Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I would have to disagree, merely by virtue of such a complex thing as life existing demands investigation, bar none.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
What stats are you referencing exactly? You haven't posted any
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I'm saying that future people do not neccessarily need babies, not all, and not consistently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You literally can't comprehend the argument huh? Babies is not something we need constantly, ever, its not something we need daily or even weekly. The atmosphere is something we need CONSTANTLY. So you affecting it at all affects the value it has to others. Fetuses have no value almost half the time, because half the time they don't even develop into humans. When they gain value is when they are borne, until then, the future value they might have is completely gone.
The atmosphere isn't a "might", it's an always. Learn the difference. We do not value things for their future value, like we do not try to cut with something that is GOING TO BE sharp. Especially not when that thing is actively hurting someone else's bodily anatomy. It's potential future value versus current value. Current value wins every time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Yup, that's bein' an asshole - but that's not all what being an asshole is. That's not the only way to be an asshole. Deliberately redefining what asshole means so as to defend a concept like the police kinda proves my point too. The real danger of an asshole, is an asshole who thinks they aren't one, or thinks that that assholery is justified. That's what I see a lot of the police as.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
and when those people become assholes themselves, then we just need to reform the people who teach 'em.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Incompetence- "lack of the ability, skill, or knowledge that is needed to do a job or perform an action correctly or to a satisfactory standard:"
Mental Disorder - "any condition characterized by cognitive and emotional disturbances, abnormal behaviors, impaired functioning, or any combination of these."
Incompetence is lacking ability, a disorder or illness in this case is something which impairs function. There is a distinction - it could be said that some mental disorders are examples of incompetence - though colloquially speaking most wouldn't equate the two - but mental disorders themselves are not neccessarily incompetent. And trying to equate the two, and saying that if you are mentally incompetent you should go to an institution, as BRu7AL did - reveals an ignorance about what exactly a mental disorder is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Because, as I've already said, it is CURRENT value that we are talking about. The climate gives us direct value immediately, as I've already said. I'm not gonna keep on with this conversation if you keep on borderline ignoring what I say. You're stuck on thing after I've already debunked it, move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
what does mental incompetence not being equivalent to mental illness have anything to do with that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Yes- the processes themselves create the "environment" if you will, in which reasoning will occur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's the thing, mental incompetence isn't what you think it is. You have a strange definition of incompetence, incompetence does not equal "Need to go to a mental hospital" mental incomptenece is something every single human being is, and no it's not an ad-hoc- the particular trait literally doesn't matter - all that matters is the example itself, assuming that because a part of something has a trait, that something also has it. Living doesn't matter in this example, the definition is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
P1: Atoms are non-living
P2: Cats are made of atoms
CON: Therefore Cats are non-living
The composition fallacy, inferring what is true of one part of a thing is true of the thing itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Um... what's makes the fire starter different from the fire? The properties which it exhibits, in this case, consiousness, reasoning, experiential emotion, etc - fairly basic things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The specific distinction? It is the result of physiological and chemical reactions that cause properties one would assign to the "mind", furthermore, it is not even the result itself, but properties that come as a result of the result. Like fire, a result of chemical reactions, causes human perception to warp thanks to specific gaseous results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
because it is not a fault of reasoning - because mentality - our mind - is an emergent property of your brain - it is not quite the same thing as your brain. There is a distinction
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Brain chemistry - its a flaw in "design" - typically addictions work by ingesting, injecting, etc, taking a substance which increases dopamine in the brain, to the point where the brain starts to develop a reliance on the dopamine and therefore the substance, the amount of dopamine being released lowering all the while, meaning that the user has to use more to match what their brain is relying on. So - its a brain error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In what regard? Mental imcompotence is a relative term - though being "addicted" to something is not something unique to indiviudals -mental "incomptence" speaks more of a failure of reasoning, becoming addicted to something is rarely an error in reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
isn't addiction proof-positive of mental incompetence?
I wouldn't say so - at least not to a degree that is significantly different than the rest of the population. It would be like calling lying proof of mental incompetence, I mean, yeah-sure, but not in any way that's helpful for classifying people.
Created:
-->
@DeadFire27
I'm typically talking about whenever an entire class - or at least 7 to 8 people
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Um... research? Because their are surveys and such that ask these kinds of questions, and people consent to giving answers and do so... it's pretty basic stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Do you mean what makes people want to go through transitioning? Though typically male phenotypical people don't actually have their penis removed, it does happen sure, just not very often. And typically it's gender dysphoria, whenever someone's phenotype doesn't match their gender identity - but typically transgender individuals should be, and are often more comfortable going into the bathroom that is associated with their gender even before they transition. Some people don't transition at all.
So - to answer your question - those "dudes" aren't dudes - and most transgender individuals don't get their penis's removed - but the ones who do, do so because a deep dysphoria as a result of their phenotype that is in conflict with their gender identity.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
A dissatisfaction with the exploitative capitalistic society they live in?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Sorry - one more thing - "prove is outside of common language", yeah, no - that would be your burden. Furthermore when discussing a specific topic, when providing definitions it is up to both interlocutors to justify use of their definition within the resolution, in this case, within the topic at hand - aka - topicality. Whenever one of those provide a definition that is by default better than another: like if you had provided a definition of surgery and I had a medical definition that proved yours wrong, we wouldn't default to yours because maybe "more people use that one", its a ridiculous argument yours is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
the other was really just variations “you haven’t proved anything!”
Um... yes. Because you hadn't proven anything? The claim that all of your explanation came from was unsubstantiated, so yes, you indeed haven't proven anything.
Furthermore - no - I wasn't backed into any corner - let's remember something, afterall, you've read the entire exchange right? Remember that time when I specifically quoted from your explanation and pointed out my problems with it and you ignored that? Remember when I did that several times? I did indeed "disentangle" your argument, you were so stuck up on your high horse you seemed to not notice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Eh - bit of a strawman - replace "invalidated" with "Continued to assert that x.." - you seem to think that someone not willing to grant your sophistry is somehow "ignoring you". When your foundational claim is just an assertion (you're uber-broad, unsourced definition of fear), the claims you make on TOP of that are false. A syllogism that's first premise is untrue is unsound, pretty clear that is.
So when you say it's "commonly accepted" that is no where near good enough, and when it turns out that the ACTUAL DEFINITION, written by a dictionary that collects thousands of psychologists and researchers - that means that the common public use a word incorrectly - it happens all the time. TLDR: You can't seem to accept that your definition is bullocks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
go to the very top of the page, with the black bar that say's "topic's post", on the very right side of that it say's "total post's", above that are four icons - the subscribe icon is the square with the weird shape in it.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not even talking about him helping people, I'm talking about his disciples. That was pretty gay pro'lly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Yeah, the "subscribe, post-name, tag" system was to specifically alert people - that was what I wanted to do here. I can see your point, but I do think this could definitely help
Created:
Posted in:
RMM
and tell me, how many people are regularly checking that thread? And regularly voting because of that thread?
Created:
Posted in:
RMM
A bunch of dudes traveling together, living together, and talk about loving each other regularly? Seems pretty gay to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@fauxlaw
@gugigor
@Undefeatable
you guys in?
Created:
Posted in:
FOR DEBATES WITH NO VOTES ONLY - RESPOND WITH THE DEBATE LINKED TAGGING EVERYONE WHO POSTED - "Voter"
- if you want to be tagged to vote reply to this post saying "voter", that way people know to tag you
- if you want to help vote on these debates you can subscribe to thread to be kept informed when people post here
- if your debate isn't voted on and has less than half of the voting time remaining feel free to re-post
- if your debate is voted on, delete from thread or edit your post to say "voted" and delete link
Thank you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I can make the thread and tag you in it then - just click subscribe that way you get the notifications, lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Huh, well that was a bad thing - does it happen regularly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I can try to vote more on no-vote debates, I'd like to think I vote as unbiasedly as I can, in fact- why don't we make a thread that people can post to when they have no vote debates specifically, that way all the people who are volunteering can just subscribe to the thread and get notifications whenever someone posts?
I think it would be a good idea, unfortunately I don't have much time, my summer college classes are starting soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Whatever you wanna think. I suppose if that's all your willing to say we can leave it there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I've addressed all those posts already - you claim it to be common usage, and... no - you just aren't reading - I already explained why fear isn't the same thing as a risk/reward - it CAN Be - but speaking from the actual definition, your claims are simply wrong. You can say that my definition "isn't right", but your literal only evidence for that claim has been your own assertions. Thats the thing making a claim does not actually substantiate that claim.
To sum up my previous argument:
"politics and ideology are always trade offs of multiple negative factors:" to start off with, isn't the case at all, there are instances where negative and positive factors are traded, but the mere existence of a negative factor does not mean that A), it is being driven by fear, or B) that it happens in every interaction. "meaning reward side is also dependent on fear", is also wrong, because it presumes that rewards are dependent entirely on avoiding negative factors..........: while danger and harm ARE negative, not every instance of negative factor is DANGER or HARM
So no, my response is not just: "oh I disagree with your definition", I mean, I do - its wrong in the way your trying to stretch it, but that's not the core of my argument, that's the end note. Again, its kinda ironic how you claim that I'm dropping your arguments while you get caught on the end of 'em.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
And I thank you for that, I was responding more to Grey than to you if I'm honest. However, I also dislike the notion that me being "toxic" at all is the problem, I think the problem is that Grey is a bloody hypocrite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yeah, just a little tired of the hypocricy here, "He's just a kid, so I try to be patient" would be thinking that Ram's rheotric is somehow different from my in regards to ad hominems, when that isn't the case at all. Funny enough, Fauxlaw couldn't justify it after he tried to say I was being immature either, because by people's definition of immatiure here, Ram would be acting the same. The difference is that Ram has history and respect with everyone here and I don't.
Sole difference, well, I would admit that I tend to get angrier than Ram, from what I've seen so far, though - Ram does get annoyed very easily.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Politics ARE actions, i literally defined it for you! Now you're the one whose ignoring things,
As I explained - at length - and have told you have ignored multiple - multiple - multiple times now: and summarized At least twice; but let me summarize again politics and ideology are always trade offs of multiple negative factors: meaning Reward side is also dependent on fear too. Why do you keep ignoring this?
Because i HAVEN'T IGNORED THIS - that should be extremely clear - did you or did you not see the quote below the three points deliberately pointing out that I thought that did not jive with the definition of fear? Yes? No? Because I have not ignored this, in fact, I've brought it up multiple times, and you've ignored me talking about it MULTIPLE times. And your "summary" here makes exactly zero sense, "politics and ideology are always trade offs of multiple negative factors:" to start off with, isn't the case at all, there are instances where negative and positive factors are traded, but the mere existence of a negative factor does not mean that A), it is being driven by fear, or B) that it happens in every interaction. "meaning reward side is also dependent on fear", is also wrong, because it presumes that rewards are dependent entirely on avoiding negative factors.
Finally for this point: while danger and harm ARE negative, not every instance of negative factor is DANGER or HARM - which I've already said, in much less words, yes, but apparently you don't get it unless I spell it out for you. Now, are you going to ignore me again and go on with your projecting, or are you going to actually engage?
On your last one, no, you have no justified your response, at least not cogently, you've explained why you BELIEVE it ought to be the case that that is fear, but you have not actually PROVEN that it is so. So I guess you did "justify" your definition, just not to my standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Cause that's literally what I started off with , that was my first post in response to good ole' Ram.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I have not "switched definitions" and I have not "dropped your points"
- I already explained that ideology would have to be influenced by fear if politics are, as ideology drives politics
- I already explained that the larger "risk/reward system" that you refer to (no not precisely by those words, I mean the general avoiding bad things and trying for the best thing) is not the same thing as fear.
- Your definition as interpreted in the following is not actually substantiated, you are trying to apply a thing that does not belong - and I explained why COUNTLESS TIMES
For every day decisions, this means fear pervades every choice we make to some degree; this is not to say choosing between cake and ice cream terrifies you; but a small element of emotional avoidance of some negative impact is always present.Political Ideologies really boil down to similar decisions - weighing positives or negative - however in politics the broad ideological differences between people are generally typified by different answers they give to the same question.
To be EXTREMELY SPECIFIC, this is the bit I disagree with - the second paragraph here - THAT does not jive with the ACTUAL definition of fear- again - I have addressed literally all of your points, the fact that you somehow missed them is fine, but don't go on accusing me of dropping yours points, I haven't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Because apparently you need me to be really obvious with you:
I am talking about risk/reward IN POLITICS - fear is not the sole, nor most substantial driver, of the risk/reward factor IN POLITICS - because apparently the implied "In politics" isn't apparent to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
What? I addressed your "most substantial point" in fact, I literally said you said it TWICE in that post - and you seemed to have ignored my second point - which is that, speaking practically, saying fear causes politics is saying the same of ideologies, I haven't dropped very many points of yours, again - I don't AGREE - that does not mean I have dropped your points.
For example: No, 99% of my argument hasn't been about fear soley, (given the 10 or so of my posts, only 6 have been what you claim to be "99.9%" of my point). Furthermore - and... yeah, until I pointed you out - all you had said was fear, like, he asked "what causes politics" and your answer was: fear, and deriviations of it", of course I thought that you were claiming all that causes politics is fear, you literally didn't say a thing until you were "correcting a strawman", that was the first time you had acknowledged any other cause of politics except fear.
You're being disengenious now, and I really don't appreciate you trying to pull the high and mighty position bud. That, or you aren't reading very carefully, I can address more than one point in a paragraph.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Here was literally my first post, dude:
Ramshutu spotted, lolThis is a very interesting observation to say the least, it reminds me of several concepts that would kinda support this - like us versus them mentalities that are quite systemic, we reject what we don't understand, and so on and so forth, but I would be hesitant to generalize politics as merely fear or even manifestations of fear, certainly some ideologies (mostly radical ones), but it's a broad brush, I think, to claim it as a response to "what causes politics" in general.
Note specifically:
it's a broad brush, I think, to claim it as a response to "what causes politics" in general.
If you can't identify that common point then I think you're the one whose not getting things.
Second off, for purposes here - politics is defined as such:
"the activities of the government, members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed:"
Which is inherently driven by ideology, so if you were to claim that fear is the "Most substantial" driving force behind politics, you would, defacto be claiming the same of ideologies.
Finally, you are attempting to claim that fear is the most substantial motivator behind the risk/reward system, it is in that vein that I disagree with the word fear for usage here: For example, anxiety and distinct because of the temporal affects on the body. As I said; fear is a evolutionary survival mechanism, not much else. I disagree with how you are trying to stretch fear into situations where that is not an applicable term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I don't disagree that a risk/reward system is what drives things like ideologies (completely ignoring you saying that I got your conclusion wrong while repeating the conclusion I stated) I disagree that it is driven by fear or derivations of it (because there aren't such a thing as "derivations of fear", see the difference is that I am saying: "Here is the actual definition of fear", and you go, "Well here is how I use it", and I go, "That's all fine and dandy, but your not using that word correctly", and you respond, "What? You can use language in different ways."
And here I would respond, yes, language does indeed change, but I don't think that the risk/reward system is ENTIRELY DRIVEN by avoiding dangerous situations. That has been my entire point - yes - fear might be a part of it, I disagree that it is all of it - which has been my point the entire time. Of course, you go on and on about how I misunderstood you or how that wasn't my point, but it was - I can quote what I said from the very beginning. I understand your argument regarding fear pervading everything, jesus your condescending, the mere fact that someone doesn't agree with your argument doesn't mean they don't understand it.
This is something you've already said, I get it, I don't think what you are describing is sufficient to explain the entirety of human ideologies development. For example - in a lot of cases people do things because they want more power, and they do that because having all of that power felt good, a lot of ideology is made from people seeking out what is pleasurable. The reason why I am stuck up on the definition of fear is because I think your waay overusing it. For example: fear, and retreating aren't always the same thing - they can be fueled differently. You can say this is me changing the goalpost, you'd be wrong, but you can claim it. My point this entire time is that you are misusing fear as a noun, you are attempting to classify things that clearly do not belong anywhere near the behavior and classify it as such. It would be like trying to describe a dog as a cat. Even then, you seem to misunderstand what fear is - fear is merely a chemical process that occurs, releasing specific hormones conducive with avoiding harm, sometimes that means running, sometimes that means standing still, and other times it means being aggressive - its a survival mechanism - not much else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You mean the OED you can't actually cite? 'Cause there are versions you can... you just don't. And can I not let it go? Was it not you who wrote an entire long-winded paragraph about how inferior my reasoning is whenever you were never implicated in the discussion? Like what, you wanna go on about me not letting it go? Sure bud, sure.
Created: