Total posts: 3,457
-->
@MgtowDemon
Let me copy and paste my messaged responses:
Finally, the english portion, no you are still wrong, lets look at this: you claim that because one person's children worked harder than slaves (with only one table to support said table could have been literally made up seeing how its fucking imgur, improper source at its finest) The vast vast amount of primary sources and documents we have from those times recorded the brutality of southern plantation owners especially. Not to mention, the reason that people in Afrian didn't learn English is because there were a know, very few people who spoke English. So duh, but again, which is better? Them not learning English and still being in Africa, or them knowing in English and being a slave?
Oh yeah, I nearly forgot a couple things about the slaves vs child point: First of all, children today or recently or more educated than a lot of adults in the times of slavery, not to mention that slaves specifically weren't educated, not on average or even a large percentage. Also, you know, technology; which these children have more access even simple terms increase the rate at which they can do the fields. So even if your source were suffcient, you would still be wrong, but again, if you want I can go put that in your slavery discussion
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
@MgtowDemon
Btw, that was me, I said "learning english isn't a benefit whenever if you don't you'll get fucking whipped," This guy proceeded to say that, "Maybe if you see other people agreeing with what I write, you will see where my arguments are sufficient" No, that's not how that works, you would have to refute my examples and all of that, instead of going on a white washed trying to retell history, and not actually knowing the subject ground.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If you actually want to read our entire argument then its there, to answer your question, we use the statistically reported number, and its actually linked inDr. Franklin's debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not even saying I disagree, just, ya know, prove it. Cite something, anything. Also I was referring to your question, of "how did we get to hitler?"
Created:
-->
@ethang5
He killed them himself, that's even worse, also, the bible recommends that people be like him, so ideally his actions should be the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong, his actions there mean that this killing is right. At least according to the bible.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
As compared to any of the new testament? No, it is not important,It is very important. That's why its mentioned numerous times and expounded on in the NT in several books, and God is called the "God of Abraham". You think its relatively unimportant because you do not know Christian doctrine or bible history.
I don't know your bible doctrine, but as far as I'm concerned and I was taught, Jesus's resurrection and his journies through rome were much more important, this was always a sidenote. Also, you don't actually refute what I said there besides the "God of Abraham" But God is more often referred to as Jesus than as the "God of Abraham" obviously Jesus is more important.
Sorry. I meant you did not know it. I told you, so obviously, I knew. It is pertinent to the argument I made, so yes, I did know it. You didn't.
I mean, I did show a specific verse that kind of put doubt on that.. so, apparently, I knew some of it. Now, I didn't know your interpretation no, but I was familiar with the general circumstances. I am not familiar with any sorts of promises that the messiah will come through Isaac's line.
None of the verses in the chapter, nor does the actual verse itself imply anything about a messiah being born through Isaac's line:Because you don't know Christian doctrine and think verses are independent of each other.
Provide doctrine that specifically links Isaac's descendants and the Messiah.
They will both have nations risen in there name, that's all you can get without making assumptions.Untrue. Gd tells Abraham in the chapter that his seed shall be called through Isaac. And again, the bible is not one verse.
God also says that all of their children are his, so.... That doesn't work, there isn't a specific reference of a messiah there, and again, considering how important Jesus is, you'd think there would be a specific mention if that were true.
That is not the conclusion you get, as in not the main idea, but it is a conclusion you can get.Not reasonably or logically.
Instead of making quippy one-liners, prove why not. I have shown why I reasonably believe my position to be true, even if I were ignorant in x or y, it still wouldn't be not logically, but ignorantly, but specific flaws in reasoning must be provided to claim that.
...there are the way more blatant examplesThen you should have brought those "examples", because this one has failed to live up to the claim that it is an example of God telling someone to kill another.
I gave you another example, and then you go on about, "atheist musical chairs" or whatever
So because god thought them bad they just were?A new point. You don't know me yet so I will explain. The atheist tendency to ooze to another point after he loses the previous point I don't entertain. I will not spend my time playing musical " contradictions" with atheists. Make a new thread if you want to introduce a new topic. Or at the very least, concede the old point before you introduce a new one.
You literally asked for those other examples in the line before this one, so I gave you another example! If you ask me for something, and I comply, how the hell is that "ooze to another point" I haven't even lost the last point, nor am I ignoring it. You asked for another example, here it is. Instead of dismissing it out of hand, why you don't actually address it?
That's pretty lose for a genocide,...Who told you it was genocide?
Okay, I'm sorry, a mass killing, is that better? That's pretty loose for killing a city full of people.
...and is even looser for some of the god of the old testament, not to mention the salt thing.?? Something tells me you lack of knowledge of bible history has tripped you up again.
Then please explain why I'm wrong. Did God not turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt whenever she looked back? Did he not destroy that city because he couldn't find 10 righteous men (Originally 55 or so)? Did that God not do this to other communities?
First of all this isn't decreed from god as far as my understanding leads, but a work of Paul and his writings, second the only thing they speak of is being god's children or not, yet later god claims all people who accept him are his children. I find these verses propagating contradictions.Of course you do. You don't know anything about the Christian doctrine of adoption and inheritance. It is far too tedious to have to teach you all these things in every exchange we have. The problem is not actually your ignorance, but the fact that you think you know when you don't.
I'm aware of the concept, haven't given it much thought in a couple of years, but if you aren't bothered to explain your position, then I should not believe your proposition reasonably. So... either explain, or I really have no reason to believe you. Also, you don't address half of my points there that would negate your own.
Indeed we have, but that was not my point here, my point is that its not out of the realm of believability for god to ask such a thing.As long as there are uninformed, illogical people in the world, nothing is out of the realm of believability.
You imply that I am illogical, but provide no actual reasoning to support that claim.
Please actually quote the entirety of what you are trying to refute, as I feel it would clear up some problems you have, I at the very least quote the entirety of what you say unless it's verses or something.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Before I jump into this, that example you wanted? It is that supposedly new point. That was the example.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Wait, so I don't know the bible,You don't.
Notice the comma, this is not meant to be addressed as a part, but as a larger part of a sentence, hence how sentences work.
Also, I suppose you could argue that I don't know the entirety of the bible, but from our conversation so far, you could not conclude my knowledge on the other books justifiably.
It was not supposedly. You did not know.
Incorrect, as I showed later in my refutation, which you were wrong about.
The importance of the Abraham and Isaac story cannot be overstated. I don't wish to make this about what you don't know, but what am I to do when you don't know?
As compared to any of the new testament? No, it is not important, its a general claim that would have happened anyways. It is most likely true that man such as Abraham who is more than willing to reproduce with his slaves/servants (depends on the version), and slaves/servants who do so, would have many children. Or at the very least many descendants, its really not that important in the narrative of Jesus as god's son here to do so and so.
and yet you also didn't know it? So then wouldn't you also not know your bible?I did know it. You apparently still don't know it.
#429 "This is what I mean when I say you do not know the bible. God's promises were specifically to Isaac. In fact, Sarah thought God was taking too long and got her maid to have a baby with Abraham. God rejected that baby as the conduit for His promised and insisted it would be Isaac only to whom the promises came through. I did not know this."
God's promise was not just that the child would have many offspring, but that the promised Messiah would come through that line.Genesis 21:12, the verse directly before, God says Abraham should allow Sarah to sack Ishmael, because "In Isaac shall thy seed be called". It is difficult to debate a person who doesn't know what he's talking about, especially if he views it as an insult when he is shown not to know what he's talking about.
None of the verses in the chapter, nor does the actual verse itself imply anything about a messiah being born through Isaac's line:
Genesis 21:11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring[b] will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”
...but he also promised that to his slave son, and then they went and become the literal enemies, kinda.Ishmael did not have the same promise. You are totally unaware of the covenant and what it means. You think the promise was only about having a lot of children.
They will both have nations risen in there name, that's all you can get without making assumptions.
OK. I don't think you can reasonably get that conclusion from THIS story, but even if you are correct, (and you aren't) that doesn't show that God Himself would ask for human sacrifice, it only would show that a few thought He would. The historical fact is that Israel was unique at the time among nations of that region in that it did not practise human sacrifice, and had written law that prohibited it.
That is not the conclusion you get, as in not the main idea, but it is a conclusion you can get. I will agree that certain portions of the bible (specifically the Molech part) prohibited offering your children to Molech specifically. Also, if I am right, which I am, then Abraham, the guy literally leading it believes that. I'd say thats pretty important. Not to mention, as I said last time, this is only a side point to God's commanding to kill people, there are the way more blatant examples
Genesis 19:
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
So because god thought them bad they just were? That's pretty lose for a genocide, and is even looser for some of the god of the old testament, not to mention the salt thing.
The Abraham story is vital to God's plan of salvation. I do not believe you are less honest or less intelligent because you didn't know. But the fact that you don't know makes you interpret the story incorrectly. Taking verses out of context always results in error.(Referring to the verses too)
First of all this isn't decreed from god as far as my understanding leads, but a work of Paul and his writings, second the only thing they speak of is being god's children or not, yet later god claims all people who accept him are his children. I find these verses propagating contradictions
We have reached agreement on that one point! Which means that in THIS case, God was not telling someone to go kill another, He was telling someone to offer someone.I agree that Abraham thought Isaac might die, but knew that God could/would remedy that situation because of what he said to others at the time and what God had promised through Isaac. But God Himself never wanted the death of Isaac. Thus God was not asking for a human sacrifice.
Indeed we have, but that was not my point here, my point is that its not out of the realm of believability for god to ask such a thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Dr. Franklin #77
actually it was hitler rigging the elections
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
[1] What is "chance?"
Lexico (An English and Spanish Oxford Dictionary, Thesaurus) defines chance as the following:
NOUN
In this case I am referring to the 2nd definition of chance under nouns:
Chance - "The occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause."
Show me it has the ability to do anything.
Chance is not an agent or something that causes things, but a noun to refer to an event does not have an intention or cause. It can also be an adjective to describe something that has happened in what may seem unfavorable circumstances. This seems like either semantics or you being dishonest.
Any god that did not exist would not be God.
Yes it would. Simply not your definition of god.
God, as a supernatural Being, is the Occam razor of explanations.
This is incorrect, because you are assuming supernatural things to exist, that a god exists, that the god is super natural, that the god did x or y, and that the god a, b, c characteristics. So no, this is not true either.
1. With Him, there is a reason for the universe.
You could mean this a couple of different ways:
Perhaps you mean to say that with God, there is a reason for the existence of the universe, that he created it. If this is what you meant then it fairly easy to refute by pointing out that anything could possibly explain a universe would have the standard that god does for existing.
In another sense you could mean this give the universe reason, as in some reason to exist more philosophically speaking, this doesn't really matter, nor would it prove the existence of a god, it would simply mean that if he did exist he could do this, sorry.
If you meant something else, please do clarify, and if you meant either of those two things, well... yeah just refuted them.
2. God has what is necessary for the universe. He transcends time and space, so He is not of the physical realm, which began.
You would be forced to demonstrate this beings existence, it isn't unreasonable to say that claiming an agent who transcends space and time is a rather huge claim, and would require proportionate evidence. Not to mention, again, just because if something was true it would explain x or y, does not logically follow that that something is true.
3. He is the simplest reason since the Big Bang can morph into many other scenarios, with black holes, wormholes, an expanding and contracting universe, a steady-state universe, multiverses, etc.
No, first of all this is a straw man of Occam's razor, which is to make the least assumptions possible, not be the simplest possible. Lexico says this:
NOUN
Second of all, god would not raise to the level of some of these theories or hypothesis, as they each have some contingent or empirical evidence to support them, whereas the god proposition only has, "Would make sense given the facts" with no direct evidence supporting it. As well as it would make one assume bigger and more things, the level of the assumption also matters here.
4. Experientially and observationally, every cause has an explanation, yet when you get to the Big Bang, you don't know? You trace the cause and effect back to a point in time, a singularity, then no further. With God, that is not the case. We can go beyond the universe.
"You" is wrong, Nobody knows, we don't yet have the technology nor the understanding to measure what came before it, if we were to apply the, "Cause and effect only go as far back as time" then it is entirely possible that the universe literally did pop into existence from nothing, this is not using my reasoning, but yours. Not to mention, there has still been no demonstration of a god.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
DId you completely ignore entire sentences and parts of my refutation? Yes, yes you did, will I respond to this specifically later, indeed, indeed I will.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Fact or presupposition? You were not there.
Wrong, while it is true that I wasn't there we have evidence for several mass extinction events, 5 to be precise.
The overwhelming preponderance of evidence points to the fact
I agree that one event, the Flood, almost destroyed all life on earth.
Provide evidence for this proposition.
How does that event disprove the earth was made for life? Where else in the universe do you find the conditions NECESSARY for life? If the earth was not life-permitting,
VERB (permits, permitting, permitted)
You are most likely referring to the 1.2/1.3 definitions of permit, and I will interpret your question using this definition, correct me if I'm mistaken.
How can (several) mass extinction event(s) disallow for life? Pretty simply, eliminate all life on the planet, or prevent said planet from being life permitting anymore. Not to mention we are not just talking about something "permitting" for life, we are talking about something designed for life, by the most intelligent being existent. Therefore mass extinction events that were not caused by that being would put doubt that that being even did create that thing. That's why I doubt very heavily that a god created the earth at all, much less the universe.
Consider the following: Besides the heavens, hell, and earth, no other celestial bodies, planets, space stuff, etc, were mentioned beyond being created. There was no importance of such a thing, god did not tell us why they created such a vast array of space. Therefore we have no knowledge if there is actually any use of this space, which would make it reasonable to conclude that all of that other space (besides arguably the solar system we inhabit as well as definitely the sun) is useless and not necessary for god to make. Therefore its existence causes reasonable doubt.
why is there life on it?
Abiogenesis, and Evolution.
Evidence for Abiogenesis:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2019/jul/origin-life-insight-peptides-can-form-without-amino-acids - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1371-4
Evidence for Evolution:
While Evolution has more evidence and is a scientific hypothesis, there is still an abundant amount of evidence for Abiogenesis.
The fact is that the earth is life-permitting, and you do find life here and so far nowhere else that we know of in the universe.
Aha, but you are wrong there, at least your implications. While it is true that the vast universe is not life inhabiting, there are other planets with the capability of supporting life, and studies into microorganisms such as prokaryotes are going on currently to determine if there is life.
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2020/07/31/surprising-number-exoplanets-could-host-life - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ab9ffe
Furthermore, if the conditions were not right, the universe would not even be here. If the natural laws were not precise, the universe would not exist. Regarding thermodynamics, why has it not died a heat death?
It will die in heat death, we happen to be alive during a moment where it's not in heat death. Yes the conditions had to be correct for the existence of our universe; however, there are lots of things we do not know, and presuming that a god was the cause of those conditions aligning would still be presumptuous on your part. God would have to have the power to do such a thing, and such the existence of a being would require more evidence than: "A god could do this, and we don't know why this happened, therefore god"
As I have already pointed out, we do not know the precise cause of the big bang, or even cosmic inflation, just as likely as there is a god, is there a reason that these conditions had to be true in order for the universe to even exist at all, or a constant. I will not claim this to be the case, but it is just as likely as a god's existence, the manner of argumentation and fulfillment of the burden of proof is fulfilled similarly if not the same by both claims, therefore more evidence is needed before one could purport either claim to be true.
As for the theory of everything, "God is the reason" is reasonable, for a reason is a mindful process.
No, no it is not, at least not without further evidence. Occam's Razor state's that we should prefer the explanation with the least amount assumptions, "God is the reason" is nothing more than an assumption until evidence is found to support that claim.
I will address each refutation specifically, this is part 1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well I understand that, my problem is that things that could easily be argued as good would not fit that criteria, take killing in self defense. You could not always reach the conclusion that it was justified, even in very similar circumstances, therefore it would be disregarded as not good. Which isn't true in all cases.
Its not that it doesn't interest me, its that the implications interest me more. That the will, the intention, is what is being measured here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Also, if you're looking into philosophically grounded morals or the concept in general, this pdf may prove indispensable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
In other words, you're saying that the reasoning must always be consistently valid in order for it to be a maxim? That isn't a ground breaking rule or law, that's what we actually call following the evidence. Also, circumstances will change reasonings, you will not be able to always apply the same consistent reasoning, sometimes a thing will be reasonably concluded while other times it is not.
Frankly I don't find the imperative itself interesting, but I find the implications drawn from it interesting:
For Kant the basis for a Theory of the Good lies in the intention or the will. Those acts are morally praiseworthy that are done out of a sense of duty rather than for the consequences that are expected, particularly the consequences to self. The only thing GOOD about the act is the WILL, the GOOD WILL. That will is to do our DUTY. What is our duty? It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people.Kant expressed this as the Categorical Imperative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Communism - "A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs."
The government owning all property is fundamentally unequal.
Each person has a different level of need, from physical to mental ect, therefore this is also unequal
You are wrong in regards to this topic.
Created:
Posted in:
So... as some of the Dart users here may know, I was in quarantine for a while (24 days to be precise), and I have just returned to school in person. Unfortunately for me, fall break begins after tomorrow, and lasts until the Wednesday after next. Bad news, that I have to get use to school again, which is always fun, good news, I get to blitzkrieg the forum again with posts.
Look forward to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
As in, the action must be good or true in all circumstances, in order for it to be considered good, again, this is absurd.
If not, in all circumstances, then what do you mean by universally applicable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
So an action has to be good in all circumstances for it to be good? That's absurd, and completely ignores nuance.
Created:
Posted in:
How do I know whether to take the political claims of someone seriously or not? Their vocabulary. Whether it's hiden Biden (You know, during a f*cking pandemic), calling Bernie a socialist, or someone who takes Trump seriously. Most of the GOP doesn't take Trump seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Which would be? You asked about Kant's categories, and then about Steve's maxim, I really don't care about what his Maxim is or isn't, what I care about is the discarding of results by Kant.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
This is what I mean when I say you do not know the bible. God's promises were specifically to Isaac. In fact, Sarah thought God was taking too long and got her maid to have a baby with Abraham. God rejected that baby as the conduit for His promised and insisted it would be Isaac only to whom the promises came through. I did not know this.
Wait, so I don't know the bible, for supposedly, not knowing this one specific detail out of an arguably not very important story (compared to others), and yet you also didn't know it? So then wouldn't you also not know your bible? Not to mention, you're wrong:
Genesis 21: 13 "I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”
have addressed it. You are giving us YOUR impression of what Abraham thought God meant and expecting us to accept that as what God meant. That is illogical.
No you haven't, you're only reasoning is that Abraham had faith that god would allow him to live to give birth to his descendants, but he also promised that to his slave son, and then they went and become the literal enemies, kinda.
That is not our disagreement. You are saying God intended to kill Isaac. And you are trying to conflate Abraham's intention to kill Isaac as God's intention. It isn't. God never intended Isaac to die, that is why He stopped his death.
I see where you misunderstand now, no, I do not think God intended to kill Isaac. Obviously it was a test on god's end in that story. No, my point with this story is that the believers, as small as they were at the time, did not doubt that god would ask for human sacrifices. And honestly this is only a side point to support that, considering all of the people he commands the death in whenever he tells his "people" to go raid cities and all that.
Lol. Your opinion is that the bible supports your opinion. It doesn't.
I could say the literal exact same thing, please substantiate our claim with a verse or passage as I have.
What "takes" different sects have on the bible is immaterial and off topic. You are trying to claim that God told Abraham to kill Isaac. Yet God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. You admit you do not know why God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. Yet you insist God intended to have Abraham kill Isaac. Your argument is incoherant
Which he did. God did tell Abraham to kill Isaac. And Abraham nearly did. An Angel had to stop him right before he could, if Abraham was even a little bit faster, than no more Isaac. What? Of course I know why he did stop Isaac, because he didn't intend for him to actually kill Isaac there, that's obvious.
OK. We can agree to disagree, but of the two of us, I know the historical context and you do not, and what actually happened in the story supports my argument, you have no clue why God stopped Abraham. I'm satisfied that your argument has been eviscerated.
You say unironically without citing a thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
In that consideration, nothing could apply universally. There are situations in which nearly every single "statement of truth" could be contradictory
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
We don't know what the cause is, suggesting anything to be the cause is presumptious. Not to mention we have lots of philsophic and emperical reasons to believe god does not exist
Created:
Posted in:
And what of the numerous studies that demonstrate that children do just as well if not better in homosexual raised households, and of the fact that most studies that say otherwise are based on an inherent misunderstanding of gender roles throughout society and attributing it to one parent in general?Edit: Child at the end should be parent, my bad.
Now you are making a claim and implying one:1. That school performance is based on poverty/wealth of the family2. That homosexuals are pedophiles or a pressing amount of themFirst off, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the first claim, but I require further evidence to support it as the main indicator of academic success. Second, you only address one study, and third of all, rainn.org notes:
- One in 9 girls and 1 in 53 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault at the hands of an adult.3
- 82% of all victims under 18 are female.4
- Females ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.2
Therefore if I were to use your logic, we shouldn't allow heterosexuals to raise children because the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.
I would have to disagree again: firstly; this is ignoring the fact that many experts on the matter have dismissed the connection: explaining that pedophiles develop their sexuality differently than one of the usual occurrence, as this study reports:This difference suggests that the development of erotically preferred partner sex and partner age are not independent of each other and that in pedophilia, the development of heterosexuality or homosexuality is brought about by factors different from those operative in the development of androphilia or gynephilia.This study further indicates this truth:This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.You might point out that my own study supports your position but I would like to direct your attention to the word: suggests. Notice how it is the verbiage used to support your claim, and how "Of course" is used to support mine. Because one is saying: Based on the research of how this works (Of course), while the other is saying: As far as we know.. (suggests)This is due to the fact of a large unaccounted teenage population that is homosexual as well as non-reported abuse and sexual harm cases. This isn't bringing up the adult population which hides their true sexuality. All of these factors combined puts extreme doubt that these numbers are corrolary.
First of all this is based on an outdated, biased, and simple factually incorrect articleSecond of all it leads to polygamy, not cheating, second of all - it ignores the fact that there are gay men too and not just lesbian women, as well as the fact that a large proportion of the abuse that bisexual people report is most likely due to their relationships with males, who are statistically much more likely to abuse than women. Third of all this is again based on uncomprehensive data, instead of relying on data that only supports their position while wildly extrapolated.Finally - Cats rape other cats to breed, Wolves kill deer to eat.
Do you remember my point of the massive unaccounted teenage population? As well as adults who are still in the closet of being homosexual or the like? And my point there was like the lesbian example, they are using that single statistic to support their claim that homosexual marriage is more likely to end in abuse, whenever that doesn't at all look at the issue more in depth.Such as the fact that people who are abused are more likely to be abusive than your average person, and people who are homosexual are more likely to be abused, the issue then would be helping gay people be less abused, not arbitrarily shifting the blame to the homosexual person.
First of all - if there is a massive uncounted homosexual population then the abuse rates would not scale to heterosexual rates like you think it does, Second of all - they are only looking at a literal single study, that is again: biased, un-comprehensive, etcWhat that changes is why people are abusive. This study implies that people are just naturally more abusive because they are gay, whenever that does not seem to be the case, gay people are abused more than heterosexual people, and therefore become abusers themselves more often. That doesn't mean that its their fault for being gay. you don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight.
Because - if a large non-married, and non-abusive portion of homosexuals are being unaccounted for, then the numbers in favor of said abuse will be exaggerated, not to mention, you still haven't even addressed an of my other arguments.
They should be accounted in the total number of homosexuals. That should seem obvious, also, they need to be accounted, because as you have failed to refute, the entire study is flawed in it's methodology. The reason why there would even be an increased rate of abuse in homosexuals is that homosexuals are abused more often than any other section on sexuality, and people who are abused are more likely to become abusers, thus it is not the homosexuality that would even lead to such a result, but the cruel bigots in the first place.
Yes, it would - it means that the number of gay people are underestimated, and therefore the indicative proportions would be lower than reported.Not to mention, you haven't at all addressed literally any point. So even if I agreed with you here, you would be incorrect in every other aspect, but I don't agree. Because you still haven't presented valid evidence. As in - linked being homosexual and being an abuser beyond a vapid mischaracterization based on likely incomplete data, as well as not taking the entire case into the pictureSome resources that show the abuse of LGB peopleAnother source to go against your unfound claim of pedophiliaThis article over a study similar to yours and why it's incorrecthttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/Etc, etc...
Are they?GLAAD Studies are showing a massive rising of open LGBTQ individuals due to there being fewer and fewer individuals who are hateful towards them.
Are they?GLAAD Studies are showing a massive rising of open LGBTQ individuals due to there being fewer and fewer individuals who are hateful towards them.
But again, I've already proven my point, you've chosen to pursue this line singularly because its the one suspected weak spot in your eyes. Do you have evidence that homosexuality is unnatural? Do you have solid evidence that being non-heterosexual inherently makes you more abusive? Anything of that sort?Also LGBTQ - Lesbian (That's homosexual), Gay (Also Homosexual), Bisexual (Your study uses them, therefore so do I get to count them as homosexual), Transgender (They can be gay, bi, etc, but they aren't inherently so, but they are also the lowest percentage), Queer (Just a group name for non-heterosexual - therefore regarding any of the formerly stated letters)
- Accelerating Acceptance 2017 survey shows that Millennials (people ages 18-34) are significantly more likely to openly identify as LGBTQ than generations before them. Specifically, Millennials are more than twice as likely (20% vs. 7%) to identify as LGBTQ than the Boomer generation (people ages 52-71) and two-thirds (20% vs. 12%) more likely than Generation X (people ages 35-51).
SO yes, it does massively change statistics
So? It's mostly a homosexual population, not to mention, as I've already told you, transgender people are the lowest statistic there, and your study used bixsexuals. Now. do you have any actual evidence to support your claims? Or more vapid rebuttals?
How? You leave one source which I have completely discredited, only ran through a single line of my evidence, ignored evidence completely, and made a dozen fallacies, as well as either ignoring my posts or just not checking that I made them. You have not at all proven your points. Especially none of your previously claimed ones.
This is why you are wrong
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Because I still have to investigate your sources, as well, as this is only towards a specific claim, not knowledge in general. Ad hominems, niiiice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Mod? What are you talking about?
My chances are good? To get Covid? To mess up? Im gonna need some clarification
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Gotcha, I've been trying to be "charitable" as Mopac would say, but it gets kinda annoying after a while.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Regardless of God's promises to replenish his ancestors that does not mean that Abraham was specifically talking about Isaac's children (Note that Abraham has more than one son and even if he didn't the having faith arugment would work just as well there)
How about you address the literal scripture of evidence I give you, offering? He is going to kill Issac. According to the bible he would have to but the angel stopped him at the last second.
My "opinion" is supported by the bible, therefore it is not an opinion.
Your increduality about my raising is funny, because of my Christian back ground I've been through some shit whenever I deconverted. Let's not even bring up the fact that different sects have different's takes and perspectives of the bible, therefore you are still wrong.
You are the one using illogical arguments here. I actually provided evidence and you just ignored it.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Also, I've read the bible cover to cover, I was a christian for the majority of life, etc, etc... But if I need to quote scripture to prove my point, fine.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Genesis 22:
1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”“Here I am,” he replied.2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
The clear implication is that Abraham is prepared to kill his son, in fact, it's the angel that actually stops him, this clearly demonstrates that he believes his duty is to kill his son as god commanded
11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”“Here I am,” he replied.12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram[a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.”
Let's not even talk about the cities that God commanded them destroy and kill everyone within. Because you know, it would a clear as day example, and something I already brought up.
Created:
-->
@WesleyBColeman
No, the bible specifically talks about the abominations of those who men who lay with another man (I suppose you argue lesbians are clear?) and how they ought to be put to death.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
No, we can not assume Abraham did not think his son would die, he tied Isaac down and was about to do it, the literal last second save was the lamb appearing, until then it was entirely literarily implied that Abraham would kill Isaac. So no. Thats an assumption on your part, my implications are based on the text, and you simply do not understand how one can extrapolate from a simple scene.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
What trend? Your question was:
Can we reduce the world to it's physical systems?
What trend are you talking about
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, that's not necessary, its the rules of a proposition, once again, whenever you make a claim (REGARDLESS OF LOCATION) you have necessarily adopted the burden of proof. It shows an inconsistency on the claimer to fail this burden depending on the location.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Really? Oh, but most of those 500 posts are from the last week or two. I wasn't that active at first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
So far the evidence is pretty compelling, I'd have to agree with you on this one, though I do plan on doing further research. Just, what I've looked at so far in terms of studies and such puts the evidence on your side.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Fair enough, not my main point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Your usage of maxim in your response:
The moral value of Steve's actions in that example are determined by the universality of his maxim for his action. So what would be his maxim In this case?
Modifying it to be "his" maxim, and applying them to "his action" implies it to be some sort of replacement for intention, consider the following: Maxim can be defined as the following:
"A short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct."
Essentially your saying that the universality of his truth determines the moral value. This is fundamentally fallacious. An essential appeal to ad populum, it would not matter if his maxim was the most universal, only that it determined truth.
His maxim or statement he would apply however would be: helping your friends is good.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Um.... first of all I don't find IQ studies very compelling, second of all that's an appeal to authority, finally could you even source the study your citing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, that's the dominion of a proposition. Any time you make a claim you under that burden
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Uuuuh...... Something else? Sure. What would you think that something else is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'd say its only fair to include both sides whenever the people watching encompass such a large side of professional sports.
Created: