Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Also, you are just factually incorrect
UsageOn the difference in use between the words sex (in sense 2 above) and gender, see
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Let's not, the psychological definition, which in terms of gender has more authority than the OED, says they are distinct. No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, but we do have footage of everyone who did commit a crime. That also isn't how it works, its kind of funny that you seem to want to add nuance to a discussion, but you are now detracting nuance from my statements. The law says that what those people did was a crime, the way to address that as is consistent is to arrest them and give them due trial as everyone has.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Okay this is the kind of thing I was talking about before, that was a red herring, that isn't what I argued - I argued that because they all participated in the actual riot - also, do you plan on responding to any other bit except that small out of context one? Because that becomes very annoying very quickly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@3RU7AL
You are correct that it is impossible to read Trump's mind; however, we can look through the logical implications and context of Trump's words. This is a thing established in court all of the time, but it is true that it is Trump sincerely believed what he said.
There are a couple of points that point to that... not being the case:
- Trump's admitted trait of lying (see the "I didn't say anything as to not create panic" tapes and those things)
- Trump's several instances of criminal behavior and pardoning of those who are also criminal (and in a lot of cases not a little criminal, but a lotta criminal)
- The actual phrasing of his request; "I just want to find 11,780 votes,"
- The seeing, threat of blackmail if he refuses; ""You know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal offence. You can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer,"
It is not a case of reading his mind, but finding what is most likely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
The law determines what is and isn't trespassing, not the police, not to mention the police were in lots of circumstances -PERSONALLY BIASED, as in they were practically apart of the protest. Furthermore, some of the rioters were let in, not the vast majority like you claim, it was happening for hours. Even more so, even if the police "let them in" they did not:
- allow weapons such as guns, bombs, or pitch forks
- allow personal attacks on persons
- allow to access and dig around through personal computers and steal information
Finally THE POLICE don't even have the actual authority to let people in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I would say not really, but the technical classification is there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
But they are domestic terrorists, by definition, the argument is whether that definition is helpful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's not the point, and I never tried to assert that they were "terrorist" I did assert that they are morally wrong, and their motivations are not reasonable. "Targeted assassinations" I would say that is almost always wrong, there are situations where it is not, but I would argue that is wrong the majority of the time. I would say that the BLM versions of this are arguably just, because of the predation, continuance, and implicitness in the act of systematically oppressing an ethnic group, but- that does not transfer to the group that performed sedition on the capitol. I am using a broad brush because they all supported the action, and its not just the violence but the fundamental upheaval of democracy. Democracy is typically a system that ought to be upheld, if there is a just reason to go against it in circumstances then it should be, if there is no just reason, then it is unjust to bar it. Therefore it was unjust for the seditioners to be riot in that way. They sought to interupt, harm, and stop the process of democracy, not only for a wrong reason, but without proper moral obligation.
Let's say that the election had been stolen, that would have been a reason for something like this - but - even then the degree of sedition was still morally wrong, and would be misplaced, in other words, even if their reasons were correct - they would still be in the wrong, but their reasons were obviously incorrect, and they are fundamentally in the wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I would say that the difference is what they did, which included pipe bombs and physically threaten to harm or injure state officials because of a "fradulent election" you are correct that all elections are, but what you have no correctly identified is the degree, the fradulent nature of election, and this one in particular is statistically insignificant, they would not meaningfully change the course of the election one way or another. That means that their motivation was not "reasonable" as you claim it is. Furthermore, I draw the line at killing or attempted killing, kidnapping, or things of that nature whenever it comes to riots as being the goal of that riot. Which is why I disagree and would indeed call this act of sedition too far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you support, generally, the kind of thing they did - but not this one. Why do you specifically disagree with this one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm curious, do you support the sedition that happened at the capitol? Do you think it equates with BLM protests? Do you think it was the right thing for the wrong reasons? I wanna hear your take, since I'm getting mixed vibes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I mean I tried - because honestly it seems like Ebuc is jumping around and using actual facts sprinkled in to make it seem credible, but the fact that they can't break it down makes me suspicious
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The hypocrisy that often comes up from doing military acts on other nations is that "it only counts if someone does it to us" or "it was justified, what they did wasn't" or other things like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"The activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power." I'd say that military and political aims are very intertwined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Generally or specifically? Because for once, Wiki provides, with very sourced and findable reasons:
In Osama bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[3][4] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[4][5][6] US support of Israel,[7][8] and sanctions against Iraq.[9]
Here's a link to his letter
It's really not that hard to find... did you not think there were any?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No. Because it says, "unlawful violence and intimidation" therefore solely intimidation is not enough
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You have done the same thing again, second of all, nobody knows how you're getting your numbers, what are you observing, you have shown shapes of the universe yes, but I don't see the logical connection. Anytime someone tries to ask you just ignore the main question and go off on rants about how they're just playing "mind games". It seems like you're the one doing that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If that mobster employed violent means to get his votes, lets say sent a whole bunch of goons to stop people from voting his opponent, to get voted in, sure. Though it isn't the first example that comes to mind
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Specifically?
I think the Lexico definition hits it pretty spot on: "A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I've actually already watched that, and as I said, the entire "qualified immunity" is a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Mm, well then change that. In the 20th century the word "woman" was used derogatorily, now it's (in most cases) just a descriptor, not used like that anymore. The thing is, Terrorist actually does mean a specific thing, so it is actually a useful adjective, because there is a distinction between terrorist's and regular criminals. But overall a terrorist is still a criminal. My point is - the word is what we make of it, the actual connotations aren't core to the word, and can be dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You have... just copied and pasted, repeated yourself, down to the same spelling error in "equilibrium." Are you going to fully address my questions or not? Because if you're going to be dishonest then you could stop pretending you want to explain it to others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Mind games. Respond to anything beyond a single line. Go ahead. Look into any question's context, can you not understand basic sequential questioning? It's not rocket science, but it is complex frequencies and comoslogical geometric shape, that is complex. Whether you like it or not. Phds literally argue about this stuff back and forth, but you can't engage beyond the very surface level because you're afraid of dipping your toes in anything past your speciality. Go ahead. Refuse to engage. I already gave you my questions, I have to see all of them answered to my satisfaction. Seeing as you cut out large swaths of text and all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
First of all, I very particularly said that they could be - I simply said, as far as I'm aware neither describe my brand. Progressivism in general is a belief in social reform - think age of enlightenment. Not to say it's necessarily the "next big thing" but the values of moving forward for social equality and advancement.
Cool. You don't believe in atheists. You also aren't the best at arguing for a god's existence, and still think that "testimony" is good enough evidence for your supposed god. Furthermore I have a pretty solid definition of god that I use regularly. The fact of that matter is that theists shift that around all the time, not the other way around. So typically I meet people where they are, the exception is whenever they try to make the definition of god an assertion. That's pedantic nonsense.
Finally, an appeal to ignorance isn't an argument, its a fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I didn't know what any of it means, I reference a single thing in the paragraph you refused to quote! "Mind games.." I'm a 16 year old who's tooken a semester of physics, sure. I am not accusing of you saying that, I asked questions, I do not have the inclination to go line by line if you can't even address everything my three paragraph thing said. You are the one being manipulative here. I see now, any time you get any criticism you don't talk about the other person's logic, you just jump to, "mind games". Sure. Pretend you aren't an infuriating human being to talk to. Maybe the reason why no one listens is because no one else is going to study this in depth, so if you want to teach somebody something, you simplify it in terms that most people get. I'm sorry, but "concentric tori" is a thing of space shaped like a macoroni. That's what I presented a link of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The actual fuck? I was willing to think that you actually wanted to convince people, but I fail to see actually reading my response. You cut half of the context! I had no idea what you were talking about, so I was asking if what you meant was what I thought it meant. I provided a link to be clear. Now you're just being an jerk. I am not trying to debate or even say you're wrong, I don't know what you're talking about. Numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 can not have fucking radii, they are not shapes, shapes can have radii. Fundamentally you just bark at anything you perceive a threat, reread my post with that context.
Created:
Posted in:
Why do atheists have an attitude? I'll restrain myself from laughing. Reread some stuff then ask that again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't particularly care, maybe there is, I haven't researched it. Neither, as far as I'm aware, describe my brand of it. Second of all, we've already talked about what you think of athiesm, and I think your replies there speak plenty for what you can prove about that. Finally, atheism isn't an ideology, it is literally just not believing something. So of course they believe opposite things, just like there are all kinds of theists who believe contradicting stuff. The only thing tying the groups of people together is their belief or lack of belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I really don't feel bothered responding to the whole thing, I tried waiting for a bit, and maybe I'll get to more of it later, but currently I think its a long drawn out thing where you are ignoring entire paragraphs with a joke of a rebuttal. I get the impression you aren't taking it seriously.
Simply put -
"Early childbirth is especially dangerous for adolescents and their infants. Compared to women between the ages of 20-35, pregnant women under 20 are at a greater risk for death and disease including bleeding during pregnancy, toxemia, hemorrhage, prolonged and difficult labor, severe anemia, and disability. Life-long social and economic disadvantages may be a consequence of teenage birth. Educational and career opportunities may be limited, as may be opportunities for marriage. Teen mothers tend to have larger completed family sizes, shorter birth intervals resulting in both poorer health status for the family, and a more severe level of poverty. The children also suffer; teens mothers have a higher incidence of low birth weight infants which is associated with birth injuries, serious childhood illness, and mental and physical disabilities. Adolescents' access to family planning information and services is limited. Government programs in developing countries have focused on older women to limit family size. In addition, national laws and local customs often prohibit minors from consenting to medical services. "
The consequences of sex early is dangerous, especially whenever the teenagers aren't properly educated because they are being force taught "abstinence". Furthermore, a high percentage of sex that is had, especially teenage, is coerced. Because teenagers are more easily manipulated then adults, because your brain is still in development until your 25, and lots of things, like alchohol, can permanently affect it in negative ways. Hence people wanting to up the age of consent. Abortion - is correcting something. Go on with your preaching bullshit about terminating all you like, abortion is not necessarily "termination." It is also the term for c-sections in later trimesters.
To your next point - you keep on with ignoring my examples, I keep ignoring your repetitive rhetoric. I frankly don't care enough to respond to that long rabble of excuses, especially not whenever you dismiss half of my paragraphs with hand wavy excuses, that, to me, seem like you don't care about a dialouge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The problem isn't the word, its a category, the problem is the connotation and criminal system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Police are protected by a legal doctrine called "qualified immunity" which states that (IFF) the officer believed at the time that what they were doing was perfectly legal, (THEN) their case can be dismissed. [LINK]
Regardless of the whole trump fiasco. That, above, is a problem
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I'm going to be honest, I'm just a little lost. radii? As in the "line" that would be from the center of a sphere or circle to the circumference? So a hexagon has six vertices, okay. 6n +/- 1. Okay... "two raddii of primes" I assume you mean "radii" but how do numbers have radii? You say primes (and non primes)... so why not just say all numbers? Not to mention prime numbers are just numbers who's only multiples are 1 and itself, so unless I'm missing something I don't see the particular relevance. Getting into it I suppose I see the "6th radii" but where are you counting from? Which direction? If I were to assume the first position was roughly "12" and move forward by two for every radii, just for ease of communication the points would be, 12, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. I suppose you could say that 12 is the 6th radii? So then all prime numbers fall in that radii.. In what regard? Are you talking about the structure of atoms? Of waves? Of photons? Of frequencies?
Vector Vquilibrium? I assume you mean equilibrium? Also, I did some background research, and found this -
"As has been stated throughout this website, the Vector Equilibrium (VE) is the most primary geometric energy array in the cosmos. According to Bucky Fuller, the VE is more appropriately referred to as a “system” than as a structure, due to it having square faces that are inherently unstable and therefore non-structural. Given its primary role in the vector-based forms of the cosmos, though, we include it in this section."
concentric tori? Now, this might seem like I'm mocking you but I'm really not, do you mean that macoroni shaped thing? This guy: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/the-concentric-tori-T-l-in-blue-and-T-L-in-orange-here-we-have-fixed-l-R-3-5-L-R_fig1_323957077
I'm not sure how they would overlap? Like..nevermind... I found it: http://pages.physics.cornell.edu/~sethna/teaching/sss/jupiter/Web/Chaos.htm
Are you referencing this? https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMSA44A..06P/abstract
Significant deviations of SuperDARN radar transmissions from their expected great-circle paths have been detected at ionospheric altitudes using the Radio Receiver Instrument (RRI) on the Enhanced Polar Outflow Probe (e-POP). Experiments between SuperDARN Rankin Inlet and e-POP RRI were conducted at similar local times over consecutive days. Customized experiment modes which incorporated the agile frequency switching capabilities of each system were used.
This is talking about deviating from it, but I assume that's what you're talking about.
"In the current generation of global dispersion maps of surface waves, the long-wavelength structure seems to be very well determined. There is general agreement in the patterns of global phase velocity anomalies up to harmonic degree l≃6. However, the shorter-wavelength structure varies significantly between published maps, and it appears that this part of the models depends strongly on the inversion technique and on the data set of surface-wave dispersion (usually phase measurements). Polarization data depend on the lateral gradient of phase velocity and hence are more sensitive to shorter-wavelength structure than phase data; thus, including these data should enhance resolution. In this paper, I demonstrate that polarization data of long-period surface waves (≥80 s), as a function of frequency, can be reliably measured using a multitaper technique."
Also what do you mean by the unit p? As far as I knew frequency was measured in hertz?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Question.
Are you not part of that "everything"?
Do you think I randomly parrot opinions of people?
I could point you in the direction of some major disagreement between me and some person you think I've copied from.
I am very argumentative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And I disagree with the practice, thus, terrorist should get civil rights. A terrorist is a criminal, just a criminal who engaged in crime of a higher degree and specific sort - I don't think that rids of us moral obligation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
DO YOU BELIEVE PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CRIMES SHOULD BE GUARANTEED CIVIL RIGHTS?
Yes, including terrorists.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Except, according to other lawyers... .its noteriously bad in court, at least if you have literally any other type of evidence
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Rule out evidence? Do you mean "testimony" the evidence type that we have non testimonial evidence is the weakest form of evidence, and is essentially just a bunch of claims without other evidence? That type of evidence?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You have failed to answer a single call to refutation. I see no reason to continue unless you do so. "What evidence would convince you?" I don't know, otherwise I probably wouldn't be an atheist would I? Are you saying that people can randomly think up standards and apply that to propositions? I would accept evidence that was demonstratable, verified, and logically leads to the conclusion of god. You have provided none of that. Furthermore, your entire "which authority is greater" is bullshit. Humans most likely created the god of the bible and every other god. So you claiming, "who do you trust" is assuming that god exists, which is literally half of your arguments. Its not hidden, you are obviously only making arguments with the hidden premise that they exist... not very convincing to someone who doesn't believe in god.
As i pointed out before, you are making a fallacy of composition, you are positing that there must be shared qualities behind the components of something and the complete or developed version, this is untrue. That is basic rhetoric. Even more stressingly you are assuming objective morals and an ultimate principle? Why? Either - A) God exists, or B) You want them to be true, therefore in order for me to accept that there is objective morality you would have to demonstrate that there is either objective morality or a god that made objective morality (hint hint - there are instances in which a god exists and there is no objective morality please stop with your presumptions.) Where is your evidence that logic isn't an abstract truth? That is can exist without humans or any minds? Because as far as I can tell, it doesn't matter if bobby realizes the rule of excluded middles, its true.
Happenstance isn't the process from which the universe "began" (I say that loosely), it is describing the probability of which it occurred, so I would appreciate you stopping your strawmen. Furthermore you do not need intent to start for there to develop intent later on - for example - the cognitive processes which determine our mood, intelligence, and personality, also determine intent from consciousness... which can develop naturally. You can get from a gamete (a single sex cell with no palpable "intent" just the evolutionary motive to go forward) to a human, or even further back, a piece of encoded DNA protein. A lot of this is just you failing 9th and 10th grade apparently. Okay so the universe is a open system, cool, all that tells you is that based on the laws of causality there should be something which "caused that." Except.... we don't know if the laws of causality even extend to before the big bang.... because there was no time.
Furthermore, do you have evidence that there was god? I'm not even all against the idea that there was a cause, but you have not shown any evidence of what that cause was? You are basically using the kalam cosmological arugment: Everything has a cause, the universe had a cause, therefore god caused it. Now, that actually gives a discredit to the actual version of the argument, but its more akin to what you're doing. That is a non-sequitur, please demonstrate exactly what leads you to believe that god created the universe, i.e caused the big bang. So far all you have given is, "because the bible said so." You claim that god is trancendent, but that is begging the question and has yet to be demonstrated, if you are trying to argue that god is axiomatic, you are saying that only the notion of god would be able to dismiss the notion of god, which is false, as logic can do that, and you have yet to demonstrate that god caused logic, or that god exists.
You are one big mess full of presumptions. You say there are plenty of proofs? Not ones that haven't already been demonstrated in this thread. You keep on running away whenever people push you to prove these things, and then go, "Oh there are plenty of proofs" then present and demonstrate them, instead of saying things like, "Your world view biases you" Cool observation, so does yours, would that be a proper rebuttal? "Your world view biases you, you won't accept any proofs!" No. No it would not be. You have yet to prove that any miracles happen. And no, I don't accept the bible because it says its true! Why the hell would anyone believe a book to be true solely because it said it was true? If a comic-book said everything in it was true, and then went on to what the bible did, no one would believe it. Why? Because you don't believe books are true just because they say they are!
Your insistence that "No one was there, we couldn't know" stinks of Kent Hovid. Are you saying the only way to solve murder is by seeing it happen? Is that what you are claiming? Are you saying that the only way of figuring out who washed the dishes is by seeing them wash the dishes? No. NO it's not. You can see the demonstratable effects and test them to see if they can cause predictable results, you can test, and eventually demonstrate things by running experimentation. That isn't, "Whoop de de, I want... big bang! Yeeeeaaaaah, I just made that up!" No. You have yet to properly refute the evidence of the things I demonstrated in fact, you didn't even touch most of my sources I provided. And the refutations you tried to provide were incoherent. I honestly don't take you seriously.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
This isn't me disagreeing, this is me legitimately curious where you got those numbers? From my brief research I've learned that positvely and negatively curved shapes are typically what people use to describe the shape of the universe, so I can infer that you are speaking about the specific shapes of gravity and time? Furthermore you extrapolate based off of that shape to come to some conclusion? I am curious where you got your numbers from? Do you have an academic resource, did you do and publish the tests yourself? Are they common knowledge I haven't stumbled onto? I am skeptical of every claim until it's been demonstrated, so this isn't a case where I'm saying I don't believe it, but I'm not convinced yet either.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I would go line and by line an debunk your claims but frankly I don't feel like it and I don't really think its necessary. The difference between you and I is that I don't assume a god to exist. You want there to be objective morality therefore you suppose god, you want there to be some kind of objective purpose, therefore you assert god, etc, etc... whereas I won't try to insert my headcannon into the universe I will except the evidence if it is verifiable and demonstrated. You have failed to strip any of my sources of these two qualities, only letting me know how biased you are against actual reasoning. Whenever I asked you to demonstrate claims, you attempt to claim that I'm "deflecting" but asking you to demonstrate the claims you made isn't "deflecting". The fact is - your "rebuttals" if I should even call them that, are preceded on assumptions and assertions, in order for that rebuttal to hold any ground, you must first demonstrate that position. Finally I just wanted to address a fundamental error you have in logic, and that is an fallacy of composition - you assume that something which is complete necessarily holds the properties of the things that made it up, or vica verca, that is not true. A universe could be completely aimless, but the results of chemicals setting has resulted in humans with high enough cognitive process to make up our own goals. The principle you are working on is literally a fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Again, you haven't explained why my definition is bogus, you have claimed it is, again, but you haven't actually provided reasoning besides saying that words have different meanings. cool. Why is your appropriate and mine not? We are talking about an abstract, and where do you get that definition? It seems like you made it up to support your conclusion. :/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Do you know what the purpose of a semicolon is in a definition? Typically its to explain a draw a link between a phrase and one word, in this instance - "not dependent on the mind for existence" is synonymous with actual, therefore "dependent on the mind for existence" is the direct antonym for that meaning of actual. Second, explain how that definition is bogus. Your proper reasoning, it is in reference to abstract concepts like morality, why are you claiming it to be bogus? What is your reasoning for throwing away that definition?
You continue to assert that i'm using the wrong definition but have provided no reasoning for that - your claim that everything depends on the mind of god, demonstrate that claim. And also... no. Hypothetically speaking, if there were a god, he would create that with objectivity - the things to make it would exist, its not a product of that god's mind but their power or "omnipotence'. For example: I could create a model boat, that boat would still be objectively existent, it is not a direct product of my mind, it is one of my skill and hands. A machine could do that given the instruction without any need for a mind.
what is your definition of objective? Not that you've provided any reasoning to say mine is bad besides your opinion, but I'd like to hear yours since you hold it in such high regard
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Debates or even conversations are rarely held to convince the other person, and they rarely do - even if one side has solidly won - but to convince others around you of your beliefs and opinions. Not to mention it shows that you aren't just hand-waving things away, so whenever you later on reference the other parties behavior you have clear points you can quote and show your response was logical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Then point out the fallacy while dismantling the off-topic, it isn't useful to just tell people to shut up, instead point out their fallacies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Shut up
A brilliant response if I've ever seen one.
Created: