Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think they should keep it at 21, and raise the age that people can join the military to 21
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Genetically there isn't much difference, mostly hormonial, further - that doesn't matter cuz' it falls in the same boat as the rest of your bullshit, bullshit. You've repeated yourself, like, the exact argument - saying that you've shown it like night and day - without actually responding. Your still being a moron.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@StevenCrowder
No it's not - there is science which demonstrates the existence of each sexual and gender identity thoroughly. I'm not wasting such explanations on you however, I doubt you'll retain the first sentence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
As I previously explained, much to your inabiltiy to listen, that's a stupid rebuke, it's a logical fallacy in every meaning of the word. First of all, whenever I say genetic diversity, I am talking on a scale of humanity, we can hone in on the specifics within human genes and talk about the difference there. Your comparison to chimpanzees is stupid, because comparitively the difference is night and day, we are talking about the distinction between humans. In other words, we are talking about the 1 to 4%, and the difference is minute.
Second, we are talking about a basis to claim that black or hispanic people are less intelligent or something of that measure based on genetics or inherently, if this was the case then we would see a collective difference between black and white people, which would cause this gap in intelligence, we can observe no such thing, any observation of differences in IQ cannot be acredited to genetics and have to be environmental in roots. But because I know you don't really comprehend things like this I'll put it very simply for you:
IF black people are perform worse on intelligence tests, THEN the cause is either because of genetic drifts in intelligence, OR because of social effects upon intelligence tests or the black community.
BECAUSE, black people have more in common with white people genetically than among black people, CLAIMING such a difference being due to their genes is a fallacy.
Your argument is not the smoking gun you think it is, we can zoom in genetically speaking, and talk about soley human differences - you're being a moron.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@StevenCrowder
Actually, it depends, do you mean libertarians? As they tend to be against censorship in all, if you mean communists, well no... they wouldn't be for or against on the basis of communism alone, because again, communism is only an economic framework. Furthermore, it also depends on the why people want something banned. Why do far-right reactionaries typically want things banned? Because something female or of color or gay invades on their cis, straight, white, male safe space, the snowwflakes. Why do left-wing people want to censor things more often? To prevent hate-speech..... yup, definitely an equivalence there.
Created:
Posted in:
As I've said previously, there is more genetic diversity in people of the same skin color than between them.. this is a fact that has been known for a while; therefore, any noticable difference in outcome or performance, logically speaking, cannot be a result of genes. Otherwise such large disparations would not account for such a wide population of said group, it is therefore most likely the case that environment is the cause of said differences in outcomes.
Oh look, we knew that already too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@StevenCrowder
Not neccessarily, anarchism by itself really promotes a distaste of the state of a enforcible social contract more broadly. It hampers on personal responsibility and something I quite don't like, but to say that it encourages violence is simply wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Well I don't think that monotheist or polytheist are particularly distinct, in fact, I find the polytheist position much harder to square, as you are essentially claiming that multiple impossible beings exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@StevenCrowder
Post-modernism refers to questioning certain axioms and the status quo as enforced by a the socio-political environment of the era. Technically speaking, it can be progressive or conservative, but you would be right that it has typically been associated with the left due to it's following being the one to question: segregation, oppression, and general limiting of civil liberities throughout history.
Furthermore, as I've already explained, communism is an economic framework - not a social policy perspective - that would be stalinism: the two are distinct, something can be communist and not stalin-oriented, take lenin-ism for example, the two had drastically differing views of both communism and the social policy they wanted to enact, now, both were equally reprehensible - they both thought gay and trans people were deserving of essential torture - but to put them in the same boat politically speaking would be like putting Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton in the same boat because they both like capitalism. It's absurd.
I never said you were communist or marxist, it's not a black or white thing here, there are other shades between the two - though marxism isn't as extreme as you like to think it is - the actual most extreme would be anarchy, not that you will ever have the self awareness to admit that. Question: do you know about the oppression that Stalin commited against gay people? Further question: you realize I am gay and happen to be pro-lgbtqia+ rights, its makes no sense for me to endorse stalin and be of that position, your entire accusation is stupid and absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Mmm, an interesting argument, which lays on the same basis that Big Foot and Alien Abuductee Karen... I think disregarding the atheistic position is the wrong move to make, you acknowledge that choosing one book over another to believe in is special pleading, or believing one testimony over another, but if they can all be discarded as inaccurate, as one god coming to you and saying their is only one god, which is untrue according to your perspective, would make most testimony inaccurate. Therefore, using your argument, it'd better put to say there are no gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@StevenCrowder
Incorrect - socialist and communist are entirely different things, in fact, "liberals" and "stalinism" are entirely different. You'll find Stalin was quite socially conservative, he opposed LGBTQ+ rights, women having equal standing in society, and healthcare for citizens. Further, he also essentially reignited serfdom, you'll find that the political ideological are completely different.
Also, I'm not a liberal, you've got that wrong. So you're uneducated, brainwashed, and dumb. Good to know! :D
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@StevenCrowder
Myself? No, economically speaking I'm much closer to socialism - though I do admit there are issues with it over a longer period of time practically - as such I would prefer a combination of socialism and capitalism. Particularly, there be specific bare minimums and maximums that governments regulate in regards to: pay, disturbution, and construction. Such regulation would include also ensuring that monopolization cannot occur, which would allow workers to own part of the production, thus allowing them to do things such as; create branching companies, ensure higher wages for workers is easier to reorganize, and lower the wages of CEOs and such.
This is the only way to eliminate, or at least mitigate, the inherent exploitation of capitalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I'm saying it likely happens to be true based on the body of surrounding facts.
- A. Black people are empirically over-policed and overrepresented in the numbers, their homes and neighborhoods are segregated and specifically targeted
- B. White people make up the largest population in the USA
- C. We tend to see the most crime by the largest population
- D. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that white people do the most crime
Though it wouldn't be the "exact opposite" even if you were right, it'd be that they don't do the most crime, they certainly don't do the least - even taking your sources into account. The problem here is that you are relying on sources which are literally the ones doing the seggregating, of course you would find overrepresentations amongst minorities.
My only point isn't to even prove that white people do the most crime, merely saying that IF there was no oppression in America, and IF there was not over-policing in minority neighborhoods, THEN they would, statistically speaking. The mere fact that they don't in those reports is proof in-and-of-itself. Cuz' I'm trying to make a bigger point, and you can claim I'm changing the subject, but I'm not, that would be you (this was orginally about homosexuality), I'm trying to prove that well.... shouldn't you be letting people take account of their own responsibilities?? I'm trying to prove how stupid your arguments are, how you continously try to sweep systemic issues - its funny how fast you run to systemic answers whenever white people are the ones involved.
Frankly I'm done discussing anything with you, you've already shown your true colors, but before I go I'll give one last little piece of advice - do some introspection about your own thought-process.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You've yet to actually critique my view or correct your own. You were the one who brought me here, you were the one who has been antongistic long before me, and you are the one who loves uncritically claiming some absurd statement or another. If you want respect, try some intellectual honesty, then I'll give you some.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Just as yours does not come from being a theist, you don't seem to get it, religion's ideas and morals were made up by people and the community/setting that the bible took place in, that is to say, from a whole bunch of rich dudes way back, who got their morals from other stories - the bible in particular is chock full of... basically stealing other myths and shoving it in the bible.
The bible is a bit like shakespear, mostly good at being overrated and stealing other people's works. As for where I get my philosophy? A good deal of it is centered on sentientism - or the position that creatures with sentience have moral value.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
No - I don't think you understand what mutilate means - further as I've already said: they kill themselves because of assholes like you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Mm - more generally for equity - the only way we can reach the state of equality is through at least some equity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Nobody has morality from their belief (or none) belief in god, rather, they grant if from other sources - in cases of theist its the religion around their god, not their god himself. Atheists actually show some of this some, typically the community around which they are atheists, whether that be humanists or conservatives. You see: people tend to get their morality from their communities - that's true of all humans.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
You are a horrible person. I don't really see fit to talk with you anymore, so I'll leave it with this basic refutation:
- Transgender people are trans because of their own gender; they tend to behave differently than what people expect from their given gender, so they are persecuted, even moreso when they actually come out as transgender. In other words, its because of people like you.
- The myth of "hating myself" is just that, a myth, because we see constant stats given the lowered rates of people once they are treated with their gender in mind. As merely coming out as transgender is not enough to actually solve all of the prosecution, gender affirming treatment consistently reduces self-harm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You have.... a blog post, that's all there is that actually sources your argument. You have a single blog post covering a book, by one individual who... couldn't scientifically use any results there in any kind of study, and commited child abuse. Because the person in question was not IN control of that surgery, and was too young to recieve it - actual transgender research regarding surgery only has subjects that are 18 and older... as before you have this surgery you have to take hormones, which typically isn't given to people until they are 16 at youngest.
So... have fun with an anecdote which doesn't actually represent the thing you're talking about. Seems pretty consistent for your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Incorrect, I said they tended to be more dangerous and fundamentalist and that's how I percieved it. Obviously this is an implicit bias and isn't true for every white person, and it isn't true because white people are white. Its merely a false racist perception, the point was to introduce a perspective that's unique, and happens to be true. White people do tend to be armed more often, and given the population of white people as well as the over-policing black would make them statistically cause more crime. In trends we tend to see that crimes go hand in hand with their population typically, hence what started studies into over-policing and such.
So no, no slander, merely claims and my opinions.
Further.... do you even know what you're talking about? You literally take one claim from a source, while disregarding another which blatantly finds your conclusion false. I've taken every source in total, if it's wrong, I explain how it's wrong, if it's misinterpreted I explain how its misinterpreted, you on the other hand like to take what you like. Go ahead and have fun being dumb, I'll fun being actually intellectually honest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
False - mass incarceration has not done that, economic reform and public policy - such as giving more egalitarian education - have decreased crime. Further, statistics today nearly always show that higher police presence is negligible to increasing crime in any given area (because the more police the more crime they have to report, in order to get paid) - which leads to higher arrests in less important cases and overpopulation, as well as overpolicing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Um... no? (I mean I do know how Sagan is, but I was ansering the first statement) - that's not my go-to, that's stating a fact. I don't do debates on here, too busy to keep deadlines, too stressed to commit full time to the website, etc - if you wanna start making accusations go ahead, but don't think I'll take it sitting down. I've shown that I engage on forums more than enough to rebuke the argument that I'm afraid of arguing. Its more that I'm tired of arguing with people who don't know what they're talking about, think less of Thett and more of Franklin and BmdRocks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Jesus you didn't follow a single argument, lmao. I wasn't saying that white people DID commit those crimes, I was going through a hypothetical using your assertions hence, "Let's do your math", I was saying, IF white people murdered an extra 8,000 people, and those homicides weren't ever discovered, THEN it would still not impact the statistics as you seem to believe. You've literally entirely dropped your argument in favor of accusation and ignorant blabber. You seem to think I'm disrepectful, kay, that's cool. Here's the thing - most of my experiences on this site aren't negative actually.
Fauxlaw, Undefeatable, and even Coal (though the last one is on and off) have had very nice and long discussions. No, you see, I don't respect you when you blatantly engage in an intellectually dishonest manner, such as, I don't know - admitting that you cherry pick and not seeing the problem with it. You literally admit to commiting a fallacy and expect me to just take your word on stuff, lmao.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You continue your streak of uneducated opinions:
Socialism has literally nothing to do with social policy, it is a purely economic framework, hence the existence of the term "Democratic Socialists" and "Social Democrats", because those describe people who are both against capitalism and are socially left-wing.
Socialism has literally nothing to do with social policy, it is a purely economic framework, hence the existence of the term "Democratic Socialists" and "Social Democrats", because those describe people who are both against capitalism and are socially left-wing.
Now, you are correct that their can be no such thing as a libertarian socialist, but not for the reasons you believe: according to the IEP, Libertarianism is:
"...that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty...."
There's a lot there, but for now I want you to focus on the bolded sections, particularly the second bolded section: while socialists don't neccessarily disagree with property rights in regards to private regard, I'd doubt that "robust property rights and economic liberty" isn't very marketplace-y. Further, the first bolded section is also important. Essentially is says that forcing interference on someone is wrong, so... yeah, having an entirely government controlled economic system would probably not fit either.
I suppose a broken clock can be right twice a day, even if that clock thinks it's measuring the temperature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The latest data available is from 2014. Reported crime rates for some large cities have gone up over the past two years.
Sure bud
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I don't debate here anymore, you know that. Furthermore, you're actual reading of sources are so intellectually dishonest I'm not sure I would want to debate you if I did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Sure let's do your math: approximately if you assign white people 87% of homicide (and this is being generous to you), then they caused 18,000 deaths. If you notice all of your leading deaths deal in the range of hundreds of thousands - 18,000 is not significant enough in order to actually affect any of these numbers. You're waffling is nonsense. Furthermore, I never claimed that the rates of homicides were proportional to their population statistics, I am merely stating that they are generally overly represented. They have inflated rates of crime due to their increased rates of: poverty, mortality, segregation, etc. so no, their population and crime would not correlate, if statistics were less skewed, would it be less than it is currently? Yup. That's what overrepresentation typically tells us when accounting for statistical analysis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Eh.. those statistics are definitely being interpreted incorrectly on your part first of all - second of all - yeah. Definitely, a lot of crime done by white dudes specifically is let go. And... the bodies? The increasing rate of missing cases reports isn't coming up at all to you is it? And because hispanic people weren't afforded nearly the same amount of discrimination that black people were - in the education, work, and healthcare bits, totally - but socially? They weren't slaves for hundreds of years, and there weren't jim crow laws on anywhere near the level of black people. False Equivalence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Do you mean white people? Cuz' sure, yeah, they are definitely less policed and are caught less, and are.. given lesser punishments, are excused from punishment more.. so yeah. White people definitely do cause probably millions more crimes than is reported. I'm comfortable cuz' I know my stuff, and I don't have to go to a source which contradicts my point to prove it... unlike you apparently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't think there should be "policing" as it's currently practiced at all. Preventive justice is oh so ineffective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Reversing it? It's been mitigated - not reversed... also.. reddit, please cite some proper sources please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That doesn't say that marrying two people who are gay will send you to heaven, you aren't c omprehending what I'm posting dude.
Also, mistranslation alert:
"Most of Leviticus 18 deals directly with incest. Notably, the list of laws from Leviticus 18 is reordered in Leviticus 20. In Leviticus 18 the order of the topics is ambiguous, but in chapter 20 the so-called homosexual law appears within a list referring to incest.[21] Lings’ linguistic study leads him to conclude that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 continue the theme of incestuous relationships.[22] Thus, the passage should be paraphrased: “Sexual intercourse with a close male relative should be just as abominable to you as incestuous relationships with female relatives.”[23] Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 forbids male incestuous relations."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Dude, you have failed to actually cite your source here, merely linked to your other debate page. I don't care to dig through your homework, I've explained that three times now - also - I literally already disected one of your arguments - you like to cite uncomprehensive or just plain out non-sourced reports. Cool, but when I actually have a source you just want to harp on one quote and not actually respond to arguments. Fine by me, but you don't have any high ground to speak of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Dude the "found" source doesn't work, and the other is a jpeg sourcing wiki - dude, I could literally not find any more unreliable sources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Um, the actual STUDIES demonstrate this fact, black people are segregated and kept in poorer places of concentrated poverty, where over policing happens, this is empirically true.
"Hispanics now comprise 17% of the American population; African Americans are 13%, East Asians 5%, and whites 63%. The Hispanic population is concentrated along the southern border with Mexico, in states such as Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas; many Hispanics also live in Florida, after migrating there from Cuba. A segment of the Hispanic population in the United States consists of unauthorized immigrants: about 6 million persons of Mexican origin are residing in the country illegally, out of a total of 53 million Hispanics (USA population in 2013 was 316 million). Their migration/ citizenship status renders their relations with the police somewhat different than whites and African Americans. In general, Hispanics have a worse relationship with the police than whites but better than African Americans. This pattern can be traced to both the historical conditions under which each group entered the country as well as their contemporary treatment CPS 35 Ethnic profiling en interne diversiteit bij de politie.indd 129 3/04/15 13:59 Ronald Weitzer & Rod K. Brunson 130 CPS 2015-2, nr. 35 by officers and their group-level perceptions of the police. Rather than a single ‘minority group’ orientation to the police, the general pattern is a racial hierarchy ta"
Now, you can continue to ignore evidence - but you trying to paint me as the "oh my god why don't you just make them responsible for their actions!" dude allows me to know that you're a bullshiter. You aren't interested in actually following evidence, which was clear to me from you admitting you cherry-picked, I don't know why I figured you'd accept evidence, my bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Discrimination is not one of those things bud, the bible says nothing about going to hell for marrying gay people. Read me the verse that does and you might convince me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes, overpolicing, as I cited against Thett:
"The United States is estimated to consist of about 97% rural areas, though only about one-fifth of the population resides in these areas.[1] According to the U.S. Census Bureau, rural areas are less dense, more sparsely populated areas.[2] Because rural areas are faced with unique challenges, police in rural areas may face complications and issues that police officers in urban areas do not. These problems can place a strain on rural police departments, making their jobs more difficult. For example, officers in rural police departments typically must travel longer distances and experience longer wait times for backup when responding to calls for service.[3] Additionally, research has shown that smaller police departments, like those found in rural areas, spend less money per officer and resident, but have higher clearance rates than departments in urban areas.[4] This article will discuss issues in rural policing such as recruiting, maintaining, and training officers, technology used by rural departments, community relations, bias-based policing, factors influencing stress among officers, and data illustrating rates of offenses reported to the police and rates of arrests in rural Illinois counties."
Black people make up only 8 less in rural areas than Urban areas despite the relatively small population in the rural areas. Furthermore, rural areas are easier to segregate due to their history of redlining.
"Poverty frequently grips America’s minorities, many of whom live and work in isolated rural areas. Rural blacks living in small towns in the South, for example, face longstanding traditions of racial discrimination and economic oppression. More recently, Hispanics have dispersed from gateway cities into new rural destinations in the Midwest and South, often to work for low wages in meatpacking plants, agriculture, or construction. Poverty rates in America’s Indian reservations are exceedingly high. More than one-half of residents in some reservation communities are poor. Social exclusion and isolation in poor communities often reinforce racial and class inequality. Indeed, geographic and social mobility often go hand in hand. To get somewhere in life often means you have to go elsewhere. Unfortunately, rural minorities, elderly people, and the uneducated poor have few residential options that represent a step forward. Those who move often circulate between poor neighbor"
Finally, the history of segregation and concentrated poverty increases the rates of crimes, further explaining the gap. Again, have some nuance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
"The United States is estimated to consist of about 97% rural areas, though only about one-fifth of the population resides in these areas.[1] According to the U.S. Census Bureau, rural areas are less dense, more sparsely populated areas.[2] Because rural areas are faced with unique challenges, police in rural areas may face complications and issues that police officers in urban areas do not. These problems can place a strain on rural police departments, making their jobs more difficult. For example, officers in rural police departments typically must travel longer distances and experience longer wait times for backup when responding to calls for service.[3] Additionally, research has shown that smaller police departments, like those found in rural areas, spend less money per officer and resident, but have higher clearance rates than departments in urban areas.[4] This article will discuss issues in rural policing such as recruiting, maintaining, and training officers, technology used by rural departments, community relations, bias-based policing, factors influencing stress among officers, and data illustrating rates of offenses reported to the police and rates of arrests in rural Illinois counties."
I restate my case against Franklin, over-policing in poorer areas, where there are more black people, leads to increases in the stats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Incorrect - over-patrolling in black communities lead to this increased statistic. Furthermore, I never said anything about what people oppose, I'm talking about fundamentalism - which White people tend to be apart of more often. I said nothing about them supporting gay marriage more, please read more thoroughly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Also.... so what if it's 70%? First off that's one year - second off - the homicide rate has been fluctuating but overall declining:
In 2019, number of homicides for United States of America was 16,425. Though United States of America number of homicides fluctuated substantially in recent years, it tended to decrease through 2000 - 2019 period ending at 16,425 in 2019.
Still demonstrating your claim false.
Furthermore, those variables are exactly the type of thing YOU need to account for, you are claiming that to be the case without ANY EVIDENCE, furthermore, you realize that all of those factors were true BEFORE GUN CONTROL WAS INTRODUCED, right? The studies are demonstrating this effect taking those variables into account, unlike you. You are claiming that gun control does not reduce gun violence without actually taking into account anything that increases violence in the states that you're studying, and then claim that I'm not taking variables into account???? You are the one that needs to take all of those variables into account dude, not me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wrong - that translation is more accurate than the "Man lie with man." Furthermore, christians have no right to apply what they believe to be "sinful" to other people. That's just how it is, sorry bud, as I said - Chrisitians do not have the right to discriminate - but not all christians even agree with you! You're going based on your own intepretation that therefore the entire church should be allowed to discriminate??? DO you not understand what kind of precedent that sets? Jesus. If you can't understand that then this conversation is over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Noope, this is bullshit! :)
First of all, the entire spreadsheet is based on ALL homicide rate, which isn't related to gun related homicide - which has empirically fallen in states and areas with higher levels of gun control:
A 2013 study by a group of public health researchers examined the relationship between the overall strength of a state’s gun laws and rates of gun deaths in the state and found that states with stronger gun laws had lower rates of gun deaths than states with weaker gun laws. A 2011 study that analyzed state-level data drew similar conclusions: Firearm-related deaths were significantly lower in states that had enacted laws to ban assault weapons, require trigger locks, and mandate safe storage of guns. Two studies led by Daniel Webster at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health demonstrated the impact of state laws requiring a permit—and background check—before an individual can purchase a handgun. When Connecticut implemented this requirement, gun-related homicides in the state fell 40 percent; when Missouri eliminated this requirement, gun homicides increased 26 percent. And research conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit gun violence prevention advocacy group, found that states that require universal background checks for all handgun sales have significantly lower rates of intimate partner gun homicides of women, law enforcement officers killed by handguns, and gun-related suicides.
Furthermore, even if were to assume those were only homicide rates, we still shouldn't take it at your word. You see - you are expecting a linear decrease from the instance of implementing specific laws, but fail to account for any other variables. There are reasons why studies have such large methods and explanations of what is taken into account, because failing to will ascribe a correlation as an anti-causation, you are believing that the lack of decrease in crime demonstrates that the control does not work, and isn't taking into account the growing unease, the depression which in general increased crime rates, or Donald Trump's presidential campagin. My point is that merely showing these two points on a graph proves nothing, but you don't even have the RIGHT points! You just got tricked by some random crazy dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yuup. And why? White people tend to be more arrogant, are more likely to be armed than other race, and are the most fundamentalist religious group.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Ehhh incorrect, it says that men who lie with children go to hell, still doesn't matter though, cuz' again - the bible says that you ought not to judge those who sin, as you are JUST as guitly. You've responded without interacting with my argument, get on that first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
A church not "the church", and no actually, most of the traditions of marriage in Europe (and later America) were taken from paganism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
So your primary argument is that marriage actually doesn't help? Also, you're missing another point, it doesn't say that married same-sex couples underperform, it says that same-sex parent's children BENEFIT from not being married.... soooo... You know, you're wrong in both instances. You can't have and eat your cake bud, is it true that marriage is the best way to raise a child or not? Is it true that gay people raise children as well as straight people or not? You have to pick one at least, otherwise you've been running a hypocritical thing dude. You see, you jumped on the first instance of my "hypocricy" without thinking that through. Even if you were completely correct here, you would still be doubting your own conclusion. But ya know, you're wrong about the other thing too. You see, when you're actually correct about things you can have as many cakes as you like. I enjoy them very much.
Also..... hahahahah! No, marriage is a right. Civially. That's not a debatable claim, that's a fact, you see "Homosexual" marriage is marriage that happens between two citizens, you are making a distinction that does not exist legally. Unless you're saying that gay marrige isn't legal? Oh, no that's right it is, that's what I mean. It is indeed a civil right for gay people to get right, has been since Obama. So no, it is not "begging the question." No, what you just described was a non-sequitur, your concluding that my conclusion does not follow my argument, or that my argument isn't cogent, that one of my premises aren't valid - which is not the same thing as a "begging the question". You need to do some review work my friend, if you were my student I'd be quite dissapointed.
So essentially you're ADMITTING to being a homophobic asshole? No, straight marriages aren't better than homosexual marriages by virtue of fact, even if I were to concede that heterosexual marriages lead to healthier children being raised (which isn't something I'm concedeing to) that would still not neccessarily mean that straight marriages are better because marriage's sole purpose is not to RAISE children. Your entire praxis is based on the axiom that marriage is for raising children, a falsehood, even when procreation was neccessary (HINT HINT - we're fucking overpopulating). Further, even if you were correct that biologic is the best, that does not lead to the conclusion that therefore remarrying or divorce should not be allowed, or that adoption as an institution should never happen. Your entire argument, when taken to it's logical conclusion, is not a very good future.
As for the rest of your passive aggressive shit, if you can't take it don't spew it honey, and you also misread. Didn't say I wouldn't read it per say (I've already read it), I'm saying that I'm not digging through your links and homework. You haven't actually argued against either of my sources.... so if we're counting on that I'm the only one with any sources, all you have is a source to your previous argument without any actual explanation as to how it applies, while I do sometimes merely link sources, it's merely to substantiate a qualifer claim, "X has raised 30%", etc, etc. All you gotta do is present it to me and I'll show you where you're wrong :), ooooh no I get it. You're scared I'll dissect it like I did your other bullshit with MLK?
Created: