Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Also, just gonna respond to the discrimination point - while you aren't technically wrong that we all have built in biases, you are incorrect in applying them. You see, me personally, I view white people as the most dangerous people - I've taken several hidden biases tests for my psychology major friend. Furthermore, some people of specific races and sexualities are discriminated against empirically a WHOLE LOT FUCKING MORE because of various events in history as well as racist, homophobic, etc, etc mindsets.
Such things might include: Slavery, Jimcrow, Misogony, Stonewall, etc, etc... you're being even more moronic! What an "well actually!" You must have won the "I like debating like Ben Shaprio" award cuz' you're arguments are laughable! I'm actually cracking up here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I'm clear what begging the question is, and you're actually incorrect, you see it's more that you use your conclusion as your foundational premise. Which is decidely not what I'm doing, I'm merely defining civil liberities, aka, liberities or freedoms which granted to citizens. There is nothing there that is a conclusion hiding as a premise, you are merely incorrect in your deduction of the fallacy.
I don't quote what I'm responding too, I'm responding to your entire point, one thing at a time, if you aren't familiar with the bit I'm responding too than I don't believe you are quite sure enough of your own argumentation. :)
In regards to the "semantics of marriage", you are entirely incorrect with your claim here, or at least contradicted by what you claimed earlier: "Marriage is about supporting the best child-rearing unit: two biological parents", which seems to me entirely about the semantics of what marriage is, you are changing the goalpost, where you establish one metaphorical "endgoal" and later change it midconversation without properly addressing your previous point. This entire paragraph is literally just hand waving away the point, no actual substance.
As for your studies? They're bullshit. I don't care to engage further than that, you're the type to submit reports without any reference and trust them without critical thought, linking articles as if they mean anything. No, you've established that you've made an argument regarding the subject. Bring it here and we'll see if you have actual links. I'm not digging through your homework honey. As for the short quote... so what? You quoted exactly zero in the MLKjr. thing, you paraphrased sure, but regardless I got my point across. The study is simple, testing various academic outcomes between children with same-sex parents and hetero-parents. There is no need for elaboration, you're being an moron.
How about this one for you?
"No differences were observed between household types on family relationships or any child outcomes. Same-sex parent households scored higher on parenting stress (95% confidence interval = 2.03–2.30) than different-sex parent households (95% confidence interval = 1.76–2.03), p = .006. No significant interactions between household type and family relationships, or household type and parenting stress, were found for any child outcomes."
Again, you're being a moron.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
False on a whole lot of fronts, but um... civil liberities are liberties or freedoms that citizens ought to have, therefore if one group of people have them, the others ought to as well. That's what civil liberities are, furthermore, no... marriage is not about raising children, that is not the only reason that there is... also, studies have indicated that two homosexual parents can raise a child with negligible to BETTER outcomes for the children than straight couples, the real importance is that there are at least two parents and that they aren't too young.
Children raised by same-sex parents perform better in school:
"n. It appears from column (1) that children from same-sex couples perform significantly better at the end of primary education than their peers from opposite-sex couples. In particular, we find that children from same-sex couples have 0.252 standard deviations higher test score than children from opposite-sex couples."
Created:
Posted in:
@RMM
Never said it was immoral, I said it was antithetical to the concept of voting, which it is, by all means go ahead, just... super counterproductive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Incorrect, the bible actually doesn't say anything about "burning in hell for marrying gay people" in fact, if I recall, Jesus preached that you ought to not judge others for their "sins" because you are as guilty as they. You have literally no idea what your talking about, on a religious or rhetorical level.
Created:
Posted in:
@RMM
And the entire point of voting is to make sure other people's perspective inform a decision.... so yes, if your goal is to cancel out other's votes especially, you are being counterintuitive to the entire concept of voting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because its denying a civil right to a person based on religious exception, nothing gives the church that right. You aren't allowed to discriminate against people because your holy book says you can, same goes for not marrying gay people. Because hint hint, some people don't buy your interpretation of holy texts, and a lot of marriges aren't with Christian priests to begin with, this is all accepting the axiom that your church has the claim on marriage, it doesn't, and it never has had it.
Created:
Posted in:
@RMM
The entire point of elections and votes are to come to a decision democratically, voting for yourself it literally antithetical to the concept of voting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Nope, whenever you "think" that you hate gay people, black people, etc - we don't have to tolerate them. Again, get the fuck off your high horse
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Um... if you are doing a science experiment, the source is literally the graphs - this isn't a science experiment - or something that can be repeatedly reproduced to expose fraud, this is a paper marking several claims regarding a source who is INSANELY biased, and has obvious motivation for lying... so yes, we need a source. Stop with all the false equivalences. They only make me more aware of your "not-thinking-this-through".
Um... yes I did? I literally followed up the thing with two sources getting into how your source was insanely biased and was propagandized? Do you need the sources again?
Just in case, here's a third source since you don't seem to get the history here:
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/age-of-eisenhower/mcarthyism-red-scare
What? No, this is logical critique of a source - which is just a way to look and dismantle sources, like presenting a logical fallacy - THAT'S something you don't source. And... I explained it? It was written during a time of the red scare, and presented actual sources reporting how insanely biased the FBI was against King. Like... literally, two posts ago, do you actually check the links that people give you? Cuz' if you actually want "proof" then check it. Also, "prove it" to it being discriminatory? What? It literally said the word "n*groe" and called homosexuality "a perversion of nature", that is by nature discriminatory. If you want to stop being a troll and actually think for a minute, maybe I'll respond again.
Also... again... what??? Yes I said "I don't take it seriously" I literally just reiterated what I meant! They mean the exact same thing, I don't take the source seriously, i.e, I trust it less. Again, stop being an idiot, think through your positions. Um.. actually it is sufficient, because I don't care if you agree or not, I know that i have the evidence to support my claims. You however, do not. It is Mccarthism, and if you disagree, then check the sources. Furthermore, so what? Just because America wants it doesn't mean it's a good thing. America wanted to segergate Black people, wanted to deny them civil and human rights for hundreds of years, I don't give a shit what America wants, and other people are also allowed to not give a fuck what America wants, in fact, America was founded specifically so that people had the freedom to not give a fuck about what their government thought. Further-furthermore, no - you are talking about lenisim, which isn't the same thing as communism, if you're going to criticize something, then make sure you aren't criticizing an offshoot.
No, because the "source" is not primary, it is not backed by any other sources, it has no data or offcial record to back it up. You see, with scientific data, there are things called "photos" and "graphs" which give credence to it, this is not a "looking at a duck", this is a "looking at a paper, claiming a duck did X, whenever the writer of the paper had ample reason to lie about what Duck did, and then expecting me to believe said paper uncritically." I.E, you're an idiot. Also... the bible supports orgies, the bible supports mistresses, and the bible supports drunkness. Oh, did you not know? And you also completely ignored my argument, the bible is also against eating pork dude, you're not being consistent with the bible, cuz' you can't. Which is why you can't logically gatekeep it, too contradictory. Actually, I did have sources, three, you didn't read them. Tu quo que doesn't actually address criticism. Jesus what a joke, I haven't seen someone as inadequate at debating since Zed! Have fun being stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Again, if you are someone who denies someone human or civil rights, you no longer have the right to be tolerated. Get the fuck off your high horse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Again little time, you've missed the point.
As I said, he had no sources, claiming that he "sourced himself" isn't a good way to give the paper any credence. And yes, the book itself is propaganda. Furthermore, I'm saying it is LIKELY the FBI lied given: their is no actual evidence that the claims were true, and they had an extremely high motive to lie, therefore it is likely to be a lie. Fairly simple logic.
Again, I was using that to settle the credence of the paper, the writer was obviously discriminatory in nature, no? Thereby increasing the likelyhood of the accusations being lies. Furthermore, these are all.... well claims. Unless you can verify the claims made here, you've made exactly zero progress. Further-furthermore, to say it is a "non-sequiter" is actually a fallacy-fallacy. I was not connecting logic specifically, merely saying that the word-usage made me trust the claims less, since it increases the motive to lie, we've been over this.
Furthermore.... even if it true that he "associated with communists", so what? You do know that there were communists patriotic to America right? there is literally nothing wrong with that, you see, you buy into the red scare as much as the guys writing this... but ya know, considering this was a Mccarthinson era report, with no actual evidence, and a counter report (which you failed to read), which detailed it as exaggerative.
While it is "technically" correct, that is true, whenever making a claim that is contested it is the burden of the maker of the claim to provide adequate evidence of said claim. If 2 + 2 = 4 was in contention, the maker of the claim would have an intellectual burden to prove said claim. However, that does not apply here, as math itself is an axiom due to it's self-fulffilling nature, so this is a false-equivelency, as these claims are specific and falsifiable, you must provide evidence of their credence.
Or... if you're saying that it doesn't matter if we have sources for our claims, my counter is that, no - MLK Jr. did not do any of that stuff. It holds the exact same amount of wait using your logic.
Nope, I didn't, I merely said that claiming anyone isn't a christian because of actions they took is stupid, because doing that you could claim ALL christians aren't christians...according to the bible, actually. Since by your logic, if someone does someone "unchristian" than they aren't christian, and the bible says all men fall short of the glory of god, so... yeah, no. You see, you aren't actually critically thinking through this stuff. You just throw out fallacies you think apply when you have no idea what you're actually addressing. This is why skilled interloquitors don't do this "quote" and respond stuff like this. It often leads one to conclude that you aren't considering the entire thing in context.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Let's clear some facts mister doesn't read books apparently. The Great Depression started in 1929, Eisenhower served in World War II as a general. The Great Depression was already ending due to the New Deal, and is typically agreed to have ended during World War II. Eisenhower was a president AFTER WW II, so, what does that mean? Oh yeah, HE WAS PRESIDENT AFTER THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
hahahahahahah! oh my fucking god, 60 year old propaganda got you!
This was during the time of Mccarthyinism, not only that but your source references exactly ZERO other sources. On top of that the FBI was openly against MLK, meaning that he had explicit reasons to lie. Furthermore, this paper calls homosexuality a "sexual perversion", and black peoples "n*groes". So no, I don't take it seriously. You can wax lyrical about it being "FBI" papers all you like, that doesn't make them any more credible neccessarily, especially because they were published in 1968.
Neither of your sources have any actual references funnily enough! Additionally, so fucking what? He was a hero without doubt, who cares if he "wasn't christian", you could argue that not owning slaves could make you not christian. Regardless doesn't make him a fraud, make you an idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Unlike you Faux, some of us are capable of holding nuanced positions about leaders. I prefer Kamala Harris to like.. half of the other candidates; however, I also dislike a lot of her policies, she was a D.A after all, and I really don't like how she set precedents during that time. Furthermore yeah, she made a mix up with health stuff, at least she didn't tell us to drink bleach.
Or did you forget when your almighty leader advised that people drink bleach for the virus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I don't have the time for responding to all your bullshit, but I'll get the basics - while you are correct to say that that is the "origin" it is not the only source that comes to this conclusion. Also... what? No, we are talking about genetic diversity, not difference - they are not "sub-species" they are varied humans - the only difference genetically speaking is a level of melatin. Your racist is showing.
Distribution of SNPs: A total of 146 SNPs were found in the total sample; 53 of them were observed only once (i.e., singletons) and 22 only twice (doubletons). The number of variant sites found in the African sample was 118, of which 68 (36 singletons, 15 doubletons, and 17 others) were not found in the Eurasian sequences (i.e., they were unique). In contrast, in the Eurasian sample only 78 variant sites were found and only 28 of them (17 singletons, 4 doubletons, and 7 others) were unique, though the combined sample size was twice the African sample size. Thus, beyond the 50 variants already observed in the African sample, the combined Eurasian sample contains in addition only 17 singletons and 11 nonsingleton variants. The high frequencies of singletons in the African and Eurasian samples are similar to those observed in other studies (Kaessmannet al. 1999; Zhaoet al. 2000; Yuet al. 2001). Note that in a neutral Wright-Fisher population with θ, the expected number of mutations of size i in a random sample of n sequences is θ/i (Fu 1995). So the number of singletons should be twice the number of doubletons and thrice the number of tripletons. In our total sample we found 53 singletons, 22 doubletons, and 7 tripletons. Therefore, there is an excess of singletons, which suggests a population expansion in the recent past.
What I'm saying is that typically, white and black people are more genetically similar than black people are to other black people. So most differences you view today, are indeed due to environmental changes. Have fun being a racist.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wrong - it wasn't that long after World War II, it was right after the Great Depression finally ended - the debt was NOT paid off.
Created:
-->
@Bones
A human - a homo sapien, as for what deserves consideration - a homo sapien with the ability to think, and feel pain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ragnar discussion, he literally specified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're doing that thing again where you ignore all refutation of your points - read - it'll do wonders for ya'
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Nope - especially back in that era - Republican's wanted to settle the national debt: so they taxed the biggest resource they had.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Did.... did you just say that? Oh my god you're actually hilarious! You are going to people lecturing them about appealing to authority as you do that exact same thing... except... you're authority also has no evidence to support their claim... gee, I wonder why people consider you a joke....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Disclaimer- I don't know if this is true but, in the past, Steven Fishman has provided credible insider information.
Give me a study to verify his claims. Unlike you, I don't accept claims uncritically because an expert says them - I still expect evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You know how you constantly accuse people who accept vaccines to merely believe experts when they say, "X is true", this is you ACTUALLY doing that, this isn't evidence. Get some studies to make that claim friend.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Seems more like you like conspiracy theories to me. Plus, that... isn't the argument for vaccines - it's saying: hey, we've done wide-spread studies, and based all testing on several vaccines in the past that literally prevented genocide in the U.S
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
The problem with old and correlative data with no explanatory power:
LMAO - sure - let's let the people who "know what they're doing" run everything let's see how well that does.Supporters of IQ testing have been quick to point to correlations between IQ and job performance as evidence of test validity. A closer look at the data and results, however, suggests a rather murkier picture. Here we have acknowledged the methodological advances in meta-analyses from which such evidence has been drawn, while drawing attention to the problems surrounding them in this particular area. We conclude with a summary of the main points:
- Much in developmental theory, and psychology in general, depends upon the validity of IQ tests.
- In the absence of agreed construct validity this has weighed heavily on indirect validity using correlations with criterion outcomes among which job performance has a special status.
- Hundreds of studies prior to the 1970s reported low and/or inconsistent correlations between IQ and job performance.
- These correlations have been approximately doubled using corrections for supposed errors in primary results and combining them in meta-analyses. Such corrections have many strengths, theoretically, but are compromised in these cases by the often uncertain quality of the primary studies.
- The corrections to sampling errors, measurement errors, and to range restriction have required making a number of assumptions that may not be valid and have created a number of persistently contentious issues.
- The claim that the IQ-job performance correlation increases with job complexity is not born out in more recent studies.
- A range of other—including noncognitive—factors could explain a correlation between IQ and job performance, and even constitute part or all of the enigmatic “general factor.”
- There remains great uncertainty about the interpretation of IQ-job performance correlations and great caution needs to be exercised in using them as a basis for the validity of IQ tests and associated concepts.
As others have pointed out, statistical corrections are no magical compensation for weak data and that it is risky to reach conclusions about test validities from those currently available (Oswald & McCloy, 2003; Russell & Gilliland, 1995). The only solution is properly conducted primary studies, with larger representative samples, better measures, and so on. Until they are available, investigators should be extremely cautious about disseminating conclusions about IQ test validities, from correlations between IQ and job performance.We don't even know if IQ tests can accurately predict job success much less if they're leaders.
(This was my post from another place, running out of time for this site tonight, so this is the best you get, lol - I agree with Oromagi basically)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You missed my point - being gay is a brain state, like enjoying vanilla ice cream over chocolate - I'm not talking about acting gay in sex or whatever, I'm specifically referring to the attraction of the same gender that the definition of gay is stated to be - that is not a choice. I'm not gonna deal with your bullshit again. Read thoroughly or go away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Furthermore, you could even determine if a race, overall, is superior to another, if you agreed upon valuable human traits (potentially: survivability, intelligence, civilization-building ability, reproduction capacity, absence of negative genes etc.), and then determined which races had the most desirable genes which best produced these desirable results. Again, to say that this isn't possible is to say evolution had no effect on humans.
False. Often individuals of the same race are more varied genetically than between races - for example - black people on the whole are the most genetically diverse group of people. Any commonalities would therefore be a result of environmental conditions, if you were to say, begin selectively breeding humans then that environment would change drastically. Ultimately, this would mean any studies or experiments conducted pre-natural selection to determine the strengths and weaknesses of races would not hold any water post, as any statistically major differences would likely be null and void.
In fact, when it comes to humanity, natural selection would be very difficult to pull of at all. First of all - as Ragnar pointed out - any list of traits are going to be subjective to whatever you come up with, even if your list is objective with a certain goal in mind - that goal is ultimately subjective. Second, doing such a thing to human beings is begging to be fought back against, revolutions have been fought against for less buddy. Finally, my point, most studies conducted in such an environment as the human one, abound with variables that one can simple not account for most of them when determining groups specialities, that it would most likely result in very slow, if any, results.
So, yeah, no. That statement you so boldly proclaim is not correct. Please think through your positions more clearly. Your conclusion is reliant on assumptions and a lack of nuance in mind, more simply put, bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Sometimes religion can be useful, often it's long-term downsides outweigh its upsides. It is a system often abused by manipulators to harm the masses, often used to make riches and avoid taxes, often used for a whole bunch of bad shit.
Theists as individual are rarely as harmful by virtue of being religious - though it has incited lot's of despicable stuff: take the crusades, genocides, slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, etc.. It also often hampers individuals from sound internal logic.
Not all the time or even most of the time, but enough.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Actually it was Lunatic (i just remembered, lol), second of all - I've won several arguments against RMM. He always loses steam
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I spent several hours pouring over your posts Wylted, someone was engaged in a pretty intense debate with me about you coming back or not- I am more than aware of your posts bud. The racist ones are the least of your concerns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Incorrect: they were published in a blog section, furthermore, it was not a study... but an article, an opinion piece actually. Finally: you are aware that the results that said "vaccines causes autism" was also published in a journal? So even if you were right I wouldn't care, it is not a study, so your factually incorrect anyways, but even if you were it wouldn't be more convicning. Please double check your sources for now on, this one's buck!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wrong in every regard, again, you lack of correct information regarding sexuality and gender astounds me. The biological impulses are indeed noncontrollable, you can claim otherwise, but the data doesn't support your claim. Furthermore, it is also true that environment does have a role to play when it comes to the development of sexuality, do any of the steps require choice? No.
That would be actually forming relationships, that requires choice, everything before that is an impulse subconsiously constructed by our brain - the opposite of a "choice". Its like saying you "choose" to favor one flavor of ice cream over another, in other words - bullshit.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Haven't changed I see - how you got unbanned is beyond me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Um... no? It's about scientists hypothesizing without actually delivering any experimentation to TEST the theory out, this is exactly where psuedoscience comes from... ordinary people taking scientists hypothesis and presuming it to be correct without any further demonstration.
Additionally, the sample size for their "observation" is incredibly limited, ironic how they don't consult other sports that require the same muscles in different regions huh? Kinda fun how they haven't factored in geographical socieconomic factor, again, this is why we need studies - there are too many variables to take an explanation and assume it is correct because it is possible - regardless of how "credible" your source is, without valid content, this specific article is baseless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Except... it's not a study, its an article... by people who are theorizing things - furthermore - it even acknolwedges that it might just be a "cultural thing".... you have no idea what you're talking about... again. What happened to the actual research?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The problem is that he did a lot of illegal shit, not just suspected, but stuff we know about, furthermore - he should have been impeached.... TWICE, but both times partisan loyalty saved his ass. Cuz' even if they don't like Trump, the GOP has to bail him out of trouble, cuz' he's riled up too big a base to ignore his politics. And actual conservatives have been turned off the GOP for a long time cuz' how radical it is- hence -why the GOP has to deal with Trump. Even if he is out of office, he's set precedence's bad ones - we can't just ignore him and pretend like he doesn't exist, that's how we got a Trump in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
Trump's financial manager was indited on fraud - maybe justice for the conman we let run a country for some reason? I guess we'll see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Again - no sources, nothing - you literally only have conjecture. Also... I don't even need to debunk you myself, that
's been done a couple times- and I also did it - you merely made claims about evidence... claims that the literal studies disproved - have fun being a quack.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Um... wrong - the government does this all the time: with the military, with America as a nation, towards the police, towards fire fighters, towards people who do well on tests - the government enforces a lot of moral beliefs on others - also - unlike that stuff I'm saying Schools should say that it's OKAY to be these things - that it's "fine", is what I said - not that it's morally right - just neutral.
As it is, empirically and ethically speaking.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Mmhm, exactly why they should teach that gay, bi, trans, asexual, etc, etc, and that's it fine for them to be like that (as in normatively fine within the social contract) - those are objective facts.
Just like school ought to maintain that it's fine to be whatever ethnicity you are, or gender - because those are also facts - though I suspect one would still argue with the first line here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No - now you aren't listening at all... and you were the one who brought it up! Also.. .still wasn't wrong, they didn't mention that, at all, it was implied if you were following along. Again, if you read enough to understand that, then you knew the context and still tried to dishonestly frame it - so I accidentally misrepresented you - though I would have done that regardless - to get you to admit that you were dishonest.
Again, I already explained this, the fact that you are acting like you don't get it is further proof of my point.
Again, I already explained this, the fact that you are acting like you don't get it is further proof of my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Nope - you've completely missed the point - cuz' even if that is true - it still wouldn't matter. You see- as I explained to Lemming, my pedantics were pedantic, usually I wouldn't be so - usually I wouldn't care; however, whenever you are being so obviously dishonest- well I am very petty. You claimed:
"Even as an opinion piece, I hope both evolutionists and creationists can agree that this is just bad argumentation and should never have made it into a publication like this. But this is Critical Race Theory. Whiteness is evil and is to blame for basically everything wrong with society. I hope people can see the logical end of such reasoning."
To be honest, I was mistaken, I apologize- however -I really don't care about that.
Cuz... how do I say this plainly, it's horrible off-topic. That quote above is what I'm really here for, I wanted to see how deep you'd go with one little thing - see that's the difference - you make claims of dishonesty, I used ignorance as a tool, either way, I suppose you could call me scum - but I wouldn't care. One doesn't care much about the opinion of people like you. You like to have the technical win, the win that satisfies your ego - I want you to simply admit - you were purposely trying to dishonestly frame CRT cuz' you can't even bother to do some basic reading.
Go on then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because it got back to the point we were discussing? Your perception of a fetus isn't relevant, you aren't benjamin, and you obviously don't understand the context. You literally don't know what you're going on about, just stop - at this point I'm thinking its just dishonesty - it would match up with you well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Thats... cool - however what you don't understand is that this is a continued conversations - they aren't really "seperate" we're just continuing our conversation publically. Again, you don't know what your talking about - as per usual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Perhaps - however if you lower the total number of guns in an area - you can drastically reduce that number - especially if you could stop manufactuers importing to US soil. Of course, there is an issue of enforcement, however I do think that guns are dangerous enough to warrant high enforcement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Citizens shouldn't be allowed guns at all
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Wrong again, we had an entire discussion about this in PMs and on other chats, you simply don't know what you're talking about
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I would agree - however- FruitInspector never attempted to shed any nuance on his claim -instead trying trying to discredit CRT uncritically with an appeal to reductio ad absurdum; however, he completely cast them in a way that didn't reflect the truth of the article, literally a great example of what dishonesty is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
You weren't folllowing - he was specifically talkin' about how the article says that the iconic image explaining evolution is casuing systemic racism - which isn't true - the article never said that - did it imply that if you were following? Sure - but I'm being pedantic to prove a point, that unless Fruit was following the article, and actually understood, and interlized it's point - he wouldn't have noticed- at the very least he attempted to.
Yet, even though he did that, he didn't reveal an ounce of nuance when making this topic. He is utterly dishonest.
Created: