Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations.
That is using unsound logic, were or were you not reading my posts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No... they aren't.
My intentions behind a specific action - something which already happened, and one thought - in contrast, what I'm thinking, is ongoing and changing. You can observe my behavior in the past, before and after the action, you cannot do the same about what I am thinking as I do it. Please stop with these false equivalences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You are making deliberately obstuse claims, did or did you not read my post above, you know, IF you have complete information, and are using sound logic, using anecdotal examples is not proper
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Umm... what I think? Or my intentions for a specific action? Those are two very different things
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you talking about sterotypes? Or first impressions, those are made with incomplete information, and often with unsound logic. You are claiming that it is impossible to do or not at all probable, with a preponderance of information and sound logic it is perfectly possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I won't bother responding, why? Because from the first resopnse its clear that you don't go back and correct things I address later in the post. You have essentially written a Cinema Sins script.
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
You have sourced one of your claims, furthermore.... of course, the candidates should have done even less, why? Because we're in the middle of a pandemic. You haven't sourced the other 3 claims you made however.
Furthermore, one of the claims, was asserting what you thought RR was thinking, you are putting him into a box.
Your evidence: Hasn't been against left-leaning policies.... Okay? I haven't posted here that I think mass-genocide is wrong, does that give you an evidential warrant to say that I find nothing wrong with it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So your counter argument is.... sometimes it is possible that your deduction of their intentions can be wrong? That is.... not a good counter argument to say the least. That is true of anything, as RR said. Please sustain something substantial.
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Prove it.
And boxes - you are putting a person in a box to dismiss their ideas, that is not "unbiased"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I scanned through them, I have actually already read through one thoroughly. Though I did that for something else, those are just some sources I found pretty quickly. I did read through the methodology, they are valid. If you ad hoc don't accept evidence that supports the opposite because "I didn't read through every sentence" then you are being obtuse. The conclusion is there for a reason, it summarizes the results of the study. If you are claiming that the study itself is inaccurate, that is a claim you have to prove.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I currently have a flurry of debates I'm writing for, as I'm sure you've seen. Plus Ready Writing and my high school LD? I'm sorry I'll have to finish some of those before I can get into another debate there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You realize... 2 of those are quoted from the conclusions... right? DId you read them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
"Mandating face mask use in public is associated with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by 0.9, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, and 2.0 percentage points in 1–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, and 21 or more days after state face mask orders were signed, respectively. Estimates suggest that as a result of the implementation of these mandates, more than 200,000 COVID-19 cases were averted by May 22, 2020. The findings suggest that requiring face mask use in public could help in mitigating the spread of COVID-19."
"If there is strong direct evidence, either a suitably powered randomized controlled trial (RCT), or a suitably powered metaanalysis of RCTs, or a systematic review of unbiased observational studies that finds compelling evidence, then that would be sufficient for evaluating the efficacy of public mask wearing, at least in the contexts studied. Therefore, we start this review looking at these types of evidence."
"Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer. The relationship between source control and personal protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic14, so that individual benefit increases with increasing community mask use. Further research is needed to expand the evidence base for the protective effect of cloth masks and in particular to identify the combinations of materials that maximize both their blocking and filtering effectiveness, as well as fit, comfort, durability, and consumer appeal. Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation."
Sure you haven't.
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Especially since he is using ear pieces where he is fed a speech one sentence at a time or a teleprompter every single time that is very huge.
Why did he refuse to let the Trump team check him for an ear piece at the debate despite agreeing to allow it? That's basically a confession from him by the way.
Why have we seen instances where the media is handed their questions by the Biden team, instead of maybe allowing Biden to be unscripted for a minute of answering questions?
Why has Biden been input lic giving speeches less than Obama or Trump or even Bush or Clinton on the campaign trail?
"I agree with Biden's policies so it is impossible for something I dislike to be true about him, also there is way less evidence of Reagan having dementia while in office but I agree he had it, because I hate his policies"
Created:
-->
@Bringerofrain
assertions and boxes
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
strange or gay - the word means two different things.
You are being a deliberate troll
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
More illuminating, but I would have to hear a more in-depth summary of their policies or do some research on them before I would support either.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm honestly not sure who either of those people are
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Warren or Bernie, though I find it unlikely that either would be elected. Then after that Kamala would be fine, though I disagree with her positions on police - and after that Biden - he is my least wanted candidate. Just, compared to the other candidates I'm not the biggest fan, though he has improved with his policies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I think it might be helpful to illustrate that there is a difference between speech which is rhetorical, which are simply ideas, and which are legitimately harmful - there are differences.
Created:
Posted in:
"SJW Liberals" more accurately describe people who are progressively oriented, though it is interesting how much its used as a strawman to dismiss other people.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Possible, yes, I'm not disputing that it's perfectly possible that Zed does believe these things genuinely; however, there is a higher preponderance of evidence that, at the very least, Zed does not want a frank exchange of ideas.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Perhaps I would buy that with another user, but I have absolutely zero confidence in Zed.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Q is for queer or questioning as in questioning their sexual identity regarding gender
You have literally no idea what you're talking about
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Plus... in order to have enough water to run a house.. that takes a lot of money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because... most people don't have access to wells... plus the wells are also having problems, such is how water works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I am, as I deliberated above, in one of the few areas that was only "mildly" affected by power outages. I lost my power for about a day before it came back on, most people are having problems with water, not power.
Also... I posted it... after my power came back on
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Between this and your IQ topic, I don't think you are anything more than a troll. Have fun trolling around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
that... is a strawman. I never claimed that the big bang popped into anything, I claimed that time did not exist until after the big bang, there is a difference. The universe already existed, we simply do not know what it was before it was the big bang, gods of the gaps
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Do you not understand? The laws of causality do not apply before time, therefore these things do not apply - that's the point.
And calling something the ultimate reality, and then literally saying (or god) - does not lead credence to your claim that you aren't trying to argue for god. Its only after two people called out the fallacy that you abandon this way of thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You are arbitrarily inserting a word to describe something that we already have a word for.... the universe, it is a god of the gaps fallacy. I've already gone on this ride, he was more convincing with this particular argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Everything with you is speculation, as far as we know, the big bang was the beginning of the fabric of time and space, and therefore before that causality would not exist. Now you could say it's possible that time exists elsewhere, but you have no evidence to support that position. How do I know that? Because we can't gather data from any universe except for this one!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Well no, because the big bang, the most widely accepted and evidenced model of the beginning of the known universe, time did have a beginning. This is a fairly basic fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
There is something wrong with the first syllogism, premise 1 is untrue. Before time existed there would be no causal relationships.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
An alternative point of view? No. I directly demonstrated your position incorrect. You are wrong here, and you do not know what you're talking about. Have fun being blocked now troll.
Created:
Posted in:
For sure, I just thought that highlighting these two specific types of thinking is important to realize the underlying assumptions between both sides of many many arguments. They are foundational ways of thinking, or more appropriately, foundational ways of prioritizing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@gugigor
That's the key isn't it? Not letting anybody know how versatile I am until I need to
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
IFF) you imagine that "hollywood" has any agenda OTHER than "make as much $$$ as possible" (THEN) you're shockingly naive.
That is perhaps one of the most accurate and meta takes of Hollywood I've seen for a while.
Sure, there might be movie producers who actually want to be progressive, but the movie industry itself is really only letting that trend go through because it sells well in developed countries. (cough, except for China)
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yeah see, that was arrogance, you didn't look at a simple thing. Furthermore, as you haven't addressed a single thing I pointed out makes me feel less responsible to answer your questions that aren't relevant. The bible is not a good source for finding intent, because the bible is not very accurate.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
You claimed that pedophilia and LGBT community are equivalent, I corrected you - they are not. That is a false equivalence. You have continued on as if I never said a thing, I have, you have not justified your assertion. You see I am actually engaging in your claims, you are pretending as if I haven't said a thing - you are being a troll. Either answer or be blocked, its your choice.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
No, that's you being an idiot; how does "Theweakestedge" and "aletheakatharos" look anything similar? We are two very different users and don't agree on basically anything. I have never claimed to be a Christian. There have been times when I talked about how I used to be a Christian, way before I even joined this site, but you didn't even quote one of those. You are being dishonest intentionally.
Created:
You do realize that testosterone is not the only chemical in charge of being aggressive, correct? You are also aware that there such things as chemical imbalances, where the cis-male has less testosterone than cis-females do. All you have done is made an assertion, please actually link that assertion to your claim.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
You have not justified your assertion. You are being a troll.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I don't care about your questions. You claimed that I was a Christian, so maybe you should do some very basic research before being a douche. Furthermore, I've already given you everything I care too - If you still can't understand very basic burdens of proof then maybe you shouldn't be on a debating website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@The_Meliorist
Ah, I remember this argument - thanks philosophy - you're arguing qualia. Essentially that there is an experiential difference between a computer simply having the coding for "understanding" coding, and a human learning coding. For Mary's room its simply the "experience" of seeing red versus the actual scientific terms of seeing red. Its interesting for any beginning thinker for sure.
Unfortunately, the arguments themselves are... lacking, to say the least.
The arguments or experiments are trying to demonstrate that there is a factual difference between experiencing something and something simply existing, sure. The argument then uses that premise to argue that A.I cannot experience things as humans can, that's the part where I have a problem. All the experiment does is pull your intuitive shoe strings. There is no difference between manipulating meaningless symbols and "understanding" letters. It is the same thing.
How do you think Hellen Keller walked around and functioned like any normal human being? Well, the same way you would make a hard A.I, by stumbling around with concepts being introduced and reintroduce until she could recognize them, even without "experiencing them". There is no difference in the information being received, only how, there is, therefore, nothing lost. Unless you could demonstrate that something was lost?
The problem with Qualia, in general, is that it relies on assumptions and intuition, not hard syllogistic logic.
Created:
I mean.. as a "rational" madman, I would expect you to actually demonstrate claims, but have fun not doing that.
Created: