Theweakeredge

I already combined two of those things, and you left out that women are 4 times as likely to be shot than men of any ethnicity, don't want to admit it? As for the racial charging and no substantial justification for shooting them? [LINK}

You know the difference? There isn't anything wrong with being LGBT+, pedophilia is a different sort of sexuality and affects people differently. Whereas LGBT+ is talking about gender expression, pedophilia isn't related to gender, its related to age. You can have pedophilia and be gay or straight, etc, etc, because pedophilia is talking about being attracted to people based on young age, and that's empirically bad for those people. Please don't draw false comparisons.

Quite simply - gender, in general, is a construct, like currency, but slips of money also do objectively exist. Similarly, gender identity is an inherent thing, whereas gender itself is a construct. How? A good question, there are inherent bits of gender that makeup someone's identity, and we can only really identify that with brain states and self-identification. In contrast, gender roles and things like that are constructed thrust ontop of a particular gender. Gender typically aligns with someone's sex; however, that isn't always the case, such as with Transgender people. A transgender woman's, though women's would be more accurate, the brain is more accurate to cis women than with a cis man. That is just an example - in contrast - men don't have to be inherently aggressive, etc. 

Incorrect, blacks are not the most likely to resist arrest, that's actually women of all ethnicities. Furthermore, even if it were, it would be responsible. Because police are more likely to shoot black people without justification, more likely to imprison or charge them without valid incrimination, they are more likely to receive longer punishment for the same crime, you are objectively incorrect here. 

Furthermore, the number of women being arrested and shot violently has quadrupled. The biggest justification for shooting somebody? "I thought they were on drugs." Therefore the actual truth of the matter is very important regarding drugs. Another thing I should mention, whenever a system focuses on a certain demographic, that demographic's numbers of crime starts to inflate, because the police put more attention on it than others, so they find more crimes. 

Even with that though, the number of white violent crimes surpasses the amount of black violent crimes adjusted to population.

No. It never has. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, being attracted to children, and it should be taught. That way if anybody has that feeling they can get help before it manifests.

Mm, obviously the people with broken limbs should make Fs too. Yaaay ablism 

Thanks, you too, and if I were over 18 I would, lol

Questioning or Queer

"Allow themselves to be killed" that is assuming that they would be killed. Wanna know a fun statistic? Even though black people are killed at a rate 3 times White people, Black people are less likely to have drugs or weapons on them when shot, did you know that? The numbers do not back up your views.

You see - killing somebody because you suspect them to be a criminal is unreasonable. Especially whenever such a bias exists systemically

That people aren't very reasonable in this aspect.

Well, I was just comparing how people think, but yeah that also applies

Again, close enough, second of all - other thing? I thought you studied greek? Furthermore, again, if a bunch of specialists have a definition of a word that they specialize in, I will use that one. Have fun with your stubbornness.

Also you should realize that my primary dictionary for things is the Cambridge and the APA, not Lexico, I only mentioned it in the other source because you are stubbornly insistent on your favorite book.

In order for your argument to be valid, you would have to assume that performance in physical activities are equated to intellectual endeavors. 

Achievements versus how achievements are accomplished

Ends versus Means.

They are backed by the same thing, they are close enough for me, furthermore - funny how you purposely ignored the other half of my post. Would you like to actually engage now?

Unfortunately, I don't think you quite have the proper evidence to conclude whether Jesus is a liar or not. First of all, Jesus evidently believes what he says to be true, regardless if that information is false. Furthermore, the bible has been edited and changed from the original translations. Furthermore, you could claim, "If I interpret what Jesus says here to mean this, and we assume that this version of the bible is de facto what Jesus said, and we assume that Jesus doesn't legitimately believe this particular thing, THEN Jesus is lying." I'm sorry but that stretches things a bit too far for my liking.

Um.. for people with asthma? Not there, you see the fundamental difference between physical and intellectual improvement are not the same. You cannot improve in physical terms at the same rate as you can intellectually, the categories are not comparable.

Wrong.... the Lexico, as claimed by Oxford, is powered by Oxford... it is the same dictionary. Furthermore, clearly Gender has changed, such as the word "Gender" is not the word that "entered into the lexicon" as that specific word didn't actually exist, and as you have yet to answer, the greeks did not have the same conception of gender as you do, they defined the equivalent to gender more similarly to its current APA definition. 

As anybody who lives in Texas is aware, over the past 4 or 5 days there has been a freak snowstorm that has put half of Texas under boil water advisory. Where I live, my hot water is gone, and though my power did cut out, our power company fixed it relatively quickly. Half of the town had the same problems though, except some houses have no water or power. 

Best debaters in my opinion in no particular order:

Oromagi

Whiteflame

Fruit_Inspector

MisterChris

Undefeatable

RationalMadman

Fauxlaw

Athias

Probably some I'm missing, just some I could think about off the top of my head

Should they or shouldn't they? Curious what we have as opinions. I'll jump in once I get a few responses.

I agree you don't choose your wants, I do have a soft determinism in me, but those wants can be logical in nature. 

Mm, I don't particularly mind disagreement, that's how you check the validity of your own views.

Well, here are two I definitely agree

I agree with more, but those are just some examples

Yes I am

and going to the gym, of course it can be motivated by emotions, I see no reason why it needs to be motivated by emotions.

Yay.... I don't think I've ever seen such biased critique, and I agree with some of them.

Throughout my time here I've interacted with a wealth of different people, with different views on things; people of different religions, different politics, different standards of evidence, etc, etc. There are some people who are very similar to me, with very similar beliefs, and only a very minute difference in ideology separates us. Similarly, there are people who are quite literally the opposite of me, and they have one or two things that we might agree on. However, there is one thing that I think dictates the biggest difference in how people think. This is a question of epistemology rather than one of ideology, which is to say, how we process and comprehend information is fundamentally opposed, separate. 

I think the clearest example of this would be Individualistic versus Systemic thinking. This isn't just in regards to things like racism and sexism, which are two of the most obvious examples of such differences in thinking, it also affects something as simple as how we understand definitions. I'll go into an example of something which highlights this contrast in knowledge with one of the more obscure instances of this thinking. Election! Not the actual act of electing officials, though it is influenced by this thinking, I'm specifically referring to how we view elected officials. The individualistic minded among us would view each politician as uniquely responsible for each bill they pass, disavow, or even ignore. Whereas systematically minded people would think that a particular bill being passed is more or less due to a system of people.

Let's do a classic one, Trump versus Biden. The more conservatively minded will typically disavow Biden at every turn, take any excuse to rip into him. Conversely, they will typically defend or uphold Trump, even with apparent lies by Trump, but to get to the heart of the matter - the most typically defended point of Trump is that he was good for the economy (less so after Covid). Whereas most left-minded people would see that as a product of Obama's pre-established laws. What I'm trying to point out is that individualists typically care more about what a person has achieved, and more systemic-minded people typically care more about how something has been achieved. This explains why most conservatives find Biden so unfit to hold office. In their minds, Biden already had his chance and achieved nothing, and now he's stumbling over his words.

With this understanding let's take a look at the case of systemic racism and sexism, starting with sexism just to separate ourselves from more controversial topics at first. I typically see people arguing along these lines, "Sexism was abolished, females have the same rights as you and I," then the Systemicist might respond, "There are several ways that females are still disadvantaged by the society around them". If my theory holds up, then the first response should be based on achievement, which it is, they point out that there are laws in place that make females legally equal to men. But... on first look, the Systemicist doesn't really care about how achievement was made, but how it hasn't been made.  You see, just as Individualists care about what an individual hasn't accomplished, Systemicist care about how the system hasn't accomplished.

It is a very thin line, and it can cross just like that. This isn't just a party line, sometimes liberals argue individualistically and sometimes conservatives argue systematically. For example; Cancel culture and freedom of speech. More liberal-minded people who would cancel an individual are specifically worried about what that person has accomplished and typically less concerned about how that person affects others. Conversely, Conservatives think that free speech should always be allowed because of how it accomplishes freedom. It's not exactly intuitive, because some liberals do care about how it affects things, and some conservatives do care that that individual person is being "repressed." I'm just giving an example of when the terms can be switched.

Ultimately the divide is means versus ends. One side cares about how something is accomplished, whereas the other cares about something being accomplished.

So... do you think they should grade off of performance? Because then it would be an issue for people with asthma or similar things to that degree, please refrain from widespread generalizations. 

The rules which dictate when you should draw your weapon,  the policing systems in general and lack of proper accountability clearly dictate a systemic issue. Have you not read my response to your first claim here? Please inform yourself in this regard, as in, please read my first response to you.

Because gender has meant something like this sense the greeks... as I've pointed out twice and you have yet to rebuke in any terms. Furthermore, my "holy APA" isn't holy whatsoever. They have more credibility than your old dusty OED edition. Can I point out that dictionaries actually change the definitions of things? Including the OED, as Lexico clearly reflects.

Actually I'm kind of interested, in what issues would you be more "conservative"?

Um... did you actually read the sentence? I said you will have emotions, obviously, but you can be motivated by solely logic. Perhaps the enticement to do the logic was initially by emotion and then died down, perhaps it wasn't there at all. As for the claim, the whole humans are only motivated by emotion thing, as it was your central claim I don't get why that's hard for you to understand. 

Sure, but being motivated by and because of are two different things. You can do something entirely motivated by logic while still having "e-motion". The two concepts are separate. Also, please demonstrate that claim.

Of course not, it takes a delve into your psyche and an evaluation of the content in mind, and your positions.  Just because something is difficult to do, does not mean that it is impossible to do. You have made a claim, I would like you to demonstrate it.

You see thats what we call a strawman, did you not read my original post, the key to mitigating bias is to realize you have one! That is literally the first step. Then you actively decide as if you did not have that bias, which, is quantifiable - we call it logic. 

I'm saying that I never equated that to "subject to" which was the dishonesty.

what? where is the quote of me saying it, you've quite literally just went, "Ahh, my point exactly" my point is that you have not provided a single thing, I've continuously asked for it to demonstrate your claim. This sort of dishonest framing is exactly why I blocked you, but you know, having you being dishonest about me is a no-no

I... already said that, a couple of posts up, so, I'm waiting for that quote of me now, where is it, this is only the third time I've asked, you said, "And I have the quotes to prove it", go ahead then. I literally started with. "Give me a quote with me saying "subject to" in the definition of subjective" I reworded it there, but its the exact same thing I've been asking for.

"Subject to" means Subjective, the only time I described what subjective meant was in definitions, ergo, there you go - please go find a quote then

Because transgender is actually a new word, now transsex that's an old one, but transgender literally is a new word, using that word, you see - as I said before, gender has been used to mean what it does now, in fact, its barely a change at all. It called the scientists discovered that this is actually more applicable than they thought it was. Wow, science being scientific who would have guessed.

Also to Greyparrot, you have fun being offended at me calling you a liar after calling me a r*tard, very fair of you bud.

Please show me the quote where I used "Subject to" in the definition of subjective, I'm waiting.

Well.. untapped oil that has to be, you know paid for, and considering we use 100 million of old a day or so, and that number is rising (LINK) , 60 years of total more oil at a maximum does not seem very renewable to me does it to you? Considering that 90 million gallons are made a day or so, it seems like we're at a net loss, no? That's what, a loss of 10 or so million gallons a day? The point is, this will not last forever, but even furthermore, even if it did, so what? It massively affects the environment. This is a simple simple thing, I don't think it really matters if it was renewable or nonrenewable, the point is we shouldn't use it.

Why should we have to? We have a perfectly good word already in relatance and already sort of meaning the thing, why not go the extra step and let it change? You seem to have a particular bias here.

I mean.. if a teacher were to lie sure. Most don't out of principle, you seem to be an exception there

Right, me calling you a liar is rude, and you calling me a r*tard isn't? Someone needs to learn what "rude" means. And you say you're a teacher? I find your maturity comparable to a 12 year old, do you explode at students who call you a liar and call them r*tards, doesn't seem a very effective method to me, but who am I to judge, right?

Suure, I called you out and now you're mad. Please use an actual argument, was I unreasonable to infer you were lying because of your past dishonest framing? It seems pretty reasonable to me

Someone corrects you and you call them a troll, how reasonable

Langauge changes, as a writer I thought you would be one of the primary observers of that, I thought you would be more than capable of understanding how context, time, and further research can change the term. Not to mention gender has been historically used like this, you see, its kinda like how gay used to be substitute, "satan worshipper" but then people took the word to what it actually means, if you look back to the greeks, they were the  first ones to mess with these sorts of concepts and they were the one we get a lot of our language from, that and the Romans, who emulated the greeks in a number of ways.