Hopsin is a beast. But his newer stuff was underwhelming. I kind of agree with you about Eminem. He's a great rapper but as I study deeper into philosophy and grow as a person, his rhymes get more and more cringe worthy. I still keep the word play within me but eschew the ignorance that his raps bring.
Have you ever heard of Prozak? That's a good example of a rapper who gets by on good story telling. There's also that guy who tells stories from two different opposite view points respectively and juxtaposes them into his music video. I think his name is Joiner Lucas
I can appreciate the smooth flow. But the hype and gangster references don't really grab me. Plus the song didn't have a good theme to it. It was kind of a puff rap. Which I'm not opposed to, but that's kind of the red carpet to lead into the good stuff.
Also, your case is not compelling. It moves in the wrong direction. You want to create a safe space for people. Which is fine to an extent. But the bigger you make one safe space the smaller you make someone else's. Yes, you'll make a few bigots say the "N" word slightly less in public. Bravo. In the mean time, you'll censor a bunch of other people's justified free speech and to make it worse, it will open the door for people to take legal action based on personal offense.
Once that happens. It will be chaos and everyone will lose.
Oh dear. You actually just put your entire foot in your mouth. Not only do I read philosophy. I breathe it.
Okay Mr. Philosopher. Have you ever heard of Hume's Guillotine? It's the argument that proves that your moral justification is not a justification at all. Maybe YOU should read some philosophy. you made an "is" statement (The "N" word "is" doing X) and then you made an ought statement (We ought to ban the "N" word) According to Hume's Guillotine, Is and Ought cannot connect. Therefore, your argument does not fit a valid logical structure.
1.) I disagree. There are more effective ways of deterring crime than banning guns. Your hypothetical is irrelevant.
So since you just keep dodging it, I'm just going to assume that you're double talking and your standard really isn't Life over guns as you claim.
2. Okay read the study again and be wrong.
Yes that is my argument. surveys are not valid unless we're tracking opinions. Opinions are not a good argument for guns. I want hard data that doesn't depend on the answers that Joe Blow down the street gave because he felt like it.
The standard we both agreed upon is the one I said. Life over Guns. that means guns are legal up until the point that it violates the right to life in any given situation. This can be interpreted different ways, but just give me your best answer.
The study says handguns. Not all guns. It might have spoke about other guns. But the positive data only spoke to handguns.
On your concealed carry point....
Those are surveys. That doesn't actually tell us if they saved lives or not, but rather people's opinions about it. Survey's are just opinions in the form of numbers. I guess we're playing family feud now.
You're missing the point. If the study is only for handguns, then we don't know that the results wouldn't be different if we added other legal guns as well.
Also missing the point again. What if there was a gun right now that didn't meet the standard? Would you ban it? Disregard reality for a second and just answer the question.
I know you didn't say that. Your study said it. That's the problem.
You're just stating that they meet said standard. That could be the case, but you're missing the point. If one of the guns did not meet the standard, you should be willing to ban it. That's why I'm saying that you shouldn't say ALL GUNS THAT ARE LEGAL RIGHT NOW because you can't possibly know if they actually all meet the standard and you should be ready to accept that if it becomes apparent.
I disagree. Pointing a gun at someone is actually reason for somebody else to shoot you and makes it more dangerous. That's why feeling threatened is not a good standard. What if someone has PSTD and thinks they're in danger and brandish the gun and then the other person is actually the victim now and they pull out a gun to defend themselves and then get shot. Who was wrong? That why feeling threatened is not enough. You have to actually be threatened. If we can't agree on that, then we probably can't agree on anything.
Everything in jail is not illegal. That's just false. There are plenty of things that prisoners own that could potentially kill people.
I never said that life over guns means we should remove anything that could kill somebody, that's vacuous. Anything could kill somebody under the right conditions.
Life over guns means that owning guns should be allowed up until the point that they threaten right to life. So if a gun has been shown to be too destructive and not sufficiently constructive, then it should be banned.
Furthermore, any destructive application of a legal gun should also be illegal. That means using the gun in any way that violates right to life should be illegal. This means that you should not be able to shoot somebody unless they have the MMO to kill you at that very moment and you as much can be objectively verified.
I disagree with that. You do not have the right to pull the trigger simple because you feel threatened. That's like saying somebody is allowed to diminish free speech when it's offensive to somebody.
What matters is that there is an actual threat. It's not enough that you feel threatened. That's how you end up with a case like in Florida where a man chased down an innocent kid and killed him and got away with it because he felt threatened.
1. If you're doing so people can defend themselves, then it doesn't matter what is legal right now, it only matters what defends them.
2. Okay, so your study is only for handguns. That's a major issue. That means other weapons or even specific types of handguns do not apply to this study and therefore it's not enough data to support your conclusion.
3. My point is that we should only keep the specific models of guns that are deemed safe enough rather than tacitly clinging to the current norm.
4. That's my problem. You cannot prove that brandishing their gun saved their life. I could make cases for people who brandish their guns and increase their level of danger, possibly getting themselves killed in some cases.
It doesn't matter how long they've been legal for. That's an appeal to tradition. By that logic, I could say that slavery should be legal, because it was for the majority of human history.
It could be the case that every gun that is legal right now would fit into a safe and fair standard, but if that's not the case, you should be ready to let those guns go. If you're only holding onto them because they're legal, then you're appealing to tradition.
I find those numbers to be dubious. But let's just pretend that's the case just for fun. Which guns did the saving? I'm willing to bet that over 80% of them were handguns. Also, the term saving is a little hyperbolic. The only way to really know if a gun saved somebody is if the person shot somebody or if the criminal outright said "I was going to rob her, but then I seen the gun and ran". I doubt the second one happens ever, so it would have to be the first one. If that's the case, then every case of a life being saved by a gun is also a case for hurting someone with a gun. Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.
What if the criminal didn't have a gun and the defender did and then shot them? Was that a life saved? No.
If rocks were capable of killing a large group of people with ease, then yes, we should ban those rocks. But that's not the case, therefore rocks are not illegal. Btw, sometimes it could be illegal to have a rock because the situation implies that it was intended as a weapon. Like in jail for instance.
I'm not in favor of gun bans. But what about gun regulation? Surely, you don't need to have access to every type of gun to defend yourself? Certain guns are bound to cause more harm than good, that's just a fact. For instance, nobody is buying an RPG for home defense. If you do favor life over guns, then do you admit that there needs to be some regulation?
1. While it shows differences in the genders, it does not show any data that specifically shows that co education is the reason.
2. The data for single education schools does not account for the fact that most single education schools have better funding because most of them are private.
3. The differences between the genders shown in your data does nothing to suggest that separate curriculum or methodology was required between the genders. At the most, it MIGHT imply that we should use the same curriculum, but expect different results. Which would be an argument for grading them differently, which I'm not 100% opposed to depending on how it's done.
4. The data does not account for the differences of learning within one gender. Allow me to elaborate. The key point here is that both sides learn differently, therefore, we should separate them. But not every girl learns the same nor does every boy. So if we're to stick with your logic, we should separate the boys and girls into further sub categories and what we end up with is each student having their own personal teacher, because everybody ultimately learns differently to some degree. This is the key flaw in your logic. You're assuming that different learning style means we should separate them. But that doesn't follow. Once we know that people learn differently, we can let their scores reflect that. Since the curriculum is always the same for all genders, then it makes more sense to keep them in the same schools and just grade them according to their learning needs. Once those needs are understood, it would be easy for the teachers to find more inclusive ways to present their curriculum. You could say that your method does the same thing, but mine will be better because I don't have the logistical mess of synthetically segregating all the children and building a bunch of extra schools (because you know how people love to pay for that)
1. my first statement is true, it says "tend" not "always"
2. The implications is that I'll give it a chance if it's data. Also, his argument could have been good enough by itself. The only reason I said that is because he absolutely insisted on resting his argument upon data. So that's why I said what I said.
3. It doesn't matter who gives the opinion. Even Stephen hawking had bad opinions. I don't listen to the professionals because of their opinions. I listen to them when they have hard data. There's nothing wrong with that. To listen to somebody's opinion merely because they experts is fallacious.
1. I said sources, not data. I accept data but data is a tricky thing. The data could be true while also being a non sequitur to the issue.
2. Well I have to read the data first and then cross reference it with other data from sources he didn't give to see if his data fits the norm. I also have to see if it's stratified and account for extra factors. Anybody who takes a single glance at data and then accepts it is either looking at a really simple subject or is a fool.
3. Data is mathematical or scientifically quantifiable. Data given in a source is a source. But not all sources use data. Some are just random news articles that may or may not be objective and mostly consist of points that the debater could have made themselves. If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent.
Hmm. I tend to dismiss sources since they're so easy to use improperly. I do accept hard data. So I'm willing to give you data a chance. I shall respond in the future. Maybe we could formally debate this.
First comment. Because that's literally what I said.
Second. If I do, it's not intentional.
Third. No because being bigoted with have nothing to do with it. I can not like something without being bigoted. That's a lot different than committing a prejudice act. I think you're missing the point here.
The problem is that you're attributing something to somebody that wasn't based on individual merit. the moment that happens. You're committing bigotry.
I never denied your stance. I simply called the stance conservative, which is objectively true and you took issue with it. It wouldn't be such a problem for you, but you have it in your head that Conservative = X.
That's what makes it profiling and prejudice. You have a profile for "conservative" in your head and when someone fits the profile, you add all of the stereotypes to them.
Now if you want to live your life that way, then cool. But just know that you're participating in bigotry if you do.
It just seems like a flimsy excuse. I really have no choice but to take you at your word, but it troubles me that you don't see the lack of logic within your method of handling conservatives.
1. How do we decide what is hate speech?
2. If we base it off of how people react to it, doesn't that mean that anybody can make anything hate speech?
3. If anything can be hate speech, how is it different than outright censorship?
4. If we allow outright censorship, how do we then even have any free speech at all?
5. I could say the word "ball" or "rock" or "spoon" and offend somebody to the point where it hurts them. Is that my fault? No.
6. Do I like hate speech? No.
7. Will making it illegal stop it? No.
8. Will making it illegal restrict it? Only when it's provable.
9. Will making it illegal restrict justified free speech as well? You bet your behind it will.
10. Does the ends justify the means?
"I've demonstrated the merits of my case, at least adequately relative to my opponent. If you feel otherwise about the topic you can challenge me to a debate, because as always, I am open to a challenge. "
Nice dodge. If you don't want to explain, just say so. Don't tap dance around.
"I'm not convinced cutting off their penises would prevent distraction or be beneficial in any regard. There is also the obvious ethical/moral implications involved. Overall it's not analogous, as I'm not proposing anything which violates their autonomy (as you would put it). "
I agree, as I agree that your thing doesn't prevent distraction either. You haven't demonstrated why it works. You do realize that frat houses have the highest rates of rape offenders in the U.S. right?
Your idea is old and played out. It's been done before and that's why we know it doesn't work. Your reasons for wanting it are ultimately arbitrary and border on sexism.
Either state the reason, admit you don't have one, or admit you won't tell me and be done with it. I could care less about debates. I prefer truth and discussion. The debates are just a change to force people to read my opinions, lol.
Nice hand wave. Telling me what my best argument is. If you knew what the actual best argument was, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Who cares if boys get distracted by girls. Boys get distracted by farts and their own penises. You gonna take those away too? You have no real foundation for your argument.
You're just saying X because it makes Y better. You haven't demonstrated this to be the case. You haven't demonstrated that it's the only way and you haven't demonstrated that X is necessary for Y to exist at all. You're just making an is/ought statement which means you're defeated by Hume's Guillotine.
In the future, I would suggest you don't enter a debate or discussion thinking you know all the rebuttals or that your position can't be answered. You're gonna end up like mustardness. On the forums writing nonsense pseudo sentences.
So, I understand that claim, but could you elaborate on how segregating the classes actually helps other than just asserting it. If I tell a teenage boy everything about female sexuality, that would be helpful, same goes visa versa for a girl. Segregation is more likely to cause rape due to lack of understanding.
If you can acknowledge that they're not optimal, then why do you do it? Surely you're not a slave to your emotions such that you have to stoop to someone else's level correct?
It's not merely an elephant. It's a chess piece that's used in some variants of chess. The one I used it in was metamachy and my own home brewed chess, which people are welcome to play me in at roll20 if anyone ever ends up on there. I don't go on there much except to play the variant with my wife. Spoiler alert, I'm an extremely boring home body. :)
Yeah, I would say that too if I had no case like in your situation. :)
Hopsin is a beast. But his newer stuff was underwhelming. I kind of agree with you about Eminem. He's a great rapper but as I study deeper into philosophy and grow as a person, his rhymes get more and more cringe worthy. I still keep the word play within me but eschew the ignorance that his raps bring.
Have you ever heard of Prozak? That's a good example of a rapper who gets by on good story telling. There's also that guy who tells stories from two different opposite view points respectively and juxtaposes them into his music video. I think his name is Joiner Lucas
The first link was wrong so I edited and posted the right one, so refresh if you get confused, lol
I can appreciate the smooth flow. But the hype and gangster references don't really grab me. Plus the song didn't have a good theme to it. It was kind of a puff rap. Which I'm not opposed to, but that's kind of the red carpet to lead into the good stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noO8PKZ34wo
How's this grab you?
Also, your case is not compelling. It moves in the wrong direction. You want to create a safe space for people. Which is fine to an extent. But the bigger you make one safe space the smaller you make someone else's. Yes, you'll make a few bigots say the "N" word slightly less in public. Bravo. In the mean time, you'll censor a bunch of other people's justified free speech and to make it worse, it will open the door for people to take legal action based on personal offense.
Once that happens. It will be chaos and everyone will lose.
Oh dear. You actually just put your entire foot in your mouth. Not only do I read philosophy. I breathe it.
Okay Mr. Philosopher. Have you ever heard of Hume's Guillotine? It's the argument that proves that your moral justification is not a justification at all. Maybe YOU should read some philosophy. you made an "is" statement (The "N" word "is" doing X) and then you made an ought statement (We ought to ban the "N" word) According to Hume's Guillotine, Is and Ought cannot connect. Therefore, your argument does not fit a valid logical structure.
You should have stuck with the legal end.
This topic is based on a false dichotomy.
Too bad about the forfeit, I'll battle you if you're itching for an opponent. Forewarning, I'm not polite when I battle.
As much as I dislike Ben Shapiro. I can't deny that he is an intellectual. That doesn't mean that he's smart on every topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DQispWoIyA
Thanks. I will admit that they can be silly at times, but it all depends on what the writers put into it.
Unless you're going there to throw an egg at trumps head (please let this be the case), you will get more done being here.
1.) I disagree. There are more effective ways of deterring crime than banning guns. Your hypothetical is irrelevant.
So since you just keep dodging it, I'm just going to assume that you're double talking and your standard really isn't Life over guns as you claim.
2. Okay read the study again and be wrong.
Yes that is my argument. surveys are not valid unless we're tracking opinions. Opinions are not a good argument for guns. I want hard data that doesn't depend on the answers that Joe Blow down the street gave because he felt like it.
The standard we both agreed upon is the one I said. Life over Guns. that means guns are legal up until the point that it violates the right to life in any given situation. This can be interpreted different ways, but just give me your best answer.
The study says handguns. Not all guns. It might have spoke about other guns. But the positive data only spoke to handguns.
On your concealed carry point....
Those are surveys. That doesn't actually tell us if they saved lives or not, but rather people's opinions about it. Survey's are just opinions in the form of numbers. I guess we're playing family feud now.
You're missing the point. If the study is only for handguns, then we don't know that the results wouldn't be different if we added other legal guns as well.
Also missing the point again. What if there was a gun right now that didn't meet the standard? Would you ban it? Disregard reality for a second and just answer the question.
I know you didn't say that. Your study said it. That's the problem.
You're just stating that they meet said standard. That could be the case, but you're missing the point. If one of the guns did not meet the standard, you should be willing to ban it. That's why I'm saying that you shouldn't say ALL GUNS THAT ARE LEGAL RIGHT NOW because you can't possibly know if they actually all meet the standard and you should be ready to accept that if it becomes apparent.
I disagree. Pointing a gun at someone is actually reason for somebody else to shoot you and makes it more dangerous. That's why feeling threatened is not a good standard. What if someone has PSTD and thinks they're in danger and brandish the gun and then the other person is actually the victim now and they pull out a gun to defend themselves and then get shot. Who was wrong? That why feeling threatened is not enough. You have to actually be threatened. If we can't agree on that, then we probably can't agree on anything.
Everything in jail is not illegal. That's just false. There are plenty of things that prisoners own that could potentially kill people.
I never said that life over guns means we should remove anything that could kill somebody, that's vacuous. Anything could kill somebody under the right conditions.
Life over guns means that owning guns should be allowed up until the point that they threaten right to life. So if a gun has been shown to be too destructive and not sufficiently constructive, then it should be banned.
Furthermore, any destructive application of a legal gun should also be illegal. That means using the gun in any way that violates right to life should be illegal. This means that you should not be able to shoot somebody unless they have the MMO to kill you at that very moment and you as much can be objectively verified.
I disagree with that. You do not have the right to pull the trigger simple because you feel threatened. That's like saying somebody is allowed to diminish free speech when it's offensive to somebody.
What matters is that there is an actual threat. It's not enough that you feel threatened. That's how you end up with a case like in Florida where a man chased down an innocent kid and killed him and got away with it because he felt threatened.
1. If you're doing so people can defend themselves, then it doesn't matter what is legal right now, it only matters what defends them.
2. Okay, so your study is only for handguns. That's a major issue. That means other weapons or even specific types of handguns do not apply to this study and therefore it's not enough data to support your conclusion.
3. My point is that we should only keep the specific models of guns that are deemed safe enough rather than tacitly clinging to the current norm.
4. That's my problem. You cannot prove that brandishing their gun saved their life. I could make cases for people who brandish their guns and increase their level of danger, possibly getting themselves killed in some cases.
It doesn't matter how long they've been legal for. That's an appeal to tradition. By that logic, I could say that slavery should be legal, because it was for the majority of human history.
It could be the case that every gun that is legal right now would fit into a safe and fair standard, but if that's not the case, you should be ready to let those guns go. If you're only holding onto them because they're legal, then you're appealing to tradition.
I find those numbers to be dubious. But let's just pretend that's the case just for fun. Which guns did the saving? I'm willing to bet that over 80% of them were handguns. Also, the term saving is a little hyperbolic. The only way to really know if a gun saved somebody is if the person shot somebody or if the criminal outright said "I was going to rob her, but then I seen the gun and ran". I doubt the second one happens ever, so it would have to be the first one. If that's the case, then every case of a life being saved by a gun is also a case for hurting someone with a gun. Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.
What if the criminal didn't have a gun and the defender did and then shot them? Was that a life saved? No.
If rocks were capable of killing a large group of people with ease, then yes, we should ban those rocks. But that's not the case, therefore rocks are not illegal. Btw, sometimes it could be illegal to have a rock because the situation implies that it was intended as a weapon. Like in jail for instance.
Why every gun right now specifically? That seem like an appeal to tradition to me.
If the standard is Life over Guns, then should we ban every gun that violates that standard regardless of whether it's currently legal or not?
I sent you a debate request. My counter argument goes against Single Ed, but goes a step further.
Okay, then PM me your response
I'm not in favor of gun bans. But what about gun regulation? Surely, you don't need to have access to every type of gun to defend yourself? Certain guns are bound to cause more harm than good, that's just a fact. For instance, nobody is buying an RPG for home defense. If you do favor life over guns, then do you admit that there needs to be some regulation?
Okay, if you don't want to address me, that's fine. Farewell.
I'm not voting, so there's no conflict here.
I'm pretty sure that the creator can't censor you Omar.
After looking at the data, I see some problems.
1. While it shows differences in the genders, it does not show any data that specifically shows that co education is the reason.
2. The data for single education schools does not account for the fact that most single education schools have better funding because most of them are private.
3. The differences between the genders shown in your data does nothing to suggest that separate curriculum or methodology was required between the genders. At the most, it MIGHT imply that we should use the same curriculum, but expect different results. Which would be an argument for grading them differently, which I'm not 100% opposed to depending on how it's done.
4. The data does not account for the differences of learning within one gender. Allow me to elaborate. The key point here is that both sides learn differently, therefore, we should separate them. But not every girl learns the same nor does every boy. So if we're to stick with your logic, we should separate the boys and girls into further sub categories and what we end up with is each student having their own personal teacher, because everybody ultimately learns differently to some degree. This is the key flaw in your logic. You're assuming that different learning style means we should separate them. But that doesn't follow. Once we know that people learn differently, we can let their scores reflect that. Since the curriculum is always the same for all genders, then it makes more sense to keep them in the same schools and just grade them according to their learning needs. Once those needs are understood, it would be easy for the teachers to find more inclusive ways to present their curriculum. You could say that your method does the same thing, but mine will be better because I don't have the logistical mess of synthetically segregating all the children and building a bunch of extra schools (because you know how people love to pay for that)
1. my first statement is true, it says "tend" not "always"
2. The implications is that I'll give it a chance if it's data. Also, his argument could have been good enough by itself. The only reason I said that is because he absolutely insisted on resting his argument upon data. So that's why I said what I said.
3. It doesn't matter who gives the opinion. Even Stephen hawking had bad opinions. I don't listen to the professionals because of their opinions. I listen to them when they have hard data. There's nothing wrong with that. To listen to somebody's opinion merely because they experts is fallacious.
1. I said sources, not data. I accept data but data is a tricky thing. The data could be true while also being a non sequitur to the issue.
2. Well I have to read the data first and then cross reference it with other data from sources he didn't give to see if his data fits the norm. I also have to see if it's stratified and account for extra factors. Anybody who takes a single glance at data and then accepts it is either looking at a really simple subject or is a fool.
3. Data is mathematical or scientifically quantifiable. Data given in a source is a source. But not all sources use data. Some are just random news articles that may or may not be objective and mostly consist of points that the debater could have made themselves. If I'm going to here the opinion of a journalist then why not just hear the opinion of my opponent.
Hmm. I tend to dismiss sources since they're so easy to use improperly. I do accept hard data. So I'm willing to give you data a chance. I shall respond in the future. Maybe we could formally debate this.
Thanks... I think.
That's an interesting video you posted. I love good wordplay
First comment. Because that's literally what I said.
Second. If I do, it's not intentional.
Third. No because being bigoted with have nothing to do with it. I can not like something without being bigoted. That's a lot different than committing a prejudice act. I think you're missing the point here.
The problem is that you're attributing something to somebody that wasn't based on individual merit. the moment that happens. You're committing bigotry.
I never denied your stance. I simply called the stance conservative, which is objectively true and you took issue with it. It wouldn't be such a problem for you, but you have it in your head that Conservative = X.
That's what makes it profiling and prejudice. You have a profile for "conservative" in your head and when someone fits the profile, you add all of the stereotypes to them.
Now if you want to live your life that way, then cool. But just know that you're participating in bigotry if you do.
Yeah, speedrace is no slouch. No rhyme is safe.
And insulting them is somehow more effective? Because people totally admit they're wrong when you insult them right?
Back to the reason for the skirmish. If you say that you hear them out first, then we do you need to profile them in the first place?
If you're going to suspend your prejudice just long enough to know them, then you don't practically need the prejudice.
So not only do you fail on moral grounds. You fall on tactical and semantic grounds as well.
It just seems like a flimsy excuse. I really have no choice but to take you at your word, but it troubles me that you don't see the lack of logic within your method of handling conservatives.
meh
All you've gotten to is a dynamic. Where's the proof that it's bad for education? You're not connecting the dots.
Even if I granted what you just said, that just gets us to a change in dynamic (which you waved off by saying it didn't need a further explanation)
Please show that the change is unproductive to studies.
Single sex education is diminishing. You're fighting a losing battle.
Learn from the past.
I'll humor you for a second.
So let's say we abolish hate speech.
1. How do we decide what is hate speech?
2. If we base it off of how people react to it, doesn't that mean that anybody can make anything hate speech?
3. If anything can be hate speech, how is it different than outright censorship?
4. If we allow outright censorship, how do we then even have any free speech at all?
5. I could say the word "ball" or "rock" or "spoon" and offend somebody to the point where it hurts them. Is that my fault? No.
6. Do I like hate speech? No.
7. Will making it illegal stop it? No.
8. Will making it illegal restrict it? Only when it's provable.
9. Will making it illegal restrict justified free speech as well? You bet your behind it will.
10. Does the ends justify the means?
"I've demonstrated the merits of my case, at least adequately relative to my opponent. If you feel otherwise about the topic you can challenge me to a debate, because as always, I am open to a challenge. "
Nice dodge. If you don't want to explain, just say so. Don't tap dance around.
"I'm not convinced cutting off their penises would prevent distraction or be beneficial in any regard. There is also the obvious ethical/moral implications involved. Overall it's not analogous, as I'm not proposing anything which violates their autonomy (as you would put it). "
I agree, as I agree that your thing doesn't prevent distraction either. You haven't demonstrated why it works. You do realize that frat houses have the highest rates of rape offenders in the U.S. right?
Your idea is old and played out. It's been done before and that's why we know it doesn't work. Your reasons for wanting it are ultimately arbitrary and border on sexism.
Either state the reason, admit you don't have one, or admit you won't tell me and be done with it. I could care less about debates. I prefer truth and discussion. The debates are just a change to force people to read my opinions, lol.
Nice hand wave. Telling me what my best argument is. If you knew what the actual best argument was, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Who cares if boys get distracted by girls. Boys get distracted by farts and their own penises. You gonna take those away too? You have no real foundation for your argument.
You're just saying X because it makes Y better. You haven't demonstrated this to be the case. You haven't demonstrated that it's the only way and you haven't demonstrated that X is necessary for Y to exist at all. You're just making an is/ought statement which means you're defeated by Hume's Guillotine.
In the future, I would suggest you don't enter a debate or discussion thinking you know all the rebuttals or that your position can't be answered. You're gonna end up like mustardness. On the forums writing nonsense pseudo sentences.
So, I understand that claim, but could you elaborate on how segregating the classes actually helps other than just asserting it. If I tell a teenage boy everything about female sexuality, that would be helpful, same goes visa versa for a girl. Segregation is more likely to cause rape due to lack of understanding.
If you can acknowledge that they're not optimal, then why do you do it? Surely you're not a slave to your emotions such that you have to stoop to someone else's level correct?
Play the hack Zelda Parallel Worlds.
Thank me later.
Why do you think insults are productive?
Oh I see. You want to separate them based on gender for the classes. I don't see the point. Where's the necessity for doing this?
So wait. Are you arguing to get rid of the genders?
It's not merely an elephant. It's a chess piece that's used in some variants of chess. The one I used it in was metamachy and my own home brewed chess, which people are welcome to play me in at roll20 if anyone ever ends up on there. I don't go on there much except to play the variant with my wife. Spoiler alert, I'm an extremely boring home body. :)
Wow, a whole topic for me. Thanks!! But I'm gonna rock this for a while. Maybe I'll do elephant throwback month later this year, lol.