Total topics: 10
The left are always pushing for gender equality and complaining when men who take a couple testy pills compete with women. There is more than testosterones which differs between men and women. Men are usually taller. Men have larger fists. Men have more muscle mass. Men have different bone structures. Men have quicker reaction times. Just take a look the at the under 15's team smashing the 6th best women's soccer team competing in FIFA women's. Is the only difference some testosterones?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbCID2Gtax0 - Fallon Fox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrMem2TiAqQ&t=220s - Alanna Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrSt1luwkMY&t=1s - 17 year old man mauling women
There are two fair proposals.
1. A separate league for trans people. Not enough people competing? Pity, that doesn't mean you can terrorise other divisions.
2. Since the left are always crying about how men and women are treated differently, and how the woman's soccer team earns less than the men's, let's allow everyone to have a good time together. Men vs women soccer. Men vs women boxing. Men vs women UFC. We can divide everyone into weight and let them brawl it out. 150 kg men vs 150 kg women. That's fair.
I'll tell you what's not fair, a man breaking the skull of a women. It's pitiful that these men are making a living mauling women. Step in the men's ring and you shall be humbled.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Any of you watch UFC? What do we think? Is the Mcgregor era over?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Sports
Story time.
A few months ago I was challenged to an online debate in an instagram group chat regarding banning the N-word with my friends friend. Me, being an expert debater, clapped my opponent so hard that they resorted to calling my schools headmaster and getting me sent to the principles office. Predictably, my headmaster wasn't too pleaded. They attempted to reason with me, however the reasons they gave for why the n-word is bad weren't the strongest. Upon reflection, I guess I understand that the school cannot be handing out candy for people saying the N-word, so I suppose they did what they had to do. After some back and forth, I conceded the "debate" because getting expelled wasn't looking too far fetched at that point.
The following is what I wrote. It was a while ago and I didn't put too much thought into it. Not my peak debating skill.
=
Hm, an interesting proposition indeed, however, I shall take this time to respectfully refute this claim. Clearly, for one to believe the N-word is rude is to overlook two fundamental factors, being a) how language can evolve over time and b) that rude words simply enhance the ability to free speech.
It is apparent that when the N-word was used in this instagram group chat yesterday at 22:36, controversy seemed to emerge. It is clear that those of whom were disturbed by the use of this word may be overlooking how language can evolve. Have any of you used the term “hip hip hooray”? For some context, hip hip hooray is allegedly derived from the German phrase “hep hep”, an anti-semtic term used during the riots of 1819, in which the Nazis use the phrase whilst rounding up Jews during the holocaust. Clearly, as this word is widely used in times of happiness and celebration, it can be concluded that any historical stigma attached to the word has been removed. The same can be said for the N-word. How do we know this? Black musicians, more than anyone else use this term frequently in their music. Notably Juice Wrld, who in his recent banger of an album dropped versus such as “Ain't too many real niggas here no more”, “That Tommy hit a nigga, Tommy Hilfiger, fuck niggas” “I don't smoke skunk, but tonight I'm getting stuck, nigga”. Surely, if this term was as derogatory as it is portrayed, black men would hesitate in using it so freely?
One may respond by saying “Juice Wrld is black, he has the right to say it”, however this just brings us down the dangerous rabbit hole of identity politics. Is segregating people by the race wise? Is limiting vocabulary on the basis of one’s race in fact racist?
As stated in the introduction, section b) focuses more on my personal right to free speech. Take a step back and consider why the N-word is actually bad. It’s rude? It’s hateful? These are both poor reasons for banning such a word. Are we now banning words on the basis that they are rude? Why is it that I am allowed to make attacks on your physical appearance, logistical coherence, mental cognitive abilities and your mother, but when race is bought into the equation, everything comes to a halt? Surely offending my mother is quite rude and hateful. Calling me a different species to that of my own is certainly rude. The N-word isn’t the only “rude” term there is in the English vocabulary. What is the solution, are we going to ban all hateful speech? What will that leave us with? Complimentary statements bring happiness only because there are hateful words to contrast with them.
==
Could someone rebut this? Am I missing something fundamental? I hope you get that I am not racist. What I'm getting at essentially is that people should stop living in the past. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of people to rid the n-word of it's age old meaning and instead turn it into the new hip hip horary?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
What do we think about Trump being censored? Personally, I think that it's kinda unfair that he's been quite literally cancelled by media platforms, all of which are salty they have been exposed for clearly pushing "bad" information about Trump whilst instantly censoring anything negative about Biden.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
If God asked you to sacrifice what you loved most (exactly like what happened to Abraham), would you kill your son, or at least whole heartedly have the intentions of doing so?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
As a follow up of my Satanism forum, I am starting a petition where, if successful, users on DART will be able to manually type their preferred gender, and religion.
Ay
Ay
Ay
Ay
Ay
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
After Donald Trump told protestors to go home and stop rioting, he once again highlights that this was a fraudulent election and the Republican party should have won by a "landslide".
I'm not very American politics, but I will say that I would have voted Trump over Biden in the elections (I don't trust democrats after Obama), though the outcome didn't really bother me much. I'm interested to hear what people have to say about this election. Was there fraudulent votes? Was Trump robbed or is he just salty he didn't win.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Thefollowing is a thought experiment which supposedly proves that free will doesnot exist, first used and authored by Sam Harris.
===
Picka random country. Any country. Notice this processes which you are goingthrough. Notice the selecting and the choosing, and the "freeness"which you are going through. What if I were to say that this very processesproves that free will does not exist?
Inorder to unpack this, we must first establish the options that one has topick.
1)A person is not free to choose a country which they do not know exists.
2)A person cannot choose a country which didn't occur to them
3)You can only choose what occurs to you
Thefirst option is obvious. If you don't know it, then you cannot choose it. Youare not free to choose it, so to speak.
Thesecond option however, is a little more confronting. Perhaps all readers knowabout Argentina but for some reason, your Argentina neurons were notfunctioning and you did you think it it. This then begs the question, what canyou think about?
Thethird option is to unpack what you can choose. Say you chose America. The firstthing to note is that you only "chose" it because it occurred to you.But how do you choose what occurs to you? The process of something occurring toyou is unsoliccited, it is impossible to choose what occurs to you.
Secondly,say the countries America and China occurred to you (you did not choose forthese two countries to occur to you, they simply did). Ask yourself, why didyou choose America? When subjects in a lab are asked to justify their actions(whilst under the influence of some independent variable) the test subjectusually does not know the real reason why their actions occurred the way thatthey did (assuming an experienced experimenter was involved). However, thisisn't to say they don't have a tale to tell. If you asked a person who has beenhypnotised why they did certain things, they usually have bizzare reasons forwhy the did what they did (though unconvincing to us, the subject remains convincedof their tale). Returning to the case of free will, why does one choose Americaas opposed to China. Well, one may say that "they just had an Americanhotdog last night and so America appealed to them". However, this is nojustification, it is merely stating a fact. It's like if youasked a murderer why they murdered and they said "I killed him". Sowhy choose America instead of China because you ate a hotdog? Why couldn't youthink "well I've just had a hotdog, let's switch things up, I'll choose China".This process of "choosing" because of your apparent"justification" is no more than your neurons making a decision foryou and you being aware of this decision.
Youcannot know how things occur to you and neither can you know why you"chose" the option of which you did.
===
BeforeI read Sam Harris's Free Will book, I was convincedthat free will was real. Now, after being confronted by this seemingly simplyline of thinking, I'm not so sure. Feel free to have a stab at Harris'slogic.
===
Picka random country. Any country. Notice this processes which you are goingthrough. Notice the selecting and the choosing, and the "freeness"which you are going through. What if I were to say that this very processesproves that free will does not exist?
Inorder to unpack this, we must first establish the options that one has topick.
1)A person is not free to choose a country which they do not know exists.
2)A person cannot choose a country which didn't occur to them
3)You can only choose what occurs to you
Thefirst option is obvious. If you don't know it, then you cannot choose it. Youare not free to choose it, so to speak.
Thesecond option however, is a little more confronting. Perhaps all readers knowabout Argentina but for some reason, your Argentina neurons were notfunctioning and you did you think it it. This then begs the question, what canyou think about?
Thethird option is to unpack what you can choose. Say you chose America. The firstthing to note is that you only "chose" it because it occurred to you.But how do you choose what occurs to you? The process of something occurring toyou is unsoliccited, it is impossible to choose what occurs to you.
Secondly,say the countries America and China occurred to you (you did not choose forthese two countries to occur to you, they simply did). Ask yourself, why didyou choose America? When subjects in a lab are asked to justify their actions(whilst under the influence of some independent variable) the test subjectusually does not know the real reason why their actions occurred the way thatthey did (assuming an experienced experimenter was involved). However, thisisn't to say they don't have a tale to tell. If you asked a person who has beenhypnotised why they did certain things, they usually have bizzare reasons forwhy the did what they did (though unconvincing to us, the subject remains convincedof their tale). Returning to the case of free will, why does one choose Americaas opposed to China. Well, one may say that "they just had an Americanhotdog last night and so America appealed to them". However, this is nojustification, it is merely stating a fact. It's like if youasked a murderer why they murdered and they said "I killed him". Sowhy choose America instead of China because you ate a hotdog? Why couldn't youthink "well I've just had a hotdog, let's switch things up, I'll choose China".This process of "choosing" because of your apparent"justification" is no more than your neurons making a decision foryou and you being aware of this decision.
Youcannot know how things occur to you and neither can you know why you"chose" the option of which you did.
===
BeforeI read Sam Harris's Free Will book, I was convincedthat free will was real. Now, after being confronted by this seemingly simplyline of thinking, I'm not so sure. Feel free to have a stab at Harris'slogic.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
"End the death penalty"
"All life is precious"
"Stop state killing"
"Black lives matter"
"Justice for Brandon"
I have to say, hard core lefties get more and more confusing by the passing days. I was honestly appalled when I realised people actually wanted this murderer freed. According to BBC,
He was given the death penalty for his involvement in the murder of Todd and Stacie Bagley in June 1999.He was one of five teenagers accused of robbing the pair and forcing them into the boot of their car in Texas.They were shot as they lay in the boot by 19-year-old accomplice Christopher Vialva before Bernard set the car alight.
According to Kim Kardashian (yes, not very reliable, but the first list I could find of why Brandon shouldn't be executed).
1. He was 18 at the time.
An adult who can legally buy a shotgun, drive a car, drink alcohol and pay taxes.
2. He was not the shooter.
He's the guy who helped force a couple into the boot of a car and then turn them into pork crisp.
3. The prosecutor and of the jurors now support clemency.
I'm pretty sure I would change my mind pretty quick if I had an army of lefties stomping around making a racket of whom would definitely not be pleaded justice was served.
4. He’s spent decades in prison w/out a write up, helping at risk youth.
There's a difference between rehabilitation and criminal justice. Criminal justice is about punishing.
5. There’s bipartisan support for his commutation.
Doesn't matter. A court ruling is a court ruling.
*final notes
I'm worried that this whole matter is a race related situation. I'm quite certain that if the races were switched (Brandon was white and the victims were black), there would be outrage from the opposite direction. Lefites would almost certainly say "Look at this murderer, he burned a black couple for God sake".
How do I know this? Look at the reaction when Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self defence.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics