Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Gay people were not oppressed in the past, they did not know what the concept of "gay" means.
I didn't even see that line, the rest of your BS was so bad I couldn't even see it hidden in there. You are so wrong, you have no idea what your talking about
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Whenever you make an assertion you have the necessary burden to demonstrate that claim true, otherwise that assertion is nothing more than that... an assertion.
You are ignoring what your religion does I see - Human rights? Don't make me laugh, they were the ones hanging people for disagreeing! If Christians created human rights I guess Rome created democracy. You are correct that the protestant reformation was a reason for the development of capitilism, alongside the cloth trade and industry, both of which were despised by the catholic church (the majority of christians at the time), so, again - to say that "Christianity" created capitilism would be incorrect. Do you know what other belief that is held by christians? That the world was flat, that we live in a dome, that earth is in the center of the universe, that people who thought otherwise literally be hunted down and killed. For every advance of a Christian scientist there was the rest of religion slowing down the achievement of religion. Most times the hellenists would be the religious that actually encouraged science, which is hilarious based on your bias against pagans.
The world is becoming more and more secular, and better and better, now I'm not saying there is necessarily a causation, but there is at the very least a correlation between secular-ness and the world becoming better. Thanks to your doctrine you believe the world to be getting worse, but that isn't true whatsoever. "A secular power" Ha! The power was run by "god's chosen" there was nothing secular about it. If you fell outside of the doctrine of the bible you were hanged, also..... do you mean that the roman empire which is typically marked as the beggining of the "middle" or "dark" ages? [1] That literally doesn't work there dude, your mixing up the times, trying to find any reason whatsoever that religion isn't evil, that it hasn't caused irreparable damage to the world at large. 99% of the assertions you make aren't even supported, you are falsely giving the credit of these things to the religion because the people who made or discovered these things happened to be christian... why? Because the people with the most resources were in christian countries, because they stole them from all the other countries, because they trampled them. In fact, a good percentage of the people who made these advancements were persecuted by the church for doing what they did! That wasn't the work of the church! That was the work of brilliant people, most of whom, only believed in christianity, because for a good amount of time if you didn't you'd be socially ostracized. If not hung. Also... no other religion was as good as christians at handling society? Tell me please why other religion own countries then?
Also what the actual fuck? Are you just completely void of any logical consistency? The reason we oppress the Nazis and put them in jail is become they are ideologically focused on killing non-araians.... .me wanting them to not kill Jews doesn't mean that I deserve to be oppressed, it meas that I give a shit about people, unlike you, who seem to have no problem with the Nazis except for them "Not loving god".... the Catholic church will get back to you on that one, eh? Because muslims are oppressed and specifically targeted by people, and that's pretty unconstitutional. Not only that, but I long try to give religious freeedom, unlike you, I don't believe in theocracy. Unlike you, I want a government that doesn't love an unprovable sky daddy more than it loves its own citizens. I don't want the bible or any holy book enforced as law, because that would be a shit society. Take it how the more secular a government is, the better they are at not being corrupted, not saying a secular governement isn't corruptable, they are, as all humans are, but they are less so. Everything you claim in response isn't even a rebuttal, you don't even respond to most of my arguments, you only respond to things that you strip all context from. You try to frame it like I made certain claims and don't even rebut to those strawmen correctly! Everything about your style suggests posture and poise, no actual logic.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Prove that claim
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You assume Atheism is "lack of faith" in GodYou claim that atheists "lack faith" in God.
I do no such thing, you assume that all Atheists have a faith for their disbelief in god or lack of belief in god, I simply reject the premise as something you can't possibly know. I claim that atheist do not believe in god, in a way, yes they can lack belief in god, but that is presuming that a god exists, which you haven't demonstrated. Both of these statements show how biased you are.
Lack of faith:1 an insufficiency, shortage, or absence of something required or desired2 something that is required but is absent or in short supply
That's lack, not lack of faith
If that were the case, then Atheism is the state of not having enough faith in God, making many religious people atheists.
That is incorrect, again, you are assuming god to exist, but from an atheist's perspective, there is no one to have faith on in the first place. Your entire claim palace is a non-starter. And again, if you were to use that framing it would be "a total lack of faith in god to the point of believing god to not exist" which is not at all the same as what you are trying to compare that to, that is a false equivalence.
No, atheism is realy the belief in this claim: "God does not exist", thus, lack of faith would make an atheist doubt God nonexistance
That's not how that works, you don't need faith to not believe in a god(s), there are tons of reasons to not believe in gods, from the logical contradictory nature of god(s), to the impossibility of anything supernatural in a natural world, to the fictitous ways of religion throughout all of times, to emotional trauma. Your argument is a non-sequitur, that means your premises do not logically lead to your conclusion, you are making an invalid argument.
Lack of faith makes people agnostics, not atheists.Analyse this example:
- I lack faith in the existance of objective morality
- I am an amoralist
I never claimed that, and again, your bias is showing, I never claimed that "a lack of faith is what makes atheists" I said its a way that there could be atheists, but your rhetoric is so uninformed that there is no logical thread, I do not "lack faith in objective morality" I know it does not exist through syllogism. And you aren't necessarily an amoralist because you don't believe in objective morality, you can be a subjective or relative moralists like I am. Your example doesn't even work.
As the example clearly showed by ridiculing the idea, lack of faith does not make anyone have a strong opinion about anything.
Your entire argument is a straw man, as you were the one that claimed atheists to have a "lack of belief in god" I never claimed that, I simply said you were wrong. This entire tirade has nothing to do with my response, how about you make a proper rebuttal this time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You are factually incorrect, the time whenever the churches had the most power was literally called the dark ages, you wanna know what the age where people turned away from your rhetoric was called? The enlightenment. "Objective morality" you claim, yet you don't understand that if what god's typically spew is "morality" then I want nothing to do with morality. I could care less about having that label and more about people. I could care less about what you think I am mandated to do by some unproven god, and more concerned about how I can help other people.
Another thing, humanity is not at it's worst, where the hell did you get that idea from? Humanity is in the best spot its ever been in, less people are impoverished, less people are starving, less people are in slavery, crime per population is going down, scientific innovation is at its highest rate it has ever been, people are actually getting happier on average, now - the entire "stability" point is more subjective note that is different in different areas of the globe. My point though, is that no, humans are not at their "worst" you are just incorrect factually. You know when we were at our worst though? Whenever people dismissed scientific achievement, whenever they were hung at stake for disagreeing with what the bible said, whenever anybody who wasn't straight was burned, whenever people had to hide in fear because of religious persecution, and not just of atheists or gay people, but of other religions!
Saying the "sex revolution" or "rejection of judeo ideas" caused "unstability" is a claim and you must demonstrate your position. We were unstable before either thing became true, do you want to know what the actual chart says? That whenever we get fascist presidents, the country gets divided. Gay people aren't making things worse as you seem to think, in fact, in a lot of places - religiousity has a positive correlation with a lack of happiness, whereas secular countries have a correlation with happiness. Stability? You can look to the dude who said he would ignore the election if it didn't favor him, Trump, and has now gone on to pathetically beg senators to recount votes. what an interesting strategy. We know the cause of the unstability, and it sure isn't what you claim it to be. Now I want a straight answer, why can't there be more than one philosophy to rule a nation, because history shows that nations that are to ultranationalistic or reliant on one way of thinking go down. Another question, where the hell did you get utopia from? I never even mentioned a utopia. By the way, some people super duper deserve to be oppressed, and by oppressed, I mean put in jail. Like the literal Nazis. And some people should be protected, like muslims, from religious prosecution.
Honestly, everything you say is a biased assertion, you don't even have real syllogisms....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes there are always two sides to an argument, that doesn't mean both sides are correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Their rights should be protected same as anybody else. "Privileged" as in having more rights than other people, no, but since they are targeted more (like a denomination that literally wants state mandated executions of gay people) they should have a bit more protection. Just like if someone was being targeted by criminals and people knew, that person would get more protection. I'm not even arguing for more rights or anything like that, just an awareness that its not complete in the paradign shift of people being okay with gay people. Aka, some people still think they should not be gay
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Except you are completely biased in this question. Why is it that someone can believe in an agent only through faith? Technically speaking - you have to have some level of confidence about anything you see (due to the whole solipsist thing), so in that regard you're kinda right, in any other you are incorrect. After you presume that we share a reality, and that logic works, nothing else has to be assumed. People do not have "faith" in science. That's what someone who isn't literate in science would say, whenever something is demonstrated, whenever something has predictive is whenever it is scientific, or whenever the evidence points to a conclusion. Now - that isn't to say that people can only become an atheist through that process, plenty of Theist have claimed that the reason they believe is because of science. Now you can try to say, "Well no they don't." Well you can't read minds. So no, you have no room to say that. Your problem is like a false dichtomy but its not a dichtomy instead of two things its one, yes, atheists can believe that no god exists through faith, but they can not lack a belief in god through faith... that's not how claims work. Every time you claim, "But that makes no sense" that is your own bias talking, and the "logic" you provide proves that. You don't have any actual logic, just "that doesn't make any sense.."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
From my experience yeah, I would agree, especially around less denomination centered places
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Typically, especially if your describing the American atheist, its because the majority belief over here is christian. So that's what the majority of Atheists are specifically familiar with and what they engage with most regularly. That was my earlier experience as an atheist, but honestly I see a lot more arguments regarding just a general personal god these days. This is especially true of Atheists in the bible belt, whenever being exorcised because you came out to your parents as an atheist doesn't raise an eyebrow, you can guess where you are in the US aprox.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Exactly, but they are framed as opposites, one of the reasons its not the most accurate in that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Eh... it can be fun, and its technically meh, but the fact that you continously called me ENTP or something should only show that it's really not that accurate. I got INTP upon taking it recently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
And I have reclaimed my spot, for now, lol
Created:
-->
@ronjs
Would you mind substantiating your claims? What language specifically, please use direct quotations from my sources specifically. Also, I would like you to dispute the evidence specifically, this is your burden as you have made an assertion.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
i didn't just say so - I provided sources which demonstrate my claims. You are ignoring evidence.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's how I try to work, with any claim I make to be substantiated if it hasn't already been done so.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well thank you, I never said I disagreed, in fact the report I posted agrees with you in terms of pointing out that the Japanese would have surrendered regardless of the bomb, I just wanted specific sources for the claims you made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
As for a Five Factor Test
(Using Ocean as the acronym)
High Openness
Low Conscientiousness
Mid Extraversion
Low Aggreeability
High Neuroticism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
For me personally I used to get the "debater" type, can't remember what code that was specifically - retook it just now, I got INTP (logician) https://www.16personalities.com/intp-personality
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
It is not perfect however, and to uneducated or the undeveloped countries, the test isn't as predictive:
Why doesn’t the Big Five test hold up around the world? Lead author Rachid Laajaj, an economics researcher at the University of Los Andes in Columbia, said many of the reasons are rooted in literacy and education barriers. Many personality tests used in WEIRD countries are intended to be self-administered, designed for people who can read and write. But because of lower literacy rates in developing countries, tests may need to be given verbally. This introduces the possibility of translation or phrasing differences that could skew results.Researchers also think that face-to-face questioning allows social desirability bias to creep into the process. This means that respondents may try to interpret social cues for a “right answer” or give answers they think would be viewed more favorably by others. “Yea-saying,” or the tendency to agree with a statement even if it’s untrue, is also more common in developing countries, where there’s less access to education, the researchers say.“People may have a harder time understanding abstract questions. Acquiescence bias may be accentuated when people do not fully understand, in which case it feels safer to just agree,” Laajaj said. Additionally, the idea of personality tests — or personality itself — may not be a natural concept everywhere. Understandably, people who aren’t familiar with the idea of personality testing might be a bit wary of revealing personal details about themselves.“Imagine that you live in a poor area and someone comes to you to ask you a bunch of questions, such as how hardworking you are, whether you get stressed easily or whether you are a polite person. If it is not common for you to fill out surveys, or if it’s not clear what will be done with it, you may, for example, care more about giving a good impression than being completely truthful,” Laajaj said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I'm not sure if this is the most credible representation but it is one
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I like the Five Factor Model, as it is the most widely accepted personality theory:
"The Big Five Model, also known as the Five-Factor Model, is the most widely accepted personality theory held by psychologists today. The theory states that personality can be boiled down to five core factors, known by the acronym CANOE or OCEAN:"
Just for some context I'll quote the summing up:
Take-home Messages
- The Big Five personality traits are extraversion (also often spelled extroversion), agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism.
- Each trait represents a continuum. Individuals can fall anywhere on the continuum for each trait.
- The Big Five remain relatively stable throughout most of one’s lifetime.
- They are influenced significantly by both genes and the environment, with an estimated heritability of 50%.
- They are also known to predict certain important life outcomes such as education and health.
The same website
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
That's fair, it has been a while since I actually took the test, maybe I'll take it again and see what it thinks now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
This isn't accurate, at all, in fact I have a study that goes into it:
In a recent review of the MBTI, commissioned by the Army Research Institute, it was concluded that the instrumentshould not be used for career planning counseling.13 The Institute's analysis of the available research showed noevidence for the utility of the test. Indeed, with respect to career planning they note that "the types may simply bean example of stereotypes." I agree.The MBTI reminds us of the olvious truth that all people are not alike, but then claims that every person can be fitneatly into one of 16 boxes. I believe that MBTI attempts to force the complexities of human personality into anartificial and limiting classification scheme. The focus on the "typing" of people reduces the attention paid to theunique qualities and potential of each individual.Many readers may be surprised by my interpretation and objections to such a popular test. It has been my experiencethat this reaction stems from how they view the MBTI. In many cases, the popularity of the instrument is interpretedas an indication of its accuracy and utility, which then leads to wider use and less inclination to question thefoundations of the test. As a consequence, the MBTI has become a popular instrument for reasons unrelated to itsreliability and validity.The publishers do a very good job of promoting the test and providing support for its users. The MBTI also hasmuch intuitive appeal. The descriptions of each type are generally flattering and sufficiently vague so that most peoplewill accept the statements as true of themselves. If you tell people that they are "innovative thinkers and goodproblem solvers, and good at understanding and motivating people, but may have trouble following through ondetails of a project," they will believe that the statement is an accurate description of themselves regardless of thetruth of the statement. This phenomenon is known as the "Barnum Effect," named in honor of the great entertainer.14Because of its apparent simplicity, the MBTI may be misused unintentionally by some people. A manager, forexample, may come to believe that only certain personality types are appropriate for specific jobs. After learningabout type, such a manager may conclude that only ISTJs make good accountants whereas the best people for thesales force will be the ESFJs.15 Thus, the type label may bias a manager's decisions on hiring, firing, evaluating, andpromoting. Similarly, employees may use type labels inappropriately. Thus, one might feel that "She's an INFP, soI will never be able to work with her on an assignment," or that "I'm an ESTP and don't do well when it comes todetails."It has been my intention here to raise questions about the fundamental concepts that underlie the MBTI, and tocaution against undue reliance upon its use without fully investigating the accuracy of its test results. There isconsiderable more research available than I have cited that supports my allegations. My hope is that career counselorsand recruiters who use or plan to use the MBTI will review this research and take a long look at the value of usingpersonality type labels in their work.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Because this is an assertion without evidence on your part so far
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
There are other reports cited as apart of the survey as well as more linked text, perhaps I can buy that the survey itself doesn't fit statistical perviews, but its not like their is contradicting evidence to this report, at least not that I can find. Not to mention I have yet to see you cite anything that would actually substantiate your claims, now, this isn't me saying that your wrong per se, but I would like to see some sort of reference for your guidelines and the specifics of your claims
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
FREE-MARKET =/= CAPITALISM
Maybe not quite but they are undeniably linked, and used typically in the forms of modern capitalism
Socialism itself does not necessarily "solve" all of these "problems".
I never claimed they did, and you haven't explained why you don't see them as problems. As I've said over and over, economics aren't my strong suit, so I have no idea what implications you're alluding to or whether you on or off base with them.
Employee Ownership and or even simple profit sharing is a quite effective productivity incentive.
Evidently not
Created:
Posted in:
I'll admit that was a cheap tactic to get as many people here as possible, the naming, so just sit back, enjoy the show, I don't know how many people still care.
From:
"NO. 22O155, ORIGINALIn the Supreme Court of the United StatesSTATE OF TEXAS,Plaintiff,v.COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN,AND STATE OF WISCONSIN,Defendants.MOTION OF DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OFTHE UNITED STATES, TO INTERVENE IN HISPERSONAL CAPACITY AS CANDIDATE FORRE-ELECTION, PROPOSED BILL OF COMPLAINTIN INTERVENTION, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OFMOTION TO INTERVENE"
"Despite the chaos of election night and the dayswhich followed, the media has consistently proclaimedthat no widespread voter fraud has been proven. Butthis observation misses the point. The constitutionalissue is not whether voters committed fraud butwhether state officials violated the law by systematically loosening the measures for ballot integrity sothat fraud becomes undetectable."
Misses the point does it? The observation - the state that is suing for voter fraud just admitted that no voter fraud had been proven, they instead object that the voter fraud is being made "undetectable" by loosening voter options?
I'm sorry, MAIL IN VOTING HAS BEEN A THING SINCE THE CIVIL WAR:
"What we in the U.S. now call absentee voting first arose during the Civil War, when both Union and Confederate soldiers were given the opportunity to cast ballots from their battlefield units and have them be counted back home."
Not only that, but the entire case was dismissed for lack of standing on the Supreme Court, just like a few other ones:
"The U.S. Supreme Court last night rejected a lawsuit that tried yet again to overturn the election results. This one was brought by Texas and 17 other Republican-run states alleging election fraud in four states won by Joe Biden. It was another reverse to Republican attempts to change what happened, which, to be clear, is that Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes to Donald Trump's 232. President-elect Biden also won the popular vote by more than seven million. We're joined now by NPR voting reporter Miles Parks. Miles, thanks so much for being with us."
The actual facts of the matter seem pretty dealt with to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
I mean... their are literally verse talking about how you won't be punished if the slave survives a beating because that slave is your property..... I quoted it earlier, the bible clearly shows numerous signs that the slaves are dehumanized, they are property, and they are set free based on time - not wages - because lemme tell ya something indentured servitude is a form of slavery
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
whatever you say oh great consistent fauxlaw
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Except every time I bring it up you just repeat yourself without at all addressing my arguments - I addressed your arguments so thoroughly I had three paragraphs to every line of yours. You have failed to bring up a single point I brought up there. Flying off the handle? If you think that's me flying off the handle you are hilariously incompetent at judging what that phrase means.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Shouting match? I continuously pointed out what the thread was about, and told him to get back on track and he ignored me, lol. Not only that - this does have some minor relevance to the discussion. Not only that no... the thread is about your best argument for god, not... anecdotes. Again, if you were to actually read it, every time I pushed on the issue, for him to prove his argument for god, he immediately ran from it. Ignored my entire rebuttal to put an end to it and all. You have fun with those anecdotes.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Keep on yacking, you have failed to address any of my arguments
Created:
-->
@Mopac
To be clear I want you to prove that there is an "who" that created the universe, if you have some specific version of god with certain qualities you would have to prove that too
Created:
-->
@Tarik
And you have blown your shot, good day.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No... you didn't there is a definition, just not a specific one - again - as you would know if you actually read it: there is a fundamental meaning to well being, there is just no specific definition that experts agree on - in fact - there is a definition of well-being, its outdated but its there "The state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy." Which is fundamentally the same definition I use. You literally just hand wave away arguments. No. I am done with your red herrings, your tu quoques, your non-sequiturs and your hand waving. Either address the argument or this conversation is over. Period.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Well too bad, I could care less what you think on the subject, there is a definition - just because you don't understand how something works doesn't give you the logical permission to get rid of it, or did you ignore my argument? I made a three paragraph rebuttal. Actually respond instead of repeating yourself.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Everything I wanted to say is in those 10 paragraphs, why don't we go line by line
Okay first of all drop the well being point because the fact that there’s no consensus around the definition means that anyone is free to define it as they please meaning an opposing definition is just as good as yours
That is incorrect, and I explained why there but to concisely explain - your point is a non sequitur, just because there is no specifically consensus agreed definition does not mean that their isn't a broad one, an example of such would be knowledge, but I expect at least a response to one paragraph at a time.
"Incorrect - there is a general definition that it went on to describe, there is no specific consensus definition, but that does not mean that the definition is subject to change. Your logic is flawed, how does the fact that their isn't a specific definition mean that you can change it's fundamental meaning? It doesn't it means you can change a word or two, but the fundamental message is there. Not only that, but we've already went over why you're incorrect here, this is a repeat in my lessons I see. "
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Nothing you say is at all a sequitur (something in which the premises lead to a logically nececissent conclusion)
Okay first of all drop the well being point because the fact that there’s no consensus around the definition means that anyone is free to define it as they please meaning an opposing definition is just as good as yours
Incorrect - there is a general definition that it went on to describe, there is no specific consensus definition, but that does not mean that the definition is subject to change. Your logic is flawed, how does the fact that their isn't a specific definition mean that you can change it's fundamental meaning? It doesn't it means you can change a word or two, but the fundamental message is there. Not only that, but we've already went over why you're incorrect here, this is a repeat in my lessons I see.
The meaning of well-being here is concisely stated as, "The mental and physical state- more specifically the positive bearing of them" which is quite detailed in what it means, not at all subject to change. That is what I mean when I say the words "well-being". That definition fits with the general meaning of well-being. Would you like to know another word without one specific definition that the experts also lack a consensus on? Knowledge, yet still we have a broad knowing of what knowledge is do we not?
On a third point -"Any opposing definition is as good as yours" in what regard? Why? Could you demonstrate that something that has nothing to do with the accepted general definition of well-being means well being? For example - "A fluffy item used to rest your head on" Is, objectively speaking, not a better way to describe well being than what I described. Another thing, none of my arguments are contingent on the point, so even if you did have a point, it wouldn't be relevant to our debate.
second emotional fallacy doesn’t apply when you add logic to the equation and if there is indeed a God (which I believe there is) then it is completely logical to love Him
Also wrong, there is no such thing as the "emotional fallacy" that has never been what its referred to, it is the appeal to emotion, and the reason henceforth is that name perfectly describes what it is we're talking about - an appeal to emotion to prove x true. You can actually have an argument of logic and appeals to emotion, in fact, the popular marketing principle says that you should favor using logic and emotion, and that could still be an appeal to emotion, or have you never heard of ethos, pathos, logos?
Second of all I object to the notion that - "if there is indeed a God then it is completely logical to love him" how so? In what regard? Why? Do you have any evidence for this proposition that you just thrust into the argument? Do you have any at all logic to support your statement, all you have hear is an assertion that your asking me to accept, have you not read the name of the forum, you're supposed to be providing an argument not an assertion, too bad you been too busy dilly dalling.
Finally my objection to this is that if this is your standard for what is and isn't an appeal to emotion, then my argument should not at all be an appeal to emotion - I argued that it is beneficial for humans to value other human beings, since that encourages them to care for you, which is more benefit for you. Thus the pragmatic would have to necessarily agree with my conclusion, that doesn't even use emotion to conclude it's conclusion, but if it did, you can bet there was also logic, by your logic that precludes it from any appeal to emotion.
and don’t be ridiculous if the subject is murder and you say you shouldn’t murder because I care about humans then that would be an emotional fallacious argument.
That wasn't my argument, is my first objection, but that would be repeating myself. It seems no mater how many times I correct you, you simply pay no attention to my pleas to actually read my arguments, in fact, who I am kidding, I'll be surprised if do more than skim this passage, but' I'll continue my tirade nevertheless. Actually no - to say that you care about humans therefore you should not murder them is not necessarily an appeal to emotion. I know its hard to understand so pay close attention now.
If you come to the pragmatic conclusion that you should value other human lives, then the obvious is also apparent - that you shouldn't murder them. Thus, I care about humans therefore you should not murder them. You are conflating what makes you emotional with actual appeals to emotion, just as you are confusing assertions for arguments and your bullshit for rhetoric. Futhermore, there is actually another way that you could claim this to be true, and that would be through populus.
If you live in a society that means you have signed a social contract whether you like it or not, by that social contract you should not harm others or break the law, you should care for others and care about human beings, and if you do, the society will take care of you, you will be generally accepted and you won't be ostracized, therefore, I care about humans, you shouldn't murder. You are wrong on so many levels I could continue on and on and on with these arguments to mark you wrong.
This paragraph that you wrote is so jam-packed full of lies and assertions without evidence and such a fundamental misunderstanding of not only logical fallacies, but the principles of logic - that I would assert it is not unjust for me to send you back to proper school. Maybe take a course or three about logic, about fallacies, about philosophy, maybe they'll teach you a thing or three. It was so condense with bad arguments that I could write 10 paragraphs of response, isn't that amazing.
Just a P.S this is the third post asking for you to demonstrate your assertion - you decide which
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That wasn't what I was referring to, but okay let's deal with this malarkey. Wrong, I value the well being because it is pragmatic and demonstrative to do so, as I already explained. Yes I care about them, but that's like saying, "You say you love God? That means your argument proving him is an emotional fallacy, wrong!" Yes I care about people but that's not the reasoning behind my argument, the two facts are completely unrelated. If I said, "MOrality is subjective because I care about humans" then you would have a point, but I never said that, not once. You should learn some logical fallacies, you have commited tons. I can't accept something that isn't even a proper citation of an appeal to emotion, your rhetoric in the field of fallacies is so incomprehensible, its attrocious. Let me teach you a few things, shall I?
The burden of proof - whenever you make a claim you have the necessary burden to provide evidence
An appeal to emotion - whenever you claim that x is true because of emotion, or whenever you appeal to emotion to conclude that x is true
Tu quoque - whenever you fail to address your interlocutor's criticism of your argument, and instead turn it back at them. Example: Person X says - You clearly didn't change your bedsheets this moring person y. Person Y: Neither did you!
Notice that person Y doesn't actually refute the criticism, instead they simply point it back at person x.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I was referring to the argument I made originally that you attacked semantically and then completely dropped that point.... And again.... don't change the subject, demonstrate your assertion, this is the second post I'm asking.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Cool, you have claimed that god is the ultimate reality, prove it. Thats all I ask, of course I don't see that, because you haven't demonstrated it. If I were to use your logic and just "give charity" then I would believe in every religion, that doesn't work.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No... because my position has been supported by the literal nature of how prinicples are, which I already explained, not only this, from that assertion you would have to demonstrate something..... go ahead, I'll wait.... what's that? You have failed to demonstrate a single thing so far, and everytime I push you you run? So let's stop with all of the tu quoque from your side, and you actually demonstrate your position.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
First I came to the conclusion that morals aren't objective because of the whole lack of an objective moral link from standard to morality. Then I realized that that was because the moral link was subjective. Boom done.
Also, you are committing the fallacy fallacy - which is to claim that because something is fallacious is is necessarily incorrect, which is actually false - but you would also be wrong in the fact that i am not appeal to emotion, never once did I appeal to emotion, you are literally the only one that at all adds emotion to the argument, in fact, you WANT me to add emotions to the argument, and I say, "No." Because not only did I never do that, but I don't need to appeal to emotions. Actually read the forum please before asking more questions.
Created:
-->
@Death23
Christ thats diabolical... I'd probably want to live out Alexander Hamilton's life, I think it would be very interesting to see the foundation of America and I'm sure I would learn a lot about writing in general from being him
Created:
Created:
-->
@Tarik
"Emotional by default", what a claim you have failed to substantiate. Interesting how you always seem to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
What conclusion would that be? You do not believe the bible, and think the verses that "condone" slavery overwhelm the ones that don't, what would a verse quote do for you now?
"The bible teaches that...1. Men cannot own another man. God owns all men.2. That a man can sell his debt. His services, not his person.3. Slavery does not free the believer from having to obey GodAncient Hebrews did not think men could be owned by other men, so a specific command condemning slavery would not have made sense. Plus, other commandments adequately cover slavery."
All of the above, just to demonstrate that you actually have any footing at all
I forgot nothing. That verse says they are your money, as in your investment, not as your property. The reason beating slaves (and not only slaves) back then was that we had no societal systems like jails and police and courts. It still is not proof that slaves were owned as property.
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Exodus 21: 20-21
God could have established any of the above if he chose to, he could have said, "You shalt not own slaves" period, but he didn't, instead, there are loopy and contradictory passages that we are debating over now. I guess you were right about one thing, most of this isn't a logic thing, it's a you ignoring evidence that points to the opposite conclusion.
In most of the world today, children are still commonly beaten. But those that live in the west get bamboozled by their environment, and think theirs is the only moral way. A slave in biblical times was working off a debt. Harming him would harm the master's investment and did not make sense.
They are people who work for no pay and can be beaten at their masters transgression.... hmmmm. Even the bible calls them property and money interchangably, the point is that in the eyes of the bible these "indentured servants" don't have the same rights as everyone else, and they are treated as essential slaves if they weren't technically them. "working off a debt" interesting claim there, you have examples of some slaves working off a debt, yet that doesn't at all prove that all of them are. In fact, I would argue that the distinction in the bible between servant and slave clearly shows that these things are different. "Harming him would harm the master's investment and did not make sense" That's the same argument that slavers made in the south... just saying. As they were also "investments"
The prohibition and punishment for the master who maimed or killed a slave was not condoning slavery but to prevent them from thinking they owned the slave and thus taking undue advantage of them.
Thats incorrect..... because it literally said in the verse I cited that you could beat them as long as they didn't die.... with a rod.... similar to the tools that english and American slavers used before the whip..... hmmmmm.... I wonder what that's referring to? The punishment was most probably to save some sort of face to make them feel some percentage better about themselves, but theologically speaking, the reason that the punishment for doing these crimes was lesser for slaves than for other humans? Because it was dehumanizing them, a establishing trait in chattel slavery, just like the bible did to animals...... look, theres a pattern, don't want to alarm you.
Your only experience with slavery is the movies you've seen about the American south, so you view the slavery in the bible through that lens. That is incorrect. The slavery in the bible was indentured servitude, and was entered into voluntarily by the slave. He sold his debt, (a thing still done today) not his person.
Hahahahahahaha! Your arrogance is noted and cast away, first of all, I've seen one movie about chattel slavery in my entire life, most of it comes from studying the documentation of the time from both the north, the south, and the slaves who managed to learn how to write, one famous example you might have heard of is one, Frederick Douglass. That's an example of something I've read. Its not the only thing I've read though, and I have heard and subsequently looked into serfdom and things similar. Funnily enough, in most records, they drew a line at physical punishment unless bills were overdo, though a lot of collectors were like that overall. Another difference is that yes, in indentured servatude you weren't seen as property as much. So... the fact that the bible calls them property kind of completely debunks you there.... Also, voluntarily? "You may take your slaves from the nations around you" Or that one time after a battle god said to "Not kill the woman or children and take them for yourself". Hmm..... voluntarily. Another thing, there was always a clear distinction in the law for "god's people" and everyone else, gods people being treated noticeably better by him and with more prohibitions amongst them.
Which is why, unlike the American south, a master suffered a penalty for harming or killing his slave.
Uh uh uh, you can't get away with that, certain overseers in the south would actually suffer penalties for too much harm to a slave, and this "penalty" only applies if the slave didn't die in a day or two, and if that slave specifically lost their eye.... that isn't an abuseable system at all - no sir. "Logical" pfff
Created: