Theweakeredge

Eat a slug, been there done that, it wasn't so bad.

It most definitely wasn't, but it's also the fact that I am absolutely terrible at keeping on top of assignments from home. 

Demonstrate why its a truism, all you are doing is providing empty assertions. How about this, I do not believe a word you type, until you provide evidence that it's true, does that make it easier for you to understand my position here?

Well thank you for the compliments, but just for clarification. 

I didn't particularly choose to be an atheist, nor do I choose to continue to be one. That is all up to the evidence. If there is an argument that fulfills the BoP of a god then I will believe in that god. I employ a worldview of skepticism, though, a more modern interpretation than my early philosophic takes of the idea. That worldview is: Until something has been demonstrated to be true, we hold skepticism of it, and, even after something proves true, we be as precise with criticism of it. Essentially, to have your confidence in a particular proposition be equal to the evidence you have of it. 

I am not chained by atheism, and never will be, instead, I have the opposite PoV, I believe those off theistic positions to be chained and tethered by their immortal oppressor. I think that the necessary morality that such a theistic being would employ to be bankrupt and void of all value to consider. As I have said before, if there was a god, and what that god was considered "moral" I would not have any interest in being a moral creature. If certain gods were proven to exist and I could meet them someday? They would get nothing but a rightful condemnation and I would spit on them. 

You should very much limit what is possible by the rules of possibility. I will not entertain a notion true that has not been demonstrated except for the sake of discussion. Now, should you disclude a position by yours alone? Absolutely not, as I have also said, you should consider each proposition with the evidence provided. Whenever a new scientific idea is proposed, a lot of people think that you need to throw yourself out there, and believe in the end result of unproven-ness in order to even have the experiment. This is false. You can propose an idea, and test it, without ever be convinced of it. 

I hope this clarified some things about my position. And I do thank you for the flattery and kind words.

I feel like I was being to crass. I apologize for any harsh language or such, I am really just tired of talking on this specific subject. Not an excuse for improper regards however. 

No, because you do not have to neccedarily believe in a god to believe in other dimensions. It is perfectly possible that people believe this without any justification, but there are also some that find proof of the supernatural and simply say none of the evidence is attributable to god, I don't find the argument compelling, but you are incorrect. Materialism is not that popular of a mentality outside of scientific discourse and my particular brand of thinking (as in the generalities not specifically me). You are the one being closed minded if you are not open to the obvious evidence before you. 

The literal definition of atheism is only about a belief in a god. Whether you think you have to believe in a god to get to other realms doesn't matter, not because your take doesn't matter in general, but because we are discussing other people's beliefs. Which aren't always cogent, but on top of that, you are also flatly wrong. You are simply repeating yourself. 

The problem with it is that is completely disregards context. It values stealing as wrong 100% of the time, when it isn't, it regards killing as wrong 100% of the time, when it isn't.

What would 17-year-old-you think about you now?

It was really only turning in assignments during quarantine that increased stress 

No, I don't think so. Covid hasn' affected much but my grades

I prefer face to face, I'm terrible with keeping on top of my school work online

Do you have any actual arguments in your favor or is this just more positing?

Let's break this down

Mm, then why do female only homosexual couples have just as consistent rates of child raising? See the assumption that you need a father figure is specifically is a just that an assumption. See what you need, are specific values. Prove that these traits can not be taught by other people. They are only traits, why are these mutually exclusive?

Why are masculine traits contingent to have children? That doesn't seem necessary. In fact, no sexual relationship is even necessary to have children. There are a hapless amounts of orphans that need adopting, for female households, artificial insemination is also very possible. No males are even necessary for having children, much less masculine traits.

Proof?

Not necessarily immoral, also proof?

I don't think any of these objections are valid

Mmhm, I would agree with you in general, just thought some nuances may be good to show

No... you claim it to be a fact, prove it. 

As in, the math is relevant, did you perform the correct equation or function, did you properly apply the mathmatics essentially.

Oh? I am finally making a return to the leaderboard? Maybe? We'll see

Is this addressing trans people in general? I fail to see why men not wanting to be masculine anymore matters. If someone wants to be masculine they can be masculine, if someone wants to be feminine they can be feminine. Now, some people either are or aren't like this, and that is true. But, people aren't locked to rigid gender roles, or at least I don't see why people insist they should be. I think that a lot of "feminine" traits are just good traits in general, same goes for "masculine" traits. I personally employ a mix of both. 

Still wait'in on that rebuttal

1. Do you have evidence that's something he intends to do in the first place?

2. Corona Virus has actually demonstrated it's existence and it's harms so it wouldn't be equivalent in the first place, Biden doing it for Covid would actually be more justified. 

Just for some basic critiques:

The first use of a word does not mean that is forever the meaning of it: Take for example, God, else we would presume them simply powerful immortal individuals. What people think of as the current god would probably fit better under the term "primordial". So even if racism use to mean that, it no longer does. 

Second: Being against racism, even if you were correct in it's term-age, still wouldn't be true. Especially if people are against the term "racism" then there beliefs would actually line up with yours. But being against discrimination based on skin color, how is that wrong? Explain. Factually speaking, people have been separated into "white" and "black" categories. And yes, a lot of that is disingenuous, but it still happened, and people are still being discriminated against because of it.

There is more to life than hypotheticals and the values of it, there is also what is actually happening, and I think you fail to take that into consideration.

And.... what does any of this prove (assuming that you're math is A) Correct, and B) Relevent)? Also none of this is sourced so... I don't know if I believe some of the claims made here.

Well, I do believe that the obvious, "We should help those with less than ourselves" but I also agree that yes, sterotyping people as poor or such thing on race is inherently racist. And presuming that there is only two options is fallacious. It is true, especially in the US, that black people were oppressed to the point that they are screaming out for change and asking for help all the same, so I help out at least. There is also such a thing as a white knight, but there are people who simply want to help an oppressed minority, as they are by definition, oppressed. 

The take away is, on the surface, yes I agree, but there is further nuance to consider.

SImple to you... everyone thinks differently, but also, these are void of context. Those numbers could stand for users, posts, threads, debates, they could stand for map numbers IP addresses, any number of things, and because you said it wasn't a sequence or a pattern, that rules out what people could logically do. I, frankly, don't believe that you actually have a puzzle. I think, like Athias said, that you made up a puzzle with parameters known only to you. 

These are number puzzles:

Notice the similarities between actual number puzzles? There is context else you could be making up whatever you want, continuously claiming, "So no one has the IQ to solve this" is not only disingenuous, but it doesn't prove that IQ is an accurate measurement. Not to mention I've taken actual IQ tests, they are most definitely not like this. I feel you watched Death Note and suddenly said, "wooooaah... wouldn't that be so cool if like... people could guess things like that?" Or maybe you watched Sherlock, The Mentalists and thought the same thing. My point is, you have proven literally nothing. 

If you are so confident in your abilities to craft the puzzle, then give the answer and the explanation for it, as well as the real parameters. Then, we can actually judge your mental acuity. Until then, you have nothing but claims.

This is a guessing game, simple as that.

Whether there is more or less discrimination in regards to class is irrelevant. The point is that there are still examples of systematic racism spread across the US.

That.... is a fair point. But, I also feel there is a pretty obvious third option.... if you have access to kill them, wouldn't you also have access to just.... feed the African children? I feel like that's a pretty obvious point though.

Also yeessss, that was exactly my point, thank you

Thanks for the ping.....

It's been roughly three months since I've joined this site now, and I now have had a much more consistent exposure to high quality rhetoric, debate, and thinking in general. I don't know how much I've gotten better though. Have I improved at all, or I am still the same level I was when I started? What do you guys think? Any categories people think I need to work on in general? Any categories you think I've done a good job at improving in? Input would be appreciated.

Cockroaches, Wolf Spider bites aren't poisonous to humans, but they can make you mildly uncomfortable. 

five between toes

I think you haven't proven a single thing you've said. Until then especially, no, I don't believe your claims are true.

droolsicle for sure

10 angry geese

Yes. Skin color is not a good tell of general aptitude, thus why RACISM IS BAD. Obviously. Racism isn't supposed to be a good descriptor, it's a bad thing! Because it doesn't work! You are still incorrect here. Honestly, I am not in the mood to go more in-depth, I just finished my 20,000 character argument for why abortion is moral, my inclinity towards this conversation has been drastically lowered.

Oh my god, I am actually kind of livid, you took my quotes completely out of context. RACISM, as in the term racism, does more good than harm. Because it gives a group of actions a label that can easily be rallied against. It highlights, precisely what is happening. I actually made a comparison to currency and gender before, and you COMPLETELY ignored them. Racism is what I want to redefine, which is clear from the context of the conversation, that you seem to want to ignore.  From whatever you call it to what people actually mean whenever they say racism by and large: "discrimination against people because of skin color" 

Brainwashing? How so? It is true that people are discriminated based on skin color. It does more good than it does harm, henceforth we can simply redefine it, just as LGBTQ+ people redefined queer, just as the black community has retaken the N-word for themself. Retaking a word and redefining it to mean what we mean is a practical thing, because this is what the term is actually referring to whenever it was technically meant something else. 

No, prove it. Until you demonstrate your claims, I can dismiss them as unproven claims. Prove your position.

Yes, discrimination based on skin color is a thing, therefore I call that racism, as a useful term. You are flatly incorrect, about dismissing the notion of racism. It is irresponsible of you, because your position implies that there is no weight behind the races that people have been attributed. Such weights: White privlleage, and Racism against all different sorts. You are looking at only the very surface level, it is a bad argument for the same reasons, "I don't see any color/race" is a bad argument. 

Look look look, I agree that "the white race" and all of the things were fabricated, but that doesn't matter. Because ethnicity is a thing. Now, the arbitrary limits people put on it? Most definitely, fake, however. Because it was fabricated and has been fabricated for hundreds of years, it has become a real thing. Racism is real. Whether you want to call it discrimination or not is you being irresponsible. The fact is, people, treat people differently because of these classes that have been made. The fact is, just because something is a construct, that doesn't mean it isn't an important or real part of the conversation. Take currency and the economy, take gender and people's gender identities. You are flatly incorrect. 

What about, and hot take I know, we just not use universal maxims?! They don't work! Why? Just throw it out! 

Will do, as I have been

Then present the evidence

This is practically the exact same thing.... changing the majority from 100% o 75% doesn't make it not oppressive, it just makes it less oppressive. That's the bar dude, not the goal.

The problem there is that then its not objective, because the subjective bias of humanity comes into play, otherwise it would be perfectly moral for any creature not human to maul us, whatever, there has to be a subjective standard, else science would preclude murder from its list of immoralities. 

Wrong again, I'm saying I won't take your claims seriously until you can prove them. As I have explained and you conveniently cut from my explanation, kind of like you stripped that other quote from it's context.

-_-

Did you just make that claim? Some are, some aren't that generalization wouldn't work even if it was true, because they are in the most need of that help, not to mention the native population gets waaay more funding in what you're talking about. You are flat out factually incorrect here.

Wrong again, I'm telling you what a claim is, I'm not saying you can't talk, I'm saying I won't be accepting your claims until you have evidence behind them.

No, because that justifies rape and murder. Next.

Factually you are incorrect. The only thing an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god(s). I do not care what you think on the topic or of people you happened to meet, I don't care. I have met those people, but that doesn't matter, because the only thing that is necessarily true of an atheist is that they do not believe in god. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, because that's not my belief, all that it means is that other people can believe in dumb shit. I am really tired of having to correct people on this, NO, Materialism and Atheism are not the same things, no, they aren't even synonymous.