oromagi

Just curious about the marketing of this site, by members, since that is my profession.

Results indicate better physical health outcomes for atheists compared to other secular individuals and members of some religious traditions. Atheists also reported significantly lower levels of psychiatric symptoms (anxiety, paranoia, obsession, and compulsion) compared to both other seculars and members of most religious traditions.

 why are people so tied to New York

-->@oromagi

In the venn diagram of people discussing CRT there is no overlap between the set of people who have an accurate understanding of the subject and the set of people who think public policy needs to censor and suppress CRT. 

Why do conservatives always want to censor everything ?

-->@oromagi

Is LEROY CROW something you're making up to satirize reverse Jim Crowism or is there some definition I just don't see?

I'd hate to steal the credit for this unmitigated stroke-of-genius.

Question for 'lack of belief' atheists  Why do you use this definition of atheist (the Flew definition)?

While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy. For example, many writers at least implicitly identify atheism with a positive metaphysical theory like naturalism or even materialism. Given this sense of the word, the meaning of “atheism” is not straightforwardly derived from the meaning of “theism”. While this might seem etymologically bizarre, perhaps a case can be made for the claim that something like (metaphysical) naturalism was originally labeled “atheism” only because of the cultural dominance of non-naturalist forms of theism, not because the view being labeled was nothing more than the denial of theism. On this view, there would have been atheists even if no theists ever existed—they just wouldn’t have been called “atheists”. (Baggini [2003] suggests this line of thought, though his “official” definition is the standard metaphysical one.) Although this definition of “atheism” is a legitimate one, it is often accompanied by fallacious inferences from the (alleged) falsity or probable falsity of atheism (= naturalism) to the truth or probable truth of theism.

Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.

It is a definition rejected by essentially all academics in the Philosophy of Religion, yet it is common to find laypeople on the internet use this definition of atheist.

Within academia the definition of atheist is "one who believes there are no gods", yet so often when this definition is mentioned online it seems 'atheists' almost take offense to it and get defensive of the 'lack of belief' definition.  Why is this?

Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term. Again, there is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”. The issue for philosophy is which definition is the most useful for scholarly or, more narrowly, philosophical purposes. In other contexts, of course, the issue of how to define “atheism” or “atheist” may look very different. For example, in some contexts the crucial issue may be which definition of “atheist” (as opposed to “atheism”) is the most useful politically, especially in light of the bigotry that those who identify as atheists face. The fact that there is strength in numbers may recommend a very inclusive definition of “atheist” that brings anyone who is not a theist into the fold. Having said that, one would think that it would further no good cause, political or otherwise, to attack fellow non-theists who do not identify as atheists simply because they choose to use the term “atheist” in some other, equally legitimate sense.

Why hold onto a definition that is rejected by academics?

Especially those here, on a website designed for debating?

Why not use the definitions used in academia?

Why do Atheists arbitrarily and irrationally say Miracles don't exist?

Miracles by their very nature are not cause and effect - hence it would be absurd to think they ought to be repeated.  Miracles are also by their nature intended to be rare and unusual.  

The only way for an atheist to say miracles don't exist would be to say that "In my experience, I know there can be no miracles because I have done the empirical research on every place on planet earth and in every moment of history that has ever taken place". Or the atheist could could say he has talked to someone who does know everything.  ( I think the only person who knows everything is God) 

So the statement of knowing miracles are not true is not knowledge - it is prejudicial opinion.  Something which does not have any educational value.  What say you? 

Revolutions are usually a result from lack of freedom.  Not sure how restricting freedom, prevents it

• In spite of last fall's revelations that QAnon was just a father and son pornographers running Stormfront and the QAnon servers out of their Filipino pig farm using Russian Intel for cybersecurity, QAnon's popularity has managed to increase somewhat.  In May, the New York Times ran an article stating that the cult of QAnon was the same size of the Christian Evangelist movement and met many qualifications for calling itself a mainstream religion.
  
• QAnon was the origin point for many of the most outlandish claims about the 2020 election including the Hugo Chavez and Dominion server stuff.
  
• It's started to look like five or six of Trump's most prominent lawyers might actually get disbarred for trying to present some of these cuckoo claims in court.  Two are facing one of the largest libel claims in US history, Dominion is asking for more than a billion dollars in damages from each.
  
• QAnon was prominently represented at the Jan 6th insurrection.  Hundreds of people could be facing jail time for acting on the beliefs put forward by QAnon.
  
• Since Jan 6, the St. Petersburg cybersecurity firm shared by Stormfront and Russian military intelligence dropped QAnon as a client.  It is no longer clear who provides cybersecurity for Watkins' QAnon server but it still seems to be happening in Russia somewhere.  Interestingly, a rival QAnon server is now gaining popularity- QSear.ch.  The .ch indicates China's internet domain.  So, a website that claims to run by a guy with high ranking Q level clearance in the US  Dept. of Energy is now actually multiple sites with China and Russia openly competing for control of the Republican Party's belief system.
  
• HBO ran a really interesting 4 part documentary about QAnon generally and the Watkins specifically.  The documentary ends with Ron Watkins accidently revealing that he and his dad were QAnon.  So that 's two confessions by Ron although most of the time when asked he still denies it.
  
• The Federal Election Commission sent a letter this week to Lauren Boebert asking why her campaign kept venmo'ing her money from the election fund to her which she deposited in her personal accounts.  Immediately afterwards Boebert amended her tax filings to show that although she claimed a net loss of $300,000  over the past two years her husband actually made nearly a million in consulting fees from Terra Energy and they'd just forgot to report it.  Boebert also forgot to disclose her conflict of interest when introducing Natural Gas legislation this year for which Terra Energy was the priniciple lobbyist.
  

-->@oromagi

In the event of a civil war, as was in Afghanistan, whose sovereignty should take precedence?

And at what point do humanitarian concerns about civilian welfare factor into the equation? 

They were literally part of the mob that did the raping

Based on interviews and other evidence, the team believed that Reyes had acted alone: The rape appeared to have taken place in the North Woods area after the main body of the thirty teenagers had moved well to the south, and the timeline reconstruction of events made it unlikely that he was joined by any of the defendants. In addition, Reyes was not known to have been associated with any of the six indicted defendants. He lived at 102nd Street, in what locals considered another neighborhood. None of the six defendants in the rape mentioned him by name in association with the rape.

and random acts of violence. They are equally as guilty. This whole ideal they were innocent is ridiculous.  I don't think anyone ever thought they could pinpoint exactly who in the mob  did what specifically, only that they were a part of the violent mob and aided it. Everyone in that mob should have served time. The 5 have probably spent enough time in prison to be changed people, but were certainly a danger to society.

random acts of violence.

They are equally as guilty. This whole ideal they were innocent is ridiculous. 

I don't think anyone ever thought they could pinpoint exactly who in the mob  did what specifically, only that they were a part of the violent mob and aided it. Everyone in that mob should have served time.  

The [3000 should] probably spen[d] enough time in prison to be[come] changed people, but were certainly a danger to society.

-->@oromagi

lawyers who put Strickland in jail now admit that they falsified all of the evidence against him and are begging the Governor to remedy their misdeeds.

It's possible that you can falsify records and that person still be guilty, but what am I missing.  Why aren't the prosecutors in prison? They should definitely be there if they are admitting to faking evidence.

Over the past decade, the most prominent voice on prosecutorial misconduct was probably that of Alex Kozinski, former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a widely-quoted opinion in 2013, Judge Kozinski wrote that a major form of prosecutorial misconduct—concealing exculpatory evidence—had “reached epidemic proportions in recent years,” and that courts were partly responsible because they failed to take action against the offending prosecutors.

In a law review article two years later, Kozinski expanded at length on that critique, and observed that “there are disturbing indications that a non-trivial number of prosecutors—and sometimes entire prosecutorial offices—engage in misconduct that seriously undermines the fairness of criminal trials.” One of the main indications Judge Kozinski pointed to was the high number of exonerations since DNA exonerations began in 1989.

Prior research on official misconduct roughly tracks public attention. There has been a great deal of interest and writing about misconduct by police officers in their interactions with civilians on the street: corruption, violence, racial and ethnic prejudice.  That behavior, however abhorrent, is not the sort of misconduct we address here since it does not produce false evidence of guilt or conceal true evidence of innocence; and little of the writing on police misconduct analyzes systematic data on police behavior.

There is more systematic research on misconduct by prosecutors, mostly by journalists.

In 1999, Ken Armstrong and Maurice Possley reported in the Chicago Tribune that since 1963, at least 381 homicide convictions across the United States were reversed “because prosecutors concealed evidence suggesting innocence or presented evidence they knew to be false.”  Virtually no disciplinary actions were taken against the hundreds of prosecutors involved: one was fired but reinstated, another was suspended for 30 days. A later article in the same series identified 42 prosecutors in Chicago who obtained criminal convictions that were later reversed because of their misconduct, and who not only escaped any meaningful adverse consequences, but went on to become judges.    (oro: that is, zero prosecutors were charged with a crime)

In 2003, the Center for Public Integrity released a study of more than 11,000 state court criminal cases across the country since 1970 in which prosecutorial misconduct was alleged. Courts reduced sentences, dismissed charges, or vacated convictions in more than 2,000 of those cases, but only 44 prosecutors were the subject of state bar complaints, and of those, only two were disbarred and 12 were suspended.  (oro: that is, zero prosecutors were charged with a crime)

A study in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 1998 found much the same thing for prosecutorial misconduct in federal criminal cases. The Department of Justice investigated only 9 percent of some 4,000 complaints of misconduct by its prosecutors over 20 years, and of those, only 4 percent were found to have merit—approximately 15 cases all told. Twelve years later, USA Today reported that little had changed. From 1997 to 2010, judges found misconduct by federal prosecutors in 201 cases, but only six were disciplined by bar authorities.   (oro: that is, zero prosecutors were charged with a crime)

The most detailed study on the subject was released by Kathleen Ridolfi and Maurice Possley of the Northern California Innocence Project in 2010. They collected all decisions in which courts found that state prosecutors in California had committed misconduct in trials that led to convictions, 707 cases from 1999 through 2007. Only 159 of those convictions were reversed—in the remainder, the misconduct was deemed “harmless”—and, despite a legal obligation that California courts report all such findings to the California State Bar, only six California prosecutors were disciplined in any manner for misconduct in a criminal case in that nine-year period.   (oro: that is, zero prosecutors were charged with a crime)

Taken together, the studies of prosecutorial misconduct reached two main conclusions:

(i) a substantial number of prosecutors commit misconduct in criminal cases, and

(ii) almost none are disciplined for it.

This is an important contribution to our understanding of the problem. The journalists who conducted them did an impressive job of searching through thousands of cases to locate the small minority in which courts found that misconduct had occurred, and then determining whether the prosecutors involved were sanctioned.

These studies, of course, have limitations. The central one is that they are all based on official findings that misconduct occurred, usually in written opinions by judges (or in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette study, internal Department of Justice memoranda). Most criminal cases, with or without misconduct, do not produce written court opinions; in fact, most convictions based on guilty pleas leave virtually no substantive records at all. In cases that do include court opinions, misconduct is often overlooked by lawyers and judges alike because nobody knew about it at the time. For other convictions, valid claims of prosecutorial misconduct are raised but rejected by courts because critical evidence to prove those claims has not yet come to light. We see that regularly in the records of cases that eventually do produce exonerations—and then, even when misconduct is an undisputed fact, the case may simply be dismissed with no formal finding.

-->@oromagi

they" (meaning black people) want to "abolish the suburbs

I, have literally been in discussions with leftists on bunkerchan about taking it right to the doorstep of everybody in the suburbs and have seen several news sites confirm that it wasn't just talked about on bunkerchan. I'll look into your claim about them being Republicans, but dude was literally wearing a pink shirt. Also I doubt he would destroy his own fence and try to become so hated

Also I doubt he would destroy his own fence and try to become so hated

I don't know if Strickland is guilty or not. It might be like the wm3 who were falsely exonerated. I doubt oromagi has read the trial transcripts and knows either. 

These people were liberals who actually sided with the BLM movement prior to and after this incident. 

When Carlson introduced McCloskey Tuesday evening, he referred to him as a former Democrat who had his views changed by the 2020 incident. McCloskey said he has always been a Republican and that the description of him as a former Democrat was a “fake news slur,” which elicited laughter from the Fox News host.

They were merely a couple defending their home when their gate was smashed open.

Once you start destroying property, it's a riot.  They were in the middle of a riot and they could have easily been overtaken by the mob. 

The mob whose political ideology the couple agreed with,

had no right to target them for whatever malicious intent they had on the couple or the property.

This just goes to show that at any moment, any person can be turned into a political football.

For this pro BLM liberal couple,

the political agenda to hurt them came from the part of the political spectrum they agree with.   For the lady who sued for spilling coffee on herself, liberals defended her, even though she was a conservative.

This shit happens all the time.

 America went into Afghanistan backing the losing side of the civil war. When the new government was put into place though, we were backing a government that didn't have the ability to impose it's monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force. It was common knowledge that once you were five miles outside of Kabul, it was total lawlessness. America was getting shaken down in convoy protection rackets, and we hit a point where we were pumping 300 million dollars a day into this war, which we were fighting mostly with hired mercenaries like G4S security. 

  I propose that the US should have pursued a bipartisan government with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance prior to pulling out of the country. 

To those who think BLM haven't changed anything 

The conviction and sentence were set aside on August 25, 1992 by the Mississippi Supreme Court which ruled that the trial prosecutor, Lowndes County District Attorney Forrest Allgood, improperly commented on Butler's decision not to testify at the trial.

-->@Intelligence_06

Powerful influences within the U.S. are inextricably with Israel.

Who pulls who's strings has always been a subject of interest.

It's easy to scoff at Mr Wylted, simply because he is the kid in the playground who it's easy to poke fun at.

-->@oromagi

If The Underdog would simply open up any dictionary and hold his definition of LIBERTARIAN and SOCIALISM against any standard definition, his argument would dissolve before he could write it out.

Not at all. The definitions don't necessarily coincide. It should also be noted that when it concerns political, economic, social, and moral/ethical theory, citing mere definition does not suffice.

why are we paying people's rent, when we could be building lots of shelters?   i dont know the costs involved,

On the scale of a single family.

Would you call the functional model of a single family "totalitarian" ?

Would you call the functional model of a single family "communist" ?

Would you call the functional model of a single family "capitalist" ?

Sorry, but you don't get to define terms to mean whatever you want. 

• people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people
  
• vs.
•  real racial differences between various groups of human races.
  

-->@oromagi

A literal interpretation of "white supremacist" is not sufficient to explain its usage. Your definitions don't make sense without this non-literal meaning, especially when I've directly quoted you using this non-literal meaning (shown below):

"The term has non-literal meaning....

Verb[edit]

explode (third-person singular simple present explodes, present participle exploding, simple past and past participle exploded)

1. (transitive) To destroy with an explosion.Synonyms: blow up, blow, blast, burst
   
   The assassin exploded the car by means of a car bomb.
   
2. (transitive) To destroy violently or abruptly.
   
   They sought to explode the myth.
   
3. (transitive) To create an exploded view of.
   
   Explode the assembly drawing so that all the fasteners are visible.
   
4. (transitive, archaic) To disprove or debunk. quotations ▼
   
5. (intransitive) To blast, to blow up, to burst, to detonate, to go off.
   
   The bomb explodes.
   
6. (figuratively, intransitive) To make a violent or emotional outburst. quotations ▼Synonym: blow up
   
   She exploded when I criticized her hat.
   
7. (figuratively, intransitive) To increase suddenly. quotations ▼Synonym: blow up
   
8. (computing, programming, PHP) To break (a delimited string of text) into several smaller strings by removing the separators. quotations ▼
   
9. (transitive, computing) To decompress (data) that was previously imploded. quotations ▼Synonym: unstring
   
10. (transitive) To open all doors and hatches on an automobile.
    

Noun

white supremacist (plural white supremacists)

1. An advocate of white supremacy, a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.
   

white supremacy

 noun

Save Word

Definition of white supremacy

1: the belief that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other racesThe alt-right is a reactionary conservative movement … . It is characterized by an embrace of fascism, white supremacy, and misogyny …— Constance Grady

2: the social, economic, and political systems that collectively enable white people to maintain power over people of other races… [William] Kelley turned his considerable intellect and imagination to the question of what it is like to be white in this country, and what it is like, for all Americans, to live under the conditions of white supremacy …

white supremacy

NOUN

• The belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups, in particular black or Jewish people.
  

  ‘The cry for war is the cry for domination, white supremacy and death.’
  

Using your literal definition, none of these scenarios make any sense, so the term "white supremacist" can't be a purely literal one. Sure, if someone is saying "white people are superior to everyone else", by all means does your literal definition apply, but not all usages of the word are using this literal definition, as seen above.

• Instead, "white supremacist" is a non-literal racial attack against white people forming groups and conducting research.
  

-->@oromagi

I never denied that the Taliban aren't being funded by foreign powers. That doesn't inherently make it a foreign oppressor. We're the American revolutionaries "foreign oppressors" for being backed by France, the Netherlands, and Spain?

The Taliban is *a great deal* more favorable to the Afghani people than the ANG was.  

There's a reason why Afghanis instantly decry American intervention but say nothing about Pakistan,

and why the ANG had to rely on the world's superpower for life support.

-->@oromagi

a three year old girl was shot by the plymouth shooter,

stop trying to make some bullshit semantic twist

to gaslight me on the seriousness of incel subculture

and what it's breeding

losing 1 life of a young person isnt forgivable, this is going too far

At least eight mass murders, resulting in a total of 61 deaths, have been committed since 2014 by men who have either self-identified as incels or who had mentioned incel-related names and writings in their private writings or Internet postings. 

-->@drlebronski

when i say race realists i mean people who think black people are genetically inferior to white people

Sorry, but you don't get to define terms to mean whatever you want. Race realism is about real racial differences between various groups of human races. Race realism does not mandate that race realists believe that "black people are genetically inferior to white people". It's possible to believe that and be a race realist, but it's not required. It's also possible to be a race realist and believe white people are genetically inferior to black people. 

Your definition is dead wrong.

Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.  Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific.  Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, RACE REALISM, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research

biden is to blame for the fall of afghanistan

many generals in the army said it would happen, and even before the operation to end that war was over, the country succumbed to the taliban. it was definitely predictable. now the taliban has all the resources and weopons and such that they seized. 

with that said, some people say if it was so easy for all this to happen, it was always a tenuous situation and we were just fighting an endless war to prop them up against something inevitable if we ever left. some say we also achieved our main objective, which was gettin those who were primarily responsible for 9 11. 

maybe the real test for if biden gets blame, is if any of those terrorists regroup and attack the usa. 

questions, comments, words of wisdom? 

Why did Oromagi attempt to rebut Linda Gottfredson's work, which had nothing to do with race, as  "white supremacist?" Imgur: The magic of the Internet IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com) 

• ”Although she prefers to stay further away from the spotlight than her more flamboyantly racist colleagues, Gottfredson gained some degree of notoriety at the national level with the publication of her 1994 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” which was co-signed by 52 other scientists. “Mainstream Science” was Gottfredson’s contribution to the heated debate over the then-recent publication of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve, which used arguments recycled from eugenicists, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis to claim that social inequality is caused by black genetic inferiority, especially in intelligence.
  
• Gottfredson used “Mainstream Science” to make a variety of claims about the state of intelligence research and its relationship to racial policy. Among other things, Gottfredson stated that the intelligence of the average black adult in the United States was 85, one standard deviation below that of the average white adult. Two standard deviations, or IQ 70, is the general standard for mental retardation, which Gottfredson elsewhere ascribed to black Africans. According to Gottfredson, the difference between black Americans and black Africans would, presumably, be because “almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors – the white admixture is about 20%.”
  

It 'is frustrating, when one can't access scientific articles, studies, statistics, and books, without shilling out some cash.

Correct.  They arrest by proxy in this case. 

laws against criticizing them or interpretation of laws in that regard fear criticism, otherwise they wouldn't push to outlaw it. 

-->@oromagi

Well, now you've changed the subject of your thesis from Jews to the police

You are either not understanding or trolling. 

If the legal system is pandering to jews by suppressing free speech, who is at fault? 

The jews who encourage it and who the pandering works on correct?