain
- The things that unions are built for are already covered by employee benefits
Did I miss any essential points?
Created: