Total posts: 533
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I had the one, I will look for more.
These shouldn't be on their YouTube pages because they are unlisted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I don't know how long I am going to respond. Don't get me wrong, this conversation was riveting, but I see how easily this type of thread devolves into flame-war territory.
So... if there are so many Muslims in the world and not every single one is trying to "kill the infidels" or whatever, then it can be assumed that the religion is not the only driving force for terror to be committed.That's an opinion. I have covered this many times now. And I always answer this " not all muslims /most are peaceful" rhetoric the same way.Just because those muslims who do want to kill any Westerner are only a "minority" it doesn't distract from the fact that the "minority" can cause millions of deaths. Not Germans were nazis,the majority were peaceful, but this didn't stop the "minority" causing the deaths of 60 million + men women and children with 16 million of those death happening in death camps. You see, the peaceful majority are irrelevant.
Islam represents more than its minority. If you want to call out ISIS, then call out ISIS. The peaceful majority is perfectly relevant. If we are discussing Muslims, then there ought to be more than talk of its least representative members. Why should the other followers of Muslim be labelled with the same "terrorist" label because of their religion? Considering that most end up victims of these terrorist groups, (or in the case of the Rohingya, the entire government of Myanmar,) it seems weird to assume that they would be the ones supporting terror. I provided polls from Pew in support of this, and you provided a statistic suggesting that 7% of Muslims worldwide seemed to be fine with the attack in the US. Of course, this doesn't mean that they would go out and attack the US. More on this later.
Muslims don't support the type of regime that kills them.That is not just muslims, is it? No one supports a regime that wants to kill them, I wouldn't support any government that wanted to kill me. The thing is Christianity doesn't want to kill me because I criticize it and question it, I even and sometimes mock christians for believing what they do. . It is a that many "western muslims" prefer and want islamic sharia law these are facts, take your pick>. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=muslims+want+shariah+law+in+the+west
I am going to politely decline watching the rest of the videos if it's all the same to you. Most are interviews with a few Muslims who aren't representative of the whole. If you have more polls to cite, that would be wonderful. I just don't see the merit in digging for data for you. I don't know how many Muslims you interacted with. I will say that the few I interacted with didn't mind the fact that I was completely apathetic toward all religious institutions.
If all of them are terrorists driven by a terrible religion, then why are they condemning violence in support of an Islamic State?Who exactly are they who condemning violence in support of an Islamic State"?I agree thousands of muslims suffer at the hands of their so called muslim "brothers/sisters" but that would make that sectarian in my books. It is not international terror. I honestly don't care if Shi'ite and Sunni want to butcher each other. That is their affair.
The "who" you are looking for happens to be Muslims who don't feel like butchering people for different viewpoints. Also, considering the fact that ISIS would kill so many of their own religious sect in favor of their fever-dream version of it, wouldn't it be easy to assume that at least a portion of their goal is merely political? Yeah, they want to establish an "Islamic State." They mainly want to do so because the Assad regime punishes political dissidents and cares little for its own population. This, of course, doesn't justify their behavior. It does suggest other motives besides religious ones.
On a related note, 9% of Americans, according to a recent poll, believe that it is acceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views...Holding and having views and opinions is not terrorism on international scale as is Islam. Islam openly and clearly teaches violence and intolerance towards the non believer. Stop trying to ignore or to pretend it is not there written in the Islamic book , the hadith and the sunnah.Intolerance. Quran 51- You, who havebelieved, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact]allies of one another.....Violence. Quran 8:39 And fight them until there is no fitnah and[until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed,Allah is Seeing of what they do.There are over 100 verses in the same vein as the above throughout the quran. The quran teaches global jihad until "ALL religion is for allah".Don't come back with the " nat all muslims" I have explained and covered that above already.
Actually, the evidence you provided only discussed about 7% of the population believe that the 9/11 attack was "perfectly justified." This is an opinion or view. It is not terrorism, unless you are suggesting that 7% of the world participated in the attacks. Also, if you read just a line further, the authors stress that the numbers should not be considered definitive.
"Esposito and Mogahed explain that the labels should not be taken as being perfectly definitive. Because there may be individuals who would generally not be considered radical, although they believe the attacks were justified, or vice versa"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence#Statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence#Statistics
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It is "presumptuous" and I don't believe anyone here has "saddle the entire Muslim population with labels like "terrorist", have they, that would be " presumptuous" of you to think so, wouldn't it.
Read the OP:
"There religion vouches for this act of terrorism, and when they do it, they are not punished.
It is not the people, but it is the Religion's."
Seems to be implying a few things about Muslims, like that their religion compels them to commit terrorism. I found that over 1 billion people identify as Muslim, and not all of them are trying to kill people en masse. So yeah, it does seem to imply that Islam equates to terrorism.
There are over 1 billion people identifying as Muslim in the worldYes, and?
So... if there are so many Muslims in the world and not every single one is trying to "kill the infidels" or whatever, then it can be assumed that the religion is not the only driving force for terror to be committed.
Across many countries, Muslim support for ISIS is diminutive.That is to say extremely small. I don't agree, but what is your point?
Muslims don't support the type of regime that kills them. If all of them are terrorists driven by a terrible religion, then why are they condemning violence in support of an Islamic State?
105,000,000= 7% of 1.5 Billion.That's not just a few nutjobs like the 3000 KKK members in the USA."
On a related note, 9% of Americans, according to a recent poll, believe that it is acceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views, or about 22 million Americans (1). I don't really want them speaking for me or the rest of America. Sure, there are differences between accepting the views of age-old racists and justifying the attacks, but the 9% of America that believe it okay to hold these opinions are not representative of everyone. That said, much like the people who support the attacks, if every single one of these people went out of their way to join neo-Nazi groups or attack the US, there would be mass chaos that we probably would be aware of. Also, I wouldn't be sure that there are only 3,000 members in all white supremacist organizations considering the well documented increase in this type of domestic terror in the US as documented by many organizations, and compiled by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org (2). I would be curious to see how many of this 7% was recruited into ISIS. This is especially true as, over the time, people have come to adopt the opinions that the violence demonstrated by ISIS can never be tolerated. In fact, another Pew Poll in 2017 shows that Muslims were nearly 20% more likely to suggest that “targeting and killing civilians can be justified in order to further a political, social or religious cause,” than the rest of the population in the US (3). The poll also shows growing concern for terrorism claimed to be inspired by Islam from the Muslim community in the US.
Certainly, there are ideological ISIS fighters who believe that they are doing exactly what is suggested in the Quran or the religion's many Hadiths. But, to suggest that religion is the driving motivator for all ISIS fighters is an oversimplification.Religion maybe won't be the "driving factor "of some of the individual fighters, who knows? But the driving factor for Islamic State IS to create an Islamic state through Jihad. Which then the individual fighter IS fighting Islamic Jihad to create an ISLAMIC state..
This is brushing near the main point I was trying to make. For many, especially foreign fighters and other recruits that have rudimentary knowledge of Islam, this is a way of escape from their ordinary lives. Some Muslims perceive that they are being maligned in home countries, and as a result join these groups with the promise of better lives. Lofty ambitions of statehood probably don't factor into many who decide to join. See my Brookings evidence in my previous response if you are curious. It explains how the problem of recruitment is multi-faceted, not because of one sole factor.
Condemnations of extremists from moderate Muslims is not a new thing .Maybe not but can you explain what a "moderate muslim" actually is? Do, for instance ,your so called "moderate muslim" read the same Quran as the muslim extremist, or a different book altogether? Do extremist have the same god as the So called "moderate muslim"? Indeed, do the muslim extremist have a totally different ideology/ religion from the so called "moderate muslim"?
How about a Muslim that doesn't try to kill you because of your ideology? Plenty of those. I mean, not all Christians call for slaves to be obedient to their masters, condemn gays, or shoot up Planned Parenthood. Yeah, I would imagine that identifying as Muslim means that you have become somewhat acquainted with the Quran and associated Hadiths. FYI, one needs to disassociate the Hadiths with the actual Quran. The 72 virgins quote that many people refer to when discussing the purported evils of Islam actually comes from a Hadith that many in the Muslim community believe to be mistranslated (4).
Sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
What are they being used for if you aren't watching them?
Created:
Posted in:
Most religious texts have passages which advocate for atrocities. The Bible, in 1 Peter 2:18, instructs slaves to submit to their masters, including those who are "harsh" (1).
To saddle the entire Muslim population with labels like "terrorist" seems a bit presumptuous. There are over 1 billion people identifying as Muslim in the world (2). Condemnations of extremists from moderate Muslims is not a new thing (3). Across many countries, Muslim support for ISIS is diminutive. In the US, France, Lebanon, and Israel, over 80% of Muslims support US intervention to eradicate ISIS according to Pew's opinion surveys (4). This is for good reason, as most victims of the tyrannical group happen to be Muslim according to estimates from the Dept. of State (4).
If religion is key to Muslim's action in killing hundreds of people, then why would so many denounce ISIS and affiliated extremist groups? There are a variety of reasons why someone joins a group such as ISIS. Monetary benefit is one. AQAP's appeal in Yemen is evident of this fact as they provide stable income to fighters on par with, and sometimes greater than, the salaries of other regime's fighters (5). Another reason is that ISIS has been able to capitalize on Muslims who feel persecuted by their home countries (6). Many ISIS fighters would consider their own understanding of Shariah law as "weak," indicating other reasons for why they joined ISIS (7). Certainly, there are ideological ISIS fighters who believe that they are doing exactly what is suggested in the Quran or the religion's many Hadiths. But, to suggest that religion is the driving motivator for all ISIS fighters is an oversimplification.
Put another way, "50 percent of Americans in general say that violence in the name of Islam does not represent Islam—75 percent say the same of Christianity (8)."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
A lot of them are unlisted. Here is one I did with bsh1. Don't judge, it was my first ld styled debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I meant that I didn't blame you for being nervous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I dont blame you. Did the family embrace you with open arms?
Btw -7. I think that was my score but I forgot, so it might have been a little higher.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Although calling myself "king" is a bit too much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
@dave2242
I don't know what you are talking about Dave. It was so riveting that there is now a permanent groove in my ass because I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. Such suspense and wit has never been present on this platform before! Well, except for that 15 part fanfiction that thett3 made.
Created:
Posted in:
Openness 69%
Conscientiousness 1%
Extraversion 3%
Agreeableness 27%
Neuroticism 98%
For the rest:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
@Rosalie
@Uther-Penguin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I really like the actor and finally recognized the image. That is glorious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Really?! Oh god. I have to change it now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I actually quite liked it. I prefer the cat one simply because I like cats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You will love Persona 3, but it takes a while to complete. This is especially true if you complete all the side quests and if you download the FES version.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I like my profile pic. That said, go ahead and choose a profile pic for me Mr. Dudz.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I really like the photo you gave me. You don't need to spend much time editing if you don't want to. I just wanted to see what kind of pic you would come up with.
1. Humorous or witty
2. Elusive
3. I lean more towards the cuck
4. I like competing, but I see how competition can lead to wounded egos and relationships. Also, competition is a pretty broad concept. I dislike the d***-waggling contests that emerge in political discourse nowadays. Healthy competition is fine though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
The Alternative Hypothesis evidence is not compelling to me for a few reasons.
First, the science on the correlation between brain size and intelligence is far from concrete. The Scientific American explains that when volunteers undergo MRI scans on their brains, researchers typically find a weak correlation between brain size and intelligence. Brain size only accounts for about 9-16% of variability in general intelligence according to the article (1). The article also explains neanderthal brains are actually bigger than the brains of the modern day human. Despite this difference in brain size, the modern day human is accomplishing more in the realms of technology and medicine than ever before.
A large portion of the evidence provided in the article you cited came from Rushton's studies, some of which are littered with major logistical issues. Specifically, his 1995 study, in which he suggested that Mongoloid brains were bigger than Caucasian brains, which, in turn, were bigger than African-American brains. In the study, Rushton controlled for body size when making the measurements. Michael Peters of the University of Guelph cites 3 separate studies which show that body parameters are independent of brain size. Also, he shows that when not accounting for body size, whites have larger brains than Asians (2). Rushton acknowledged that Asian children had higher IQ scores than other races (3). Unless these IQ differences are somehow eliminated by adulthood, there emerges a major contradiction. If Asians have less brain mass, then how could they be smarter if brain size determines intelligence?
Second, there is a large potential for bias in the work done by many of the researchers cited. I understand that in the era of "fake news," it seems redundant, (some might even say impertinent) to show bias within the sources. However, at least 2 of the people in the link, Rushton and Lynn, were at one point members of the Pioneer Fund (4). This fund is a non-profit group founded by people who were inspired by the Nazi eugenics program, and, later funded people such as Roger Pearson. Pearson was not only a eugenicist, he was also the creator of the Northern League, a neo-Nazi organization.
Third, and most importantly, the conclusion drawn does not seem to have much support. Even if there are physical differences between races, why would that necessarily stop people from reaching success? Great strides have been made to further the rights of blacks, and many have been able to become doctors, lawyers, politicians etc. Intelligence, which you seem to suggest is lacking in blacks, is determined through more than genetics. The U.S. National Library of Medicine suggests that nutrition, education, and home environment all affect IQ (6). Given the persistent gap between white and black earnings, perhaps some of these observed differences on IQ scores are to be expected (7). Poor households are ones that cannot afford tutoring, medicine, or healthy food.
I suppose that IQ and race could be correlated. However, I am confused as to what US lawmakers. or in fact, anyone is supposed to do with that information. Creating a caste system by which only certain races can take certain jobs seems ridiculous. Obviously, not all black, white, or Asian people have IQs which are average for their race. If you don't believe me, listen to Jimi Hendrix and tell me with a straight face that the man was not a musical genius.
IQ tests happen to be antiquated as well, and not good predictors of actual intelligence. A study published from the journal "Neuron" found that there are multiple, independent components of intelligence that a single integer cannot describe (8). Multiple "compartments" in the brain are used for different functions. These functions are largely determined by the external environment. For instance, those with chronic anxiety are less capable when it comes to short-term memory storage, and yet, could have extraordinary planning skills (8). Smoking, playing video games, and other choices that people make can also influence IQ (8). If the IQ is supposed to be an instrument which analyzes people's natural ability to learn, retain information, and analyze, then how can it change with external factors and still be considered to be a flawless test? In truth, science can do a lot, but it cannot reduce someone's brainpower to a mere number.
Interesting post by the way. It is not letting me tag you for some reason Zarro. It is probably my computer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uther-Penguin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
What literary genius! Thank you for gracing us with yet another masterpiece!
Created:
Posted in:
My vote goes to:
Most Sufficient Voter
Best Debater
Rookie of the Year
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Again, it wasn't meant as an insult. I was just confused by your sentiments on moderation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You seem upset that thett3 insulted members of the DART community, I presume. Referring to her as a "c*nt* seems to undermine your point though. Is it ok, then, to only target members of DART that have not modded? I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just curious why you feel such ire for this particular story. I don't think you were even mentioned in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It certainly was not meant that way, but I could see why someone would draw that conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
2. https://www.adoptioncouncil.org/blog/2018/01/stats-show-our-nations-foster-care-system-is-in-trouble
4. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-115SPRT26354/pdf/CPRT-115SPRT26354.pdf (The document is over 600 pages. The Intercept offered a nice summary of what I wanted to present, so I cited that too.)
Created:
Posted in:
I don't disagree that the late-term abortion process could be labeled as barbaric. I would still have qualms about limiting it to the 24 week statute, and limiting abortion in general. I don't care much for the explosive rhetoric that political pundits are dispensing. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that the people who are burdened most by limitations on abortion law would be poor people. This peer-reviewed study from the American Journal of Public Health sums up my point excellently:
"Turnaway–births’ (people who were denied an abortion or 'turned-away') average household income was at 110% of the FPL compared with 144% among near limits (near limits presented for abortion up to 2 weeks under the facility’s gestational age limit and obtained wanted abortions) at 6 months with 61% of turnaway–births and 45% of near limits below the FPL. At 6 months, turnaway–births had almost 4-times-higher odds of being below the FPL (AOR = 3.77; 95% CI = 1.96, 7.25), a difference that persisted through 4 years" (1)
Perhaps this study is not a good representation of actual abortion data, but I would be willing to bet that people who were turned way, and then subsequently birthed a child, were more likely to be strapped for cash in caring for the child. The foster care system is overwhelmed, and unlikely to provide much restitution for the children. The opiod crisis, which has contributed to a significant rise in adult drug abuse, led to many being placed in the system, overburdening the system as there are nearly a half-million children in foster care (2). Moreover, abuse is common within foster care families. The US Committee on Finance probed one of the most successful for-profit foster care centers called MENTORS. They found that over a 10 year period, over 80 kids died in their facilities. Only 13 were investigated. Also, pending autopsies were excluded from internal reports, and there were documented cases in which the foster care system placed children in the homes of past-kidnappers and drug offenders (3) (4). Adding to this, a disproportionate amount of people in foster care end up being homeless, or behind bars (5).
I don't think a child growing up in a household living in impoverished circumstances would turn out any better. Regardless, you stated that there was no reason that a child should not be placed within the foster care system as opposed to being aborted. Actually, more parents are giving up babies for abortion. Actually, more infants are landing themselves in foster are systems. In 2016, nearly 20% of new foster care children were babies (2). This may not be because of abortion at all, but I figured I should mention it.
Also, abortion rates are generally falling in the US (6). Reasons for this includes an increase in the use of effective birth control (7), and unintended pregnancies being less likely to be aborted (8).
I seem to have not worded this carefully enough in my previous post. I can see why people would describe the practice as barbaric, but I do not see this having wide-spread impacts to the point that people have abortions for emotional reasons. Given the social stigma against women who have abortions, it seems that psychological issues afterwards would outweigh any emotional issues that a woman would have. Also, as clearly shown, economic reasons seem to be a chief concern for those that abort.
The SCOTUS precedent may protect the right to have an abortion for emotional reasons, but it is usually up to the individual judge as to what that pertains. Minor emotional damage could, in come cases, could be completely ignored. In fact, as thett repeatedly cited:
"We agree with the District Court, 319 F.Supp. at 1058, that the medicaljudgment may be exercised in the light of all factors --physical, emotional,psychological, familial, and the womanʹs age -- relevant to the wellbeing ofthe patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attendingphysician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it isroom that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnantwoman."
We aren't just considering emotional or physical damage, but all damage. This allows the physician to make a better medical decision. If a case of a wrongful abortion, or abortion-on-demand, went to court, then it would be up to the judge presiding over the case to see what qualifies as legitimate emotional damage, and what does not. The person who chooses federal judges happens to be President Trump. Another barrier that prevents abortion-on-demand would be the provider simply refusing to perform an abortion. New York as well as 44 other states allow providers to refuse access to an abortion (9).
The most important question to me, though, is simple:
Is there a demand for late-term abortions?
Not really. Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks according to CDC data (10).
I will never claim to know everything about abortion law or legal definitions. In fact, my opinion is still that of apathy toward all of politics. I can see why someone would support the bill though, and I don't think that calling people who have abortions "filth" provides an honest conversation about abortion.
You're a nice guy, Thett. I don't mean to piss you off if that is what I am doing. Don't respond to me if that is the case and I'll take the hint.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
I never claimed that I go to the dentist, drink from leaded sources, or do anything else. To me, you and I are strangers. This attack about what I presumably do is based off of no knowledge of you. Regardless, dentistry, medicine, and other related professions are by no means perfect, and are constantly improving. So of course, there are issues within their professions. This does not mean that I buy what you are espousing in the least.
Dental health aside, Dr. Axe is no great source of information for valuable scientific data. If he is the person who convinced you of this, then it should be noted that he is a Naturopathic "doctor" who is not medically licensed. In the words of a person I found on the forums:
"Naturopathic doctors are just as dangerous as allopathic doctors."
He is no better than Dr. Oz.
So, I am curious as to how this information was gathered for the registrar. For one thing, establishing a causal link between taking a vaccine and dying is difficult to establish. For instance, the Institute of Medicine in the 1990s found that instances in which reports were submitted to the VAERS database (which documents severe reactions to vaccinations) often were coincidental, and had nothing to do with the vaccines administered (1). How was it determined that vaccinations were a major factor in killing off people in the early 20th century? If we could scroll through individual cases, then perhaps we could get a clearer picture. Without it though, I am putting my trust in the hands of an organization that demands that I join the "Truthiversity," and yet, can't spell the word "enroll (2)."
So, vaccinations aside, the question that was originally posed was about the existence of viruses. You claim that you worked with electron microscopes. Then you probably know already about the possibilities of negative staining in how it can enhance photographs so that viruses are more visible (3). Also, you claim that hormones are bigger than viruses. On what evidence, what type of hormone?
Also, this is the citation that shows the leaky gut syndrome symptoms. Oops:
P.S. that doctor that I cited who was using out-of-date information according to you actually states that hygiene and having a healthy environment is important. He never talked of the leaky gut syndrome because he was discussing something else entirely.
I am not suggesting that all vaccines are 100% safe. Nor am I suggesting that Bechamp is completely incorrect. I am simply putting your ideas under the amount of scrutiny it deserves given that it literally contradicts everything we know about medicine or diseases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Generally, I don't care to give any analysis on such loaded, emotionally laden topics. However, are you referring to this provision as summarized by the Associated Press?
Known as the Reproductive Health Act, the measure replaces a 1970 state abortion law that was passed three years before Roe legalized abortion nationwide. It codifies many abortion rights laid out in Roe and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman’s health is endangered. The previous law, which was in conflict with Roe and other subsequent abortion rulings, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman’s life was at risk. (1)
It seems that the late-term abortion can only be used when the women in question is in danger. I don't know if this is the law that you are referring to, but if you ask me, it seems more justifiable than what you just described.
Upon further reading, this is what the bill specifically states:
Abortion, which states that an abortion may be performed by a licensed, certified, or authorized practitioner within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health.
The issue does not seem to be with the bill, then, but with the broad definition of health set by the SCOTUS precedent. On its own, the bill seems relatively tame for the backlash that it created. At least, that is what seems to be the case after reading what the court decided. Now, if the bill went to court because someone was denied an abortion when it was "necessary to protect someone's life," then the precedent could be altered.
As far as I am concerned though, this bill seems tame. Yes, it has some components that could impact abortion recipients and providers, but if a case went to the SCOTUS right now with the people that Trump selected, then the past definition would probably not be adhered to, and could be completely altered.
This is not to say that you have no reason to be upset if you are pro-life and consider abortion to be murder.
2. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s240 (You can open as a PDF as well) (Warning, the text can hurt your eyes)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@Alec
The fact that people only debate the side that they support is kind of ridiculous to me. A truly good debater could defend anything. Political ideologies, to me at least, seem to symbolize the absence of thought. People who are "proud" liberals or conservatives already are predisposed to agree with some arguments more than others. They will not objectively look at the facts. If you or anyone reading this thinks that they are inoculated from this disease then I have a message for you:
You are not. I am not. Nobody can remain completely unbiased. This does not mean it affects your ability to persuade.
I am not always proud of the IRL national debate circuit, but there were a variety of good debaters who could thrive off conservative and liberal points. Primarily, people are concerned with in-depth understanding of domestic and foreign affairs, and (unless you count national circuit policy and LD,) public speaking ability.
Besides, DDO rankings were based on ELO, which is not representative of the best people on the site. The prevalence of noob-sniping and the fact that people have limited time in the day and can't spend every living hour on a faltering debate site typing away until they start to hemorrhage. There are people on the site with less than 10 debates who I guarantee would wipe the floor with everyone on this site.
Anyhow, I have met stupid liberals, stupid conservatives, and brilliant people representing most of the political spectrum. In fact, my parents happens to be overwhelmingly conservative. Yet, they have judged liberal people in debate rounds and voted for them. I have no f****** clue what people would call me, but I definitely do not take pride in identifying with a brand of conservatism or liberalism. Both ideologies are like vodka. In small amounts, I'll admit begrudgingly that they are fine. In large amounts, I'll happily declare that it drives people insane.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
While there are plenty of reasons to discredit big pharmaceutical agencies, I do not know why you think that anti-vaxx groups are any better. For instance, studies that show some connection between Autism and vaccinations tend to be funded by groups such as Age of Autism, (which sounds like way too much autism, and I'm autistic and saying that) (10). Andrew Wakefield, perhaps the granddaddy of the anti-vaccination movement, published a study in The Lancet which was conducted on 12 children (10). Moreover, Wakefield created a patent for an alternative MMR vaccine (10). I wonder if he wants to make money on that? Other groups, for the record, that donate their time and funding to these "studies"include Generation Rescue and the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute(10). With this in mind, I don't know if I trust Vac Lib. I don't know who the president, Ingri Cassel (11) is. Is he/she a registered nurse? A practitioner of medicine? I see no reason why I should trust this source over years of medical research that determined vaccinations to be a needed medical instrument. Also, the website links to a bunch of other unverifiable sources.How do I know that this isn't fake news?
You ask that we apply Occam's Razor.Okay. Instead of suggesting that the entirety of medical science is a fraudulent experiment in profiteering on people's suffering, then why can't we look for a simpler solution? Some people were inoculated from the particular strain of bird virus because they were exposed to a particular variant of it before? This seemed to be the conclusion by the University of Arizona (12).
The creation of Jenner's vaccine in 1796 seems to be directly tied to the decrease in smallpox death throughout London. In 1796, approximately 8 percent of deaths were caused by smallpox. In 1802, when the British parliament recognized his scientific studies as breakthroughs, Jenner was awarded 30 thousand pounds. In this short amount of time, there were substantial decreases in smallpox death by simply looking at this chart (13). Causation is hard to establish, but the little time passed and the lack of other major events that changed treatment plans substantially seems to confirm the effect that Jenner had on medicine. Was his experiment unethical? I would say so. Did it save millions of lives? Yes.
6. https://badscidebunked.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/capture9.jpg (notice highlighted text which tags Dr. Axe)
13. https://ourworldindata.org/smallpox#vaccine-against-smallpox (scroll down a little bit)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
I looked at the evidence you provided. First, it should be noted that Dr. Axe is no medical doctor. He is a proponent of bentonite clay, a dangerous substance with elevated lead levels (1) (2). Also, click the button that reads "evidence based" near the top left portion of the article. Text is shown which indicates that:
The information in our articles is NOT intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice (1).
Moreover, the table that he posted on the Dr. Axe website suggested that there is over 1 mg of lead in a .36 oz serving of bentonite clay (3). Note that this is not the composition of any particular product. It is the table showing the composition of the average serving of bentonite clay. What is the issue with such a minuscule amount of lead? I'll let an actual medical journal explain their findings:
Adverse outcomes, such as reduced intelligence quotient and academic deficits, occur at levels below 10 microg/dl. Some studies suggest that the rate of decline in performance is greater at levels below 10 microg/dl than above 10 microg/dl, although a plausible mechanism has not been identified. Increased exposure is also associated with neuropsychiatric disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and antisocial behavior. Functional imaging studies are beginning to provide insight into the neural substrate of lead's neurodevelopmental effects. Current protocols for chelation therapy appear ineffective in preventing such effects, although environmental enrichment might do so. (4)
I know that you are concerned with profiteering skewing the literature, but it seems that Dr. Axe, the person's YouTube channel that you cited, also has some "interesting" business practices that border on, and might even be, illegal. For quite a while, Dr. Axe was using Amazon's affiliate program to profit off Redmond's clay products (5). Under federal law, you are required to disclose all paid advertisements. The FTC's own website states:
If you disclose your relationship to the retailer clearly and conspicuously on your site, readers can decide how much weight to give your endorsement.
In some instances – like when the affiliate link is embedded in your product review – a single disclosure may be adequate. When the review has a clear and conspicuous disclosure of your relationship and the reader can see both the review containing that disclosure and the link at the same time, readers have the information they need. You could say something like, “I get commissions for purchases made through links in this post.” But if the product review containing the disclosure and the link are separated, readers may not make the connection.As for where to place a disclosure, the guiding principle is that it has to be clear and conspicuous. The closer it is to your recommendation, the better. Putting disclosures in obscure places – for example, buried on an ABOUT US or GENERAL INFO page, behind a poorly labeled hyperlink or in a “terms of service” agreement – isn’t good enough. Neither is placing it below your review or below the link to the online retailer so readers would have to keep scrolling after they finish reading. Consumers should be able to notice the disclosure easily. They shouldn’t have to hunt for it. (7).
His affiliate disclosure link is placed at the bottom of his website, under the Support tab. The FTC confirms via the bold text that this sort of disclosure is not enough. If he genuinely cared about his paying customers, why would he hide the fact that he is getting pay from companies to sell his product?
His recommended treatments for certain diseases and maladies are also strange to say the least. For instance, he advocated for hyperbaric oxygen therapy for those with Autism (8). For those that are unaware, hyperbaric treatment involves breathing pure oxygen in a pressurized setting or tube which usually treats serious infections such as brain abscesses or carbon monoxide poisoning (9). Side-effects include lung collapse (barotrauma) and ruptured eardrums (9). Yikes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Leaky gut syndrome is an actual condition recognized by practitioners of medicine... to an extent. The leading cause of the ailment seems to be faulty tight junctions within the intestines (1). Typically, people with Crohn's disease and celiac disease are the primary victims. However, claims that leaky gut syndrome has impacted millions of sick people have never been documented. I am curious of what scientific study validates your claims up till now.
While the CDC fact sheet may be fake news, I have yet to see a reputable, or really any, source that has backed up your claims. If you are really interested in the spread of disease due to influenza, this report shows that simply breathing could spread influenza. Much like spores erupting from a fungus to travel a distance, the flu disease can travel and be inhaled. By actually observing hundreds of airborne samples of flu afflicted patients, the PNAS drew the following conclusion:
“Finding infectious virus in 39% of fine-aerosol samples collected during 30 minutes of normal tidal breathing in a large community-based study of confirmed influenza infection clearly establishes that a significant fraction of influenza cases routinely shed infectious virus, not merely detectable RNA, into aerosol particles small enough to remain suspended in air and present a risk for airborne transmission.”
Despite reports suggesting moderate dips in the life expectancy, likely for a variety of reasons including obesity-related conditions, the fact is that the life expectancy of the US population has increased since the days of Louis Pasteur. If germ theory was the predominant method for treating ailments, and also was completely wrong in its approach, then how can we clearly observe an increase in life expectancy?
We have seen a 99% decrease in the prevalence of the 9 diseases that we vaccinate for (4).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
What particle?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Somebody
Vitamin deficiency is a malady that can affect people. However, most people can ingest their nutrients through eating everyday foods such as oranges and thus do not need to take extra dietary supplements. Iron in particular is dangerous because taking more iron then necessary can lead to congestive heart failure (1). Moreover, studies that have been conducted on nutritional supplements and vitamins did not have a control group to compare to, leaving their results on shaky scientific ground at best (2). As far as Bechamp's theory is concerned, well, here are the individual component's:
- Disease arises from micro-organisms within the cells of the body.
- These intracellular microorganisms normally function to build and assist in the metabolic processes of the body.
- The function of these organisms changes to assist in the catabolic (disintegration) processes of the host organism when that organism dies or is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical.
- Microorganisms change their shapes and colours to reflect the medium
- Every disease is associated with a particular condition.
- Microorganisms become “pathogenic” as the health of the host organism deteriorates. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary causal agent.
- Disease is built by unhealthy conditions.
- To prevent disease we have to create health. (3)
If all micro-organisms within the body cause disease, how is it possible to explain STDs? Is it by pure coincidence that disease is spread directly after sexual intercourse? Moreover, if cleaner hospitals cause less infections due to less pathogens being alive and finding their way into the bodies of patients, does that not disprove the first item on this list of postulates? The only parts of the theory that has been confirmed by modern science seems to be the 7th and 8th planks.
I understand that money plays a large role within medicine. However, if rates of deaths have decreased, and understanding germ theory has led to vaccinations, antibiotics, and a plethora of other innovations that were based on germ theory, then what, if not by carefully studying and applying germ theory, was the US and other nations able to raise the quality and length of life so much?
Obviously there is good bacteria which aids digestion, but it seems that the sole cause of disease being entirely internal does not match up with scientific observation.
As for the questions that you asked before:
So, how do you know they are viruses? Is it because somebody who makes a living out of the virus myth, told you so?
This could literally be a defense against any argument (for the record, how are you sure that the moon is real, that you are real or that cucumbers exist? The cucumber lie has been perpetuated too much!) However, I'll bite. I know that viruses exist because, sans any other scientific explanation standing up to scrutiny, I see no reason to believe that millions of science teachers, doctors, professors, etc. decided that they would continue a lie that started hundreds of years ago because some shadowy groups are paying them money to propagate germ theory. What are the names of these sketchy groups anyway? It does not seem to be a reasonable explanation.
How did the first person to find a virus know that it was a virus without any previous pictures of one?
We found what seemed to be a micro-organism that could potentially hurt someone, described it, and observed it. We did the same thing when we looked at a skeleton for the first time. We didn't have a previous picture of a skeleton, nor did we have an x-ray machine to double check on someone who was alive. We still realized the functioning of the skeletal body. Also, given the fact that Bechamp sort of agreed with the possibility of micro-organisms, just noting that the micro-organism must have come from inside the body, it seems that this phenomena could be easily observed.
How do viruses attack humans on mass in pandemics like 1919 influenza attack? Where did they meet up to organize this attack on humanity?
Note -If you don't have any brains, legs, ears and eyes how did they find any humans to attack them?
The CDC explains that sneezing, coughing, and direct contact with bodily fluids spreads the ailment (4).
Their you go...........lol
Wrong form of there/their/they're.
I do not think that Bechamp is necessarily always wrong. Hygiene is important. However, given the strides that modern medicine has made using germ theory, I do not think that many of his ideas can be applied today.
Created:
Posted in:
Want to know the answer? Because they were the people who volunteered at the beginning. If you are concerned about liberal decision making ruining the site, then that is a thread within itself. But to my knowledge, not too many people want to spend so much time on this site as an active moderator. Least of all me, or any other people who have been remotely active.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I never found debating, whether in the forums or formally, to be an experiment in truth-finding. Most people, even if they subconsciously recognize mistakes in their arguments or thinking, tend to double-down on their original, fallacious reasoning. People value others who are right, and ostracizes those who are wrong. This is one of the main reasons that people never apologize, admit their incorrect assertion, or correct their original arguments. Usually the response from others in recognizing a fallacy or error of reasoning is to ridicule the guilty party by declaring them stupid or unreasonable. This, in turn, leads to the perpetuation of the social ailment. The forums are not invulnerable to this conundrum; perhaps causing countless flame-wars.
Also, the more that people identify with their political affiliation, the more likely they will feel personally attacked when an opposing side contradicts their ideas. In reality, much about politics will never affect us. Most of us are not destitute to the point that we cannot access the internet, most of us could get a low-paying job if necessary, and most of us have graduated from high school and are thus more likely to earn more in comparison to others.
Also, the more that people identify with their political affiliation, the more likely they will feel personally attacked when an opposing side contradicts their ideas. In reality, much about politics will never affect us. Most of us are not destitute to the point that we cannot access the internet, most of us could get a low-paying job if necessary, and most of us have graduated from high school and are thus more likely to earn more in comparison to others.
I find formal debates comforting because you never have to be right, admit your personal ideology, or care about the people that would be affected in a debate-able topic. It is essentially a Chess game where the pieces are contentions, and tactics can be used to defend or attack other pieces.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks! It should be fun 😊
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
@Barney
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
@coal
@KingLaddy01
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SamStevens
I'll be available. What time is best for everybody you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Muffins
Welcome.
Here are some topics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
What is the most egregiously stupid/hilarious K, argument, or piece of rhetoric you have ever heard? If there are more than one, feel free to list them.
I will tell some of mine. Keep in mind that some of these were qualifier tournaments in which people had to present speeches to qualify for a national tournament. One of the people who did something on this list actually broke to a national tournament.
Someone went up to give a speech and called me immoral.
Someone else called me a communist because I went aff on a bill that no one else would take concerning Social Securtiy.
Someone proposed that we overthrow North Korea.
Someone asked someone else in cx if it was a conflict of interest for them to support a bill concerning Palestine because they were Muslim.
Someone called the poor the "underclass" and proceeded to explain how the underclass ruins American culture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Cool! I did Congress IRL, and I am sure it isn't as intensive as policy, but I really enjoyed it. I got 4th at states, which was really cool.
Created: