School systems should include LBTQ+ topics in their history and sex education

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 279
Topic's author
#91
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
You are simply making a non-sequitur - this is how you define oppression:
"unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power"
So... would you say that purposely not hiring people because they are LGBT is not an unjust exercise of power? Or realtors doing the same for selling houses, or SOGIECE doctors refusing medicinal service to these people? These are all, by definition, unjust exercises of authority - that is literally the definition of oppression - they are being oppressed. You can continue to assert that they are not oppressed, but your not actually responding to my point here, merely restating your point. 

Topic's author
#92
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
You don't seem to understand or grasp what I mean when I say morality is subjective. Morality, as a principle, has to be subjective - it is simply impossible for it to be objective. Logically speaking anyways. However, given that we are all humans, there are certain axioms that we must accept for our existences to not be anti-thetical, one such axiom is to value the well-being of other humans - we necessarily must accept that axiom otherwise your own well-being would not be valued, and your existence would be invalidated. 

So, as the people who oppressed LGBT people were also humans, they have to necessarily accept that what they did was wrong - yes - the morality itself is subjective, as humans all of our morality has to be, but given the axiom that we all accept, or have to accept, it is indeed morally wrong to oppress those people yes.
Topic's author
#93
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Timid8967
No... you are fundamentally wrong here - you see - here's why most parents aren't as good at teaching as teachers are - they aren't teachers. 

Yeah  - that's it - where teachers are required to have a degree in education, parents are not, and such degrees are documents that demonstrate that this person has learned how to teach people things. In contrast, it is parents who are usually incredibly biased, they do not have the education which actually allows them to accurately relate the facts back to their children.

Furthermore, we can see a clear benefit to public schooling - according to a meta-review of studies regarding crime rates and education:
"The following is a list of empirically supported findings about the connections between crime prevention and education:
  • Most studies have found that graduation rates are generally associated with positive public safety outcomes and lower crime rates for communities.
  • States with higher levels of educational attainment also have crime rates lower than the national average.
  • States with higher college enrollment rates experience lower violent crime rates than states with lower college enrollment rates.
  • States that make more significant monetary investments in higher education experience more positive public safety outcomes and lower crime rates.
  • The risk of incarceration, higher violent crime rates, and low educational attainment are concentrated among communities of color, whose members are more likely to suffer from barriers to educational opportunities.
  • Disparities in educational opportunities contribute to a situation in which communities of color experience less educational attainment than whites, are more likely to be incarcerated, and are more likely to face higher violent crime rates."

Another study notes the clear causal effect of more education and earnings:
"edian weekly earnings in 2017 for those with the highest levels of educational attainment—doctoral and professional degrees—were more than triple those with the lowest level, less than a high school diploma. And workers with at least a bachelor’s degree earned more than the $907 median weekly earnings for all workers."

It is quite clear that there are benefits to receiving public education - and to "abolish it" would be to allow all of these things to go away. Furthermore.... no - you are doing what's called a lie - apparently, you believe everything the 1776 report tells you - I would like you to please define Marxist for me, cause I don't think you can. They... should be pro LGBT, that's a good thing, by "anti-white" do you mean teaching that white people have a privilege, or oppressed black people for centuries and still do? Because that's not "anti-white" that's called taking accountability. 
#94
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
would you say that purposely not hiring people because they are LGBT is not an unjust exercise of power?
Hiring people isn't an act of power. Employment is a contract, a dual-sided agreement. You don't force people to work for you, and you can't control their lives in any way.

Power: possession of control, authority, or influence over others

In a free market, an employer doesn't possess any control over the lives of their workers. Calling their ability to make agreements "power" is a purposefully wrong way to use the word. By the same logic, a criminal using his bodily power to steal a car is "oppressing" the owner. This doesn't make any sense (if you disagree, please explain why it makes sense). Similarly, it doesn't make sense to claim that discrimination in the hiring process equates to oppression. It is still a bad thing, but it is just discrimination, not oppression.



Or realtors doing the same for selling houses, or SOGIECE doctors refusing medicinal service to these people?
I can raise the same objection. These people can't control the lives of people. They are merely refusing to serve a particular group. This is the definition of discrimination, not oppression. For something to be called oppression, it needs to be real power. Real power, as in "being in control of someone else".  Only the government and similar institutions have the ability to oppress. 



Morality, as a principle, has to be subjective
...
certain axioms that we must accept
You mean that people have a responsibility to follow moral axioms but that any conclusion is necessarily subjective. I see...
In practice, this means that society can interpret the axioms in a subjective manner to create a moral standard, but they cannot change the axioms themselves. 



they have to necessarily accept that what they did was wrong
They have to accept that maltreating people is morally wrong. But even today, we lock people up in prisons and kill people for being criminals. Why? Because we have other moral axioms in addition to loads of other factors contributing to moral prioritization. Imagine if humanity in the future reaches a "higher" moral plane where they despise our treatment of criminals, concluding that nobody should be treated badly, even if they do things we today considered immoral. We would call out their judgement as unfair, as they were not considering the other factors contributing to today's moral standard. Would you disagree? Do you think our treatment of dangerous murderers is morally wrong? I don't think so. From our perspective, it is most beneficial for society to imprisson criminals. This principle can be applied to any historical period and its respective moral standard. Therefore, it makes no sense to judge the moral standards of the past. It only makes sense to judge people in the past using THEIR moral standard. 


I conclude:
A: Punishing immoral actions is not immoral
P1: One can only judge the actions of a people by their own standard
P2: The moral standard of the past condemned LGBT as immoral
C: People punishing LGBT in the past were not immoral

Topic's author
#95
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Um... yes - they have explicit authority over who is and isn't hired - so to use that authority by purposely not picking certain workers for something they have no control over. That is certainly an unjust use of their power - the free market has nothing to do with this - because we are talking about equity of opportunity, and that is something LGBT people do not have. They are using their authority over who is and isn't hired to unjustly discriminate against a specific demographic, literally every single point of your definition is checked. At least you tried to respond this time.

You defined power as: "possession of control, authority, or influence over others" .... so, like, being able to influence whether someone has availability to medicine that they need? Or a job that they need? that is very explicitly a case of someone using an authority they have over others, unjustly, against a specific demographic, again, it is oppression by your own standard - you are metaphorically shoving your head in the sand and ignoring obvious points here in order to reach your, sorry not sorry, bullshit conclusion. It reads more to me that you simply don't care that LGBT people are being oppressed than don't believe that they are.

You are smart enough to realize that I have laid out very obvious cases of oppression here. 

And no.... the axiom itself is subjective, not the interpretation of that axiom - you are cherrypicking statements now. And here you are making another bullshit non-sequitor - the oppression of a group and the punishment of an individual who did something wrong are two very different things. We have the exact same moral axiom then and now, and murderers did something wrong period - if you accept the axiom that you ought to value well-being (and everybody has to), then they did something wrong. This is not the case for someone who is simply gay. You are just wrong. Blatantly now. You see - there is a reason for the treatment of murderers, and that reason does not apply to how LGBT people have been treated historically. 

You have cherry-picked, made false equivalences, and non-sequiturs - please read thoroughly next time and make a  note to not misrepresent my points. 

#96
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
COME ON! 

Recall:
By the same logic, a criminal using his bodily power to steal a car is "oppressing" the owner. This doesn't make any sense (if you disagree, please explain why it makes sense).  
 
Real power, as in "being in control of someone else".  Only the government and similar institutions have the ability to oppress. 
"Power" in the definition of oppression neither refers to electricity nor individual autonomy -- it refers to POWER --> the courts, the congress, the government. You said that 10 years ago gay people were not allowed to marry, that was oppression. But today, that law isn't there anymore. The problems of LGBT people is not government oppression, but general prejudice and discrimination. The reason a gay person might be denied medicine is not due to any abuse of power, but because the individual responsible for serving him refuses to offer his services. If anything, the doctor is DEFYING power by discriminating (I assume Americans have laws against discrimination).

The ability to deny another person your services is a case of discrimination, not oppression. Your appeal to personal power as a fulfilment of the definition isn't worth anything. That's because the word "oppression" clearly describes the actions of the government and powerful institutions rather than individual workers.


to use that authority by purposely not picking certain workers for something they have no control over
Again, that is called discrimination. I have made it clear that oppression requires general control of a person life. A single denial of a job isn't even close to having power over an individual. Furthermore, to compare oppression (prevented from marriage) to discrimination by using the same word is wholly misleading.



You are smart enough to realize that I have laid out very obvious cases of oppression here. 
Your argument is merely semantical. There is no difference between the proper word discrimination and your word oppression, except that one sounds scarier.
This discussion is a waste of time, lets just use two words:

Oppression1: Government abuse of real power
Oppression2: Any other abusing anything in order to discriminate



bullshit conclusion
It is not a bullshit conclusion to state that LGBT was oppressed1 in the past, but now things have improved, they are only oppresed2 today.




#97
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
the axiom itself is subjective, not the interpretation of that axiom
Subjective axiom... hmmm... interesting. 

Wait, what did you say again?

 Morality, as a principle, has to be subjective

...

there are certain axioms that we must accept 
If we must accept an axiom it isn't subjective. Explain to me how an axiom can be subjective. Furthermore, your assertion that interpreted morality is not subjective makes no sense. If the axiom is subjective, how does it have an objective interpretation? This line of reasoning simply falls flat when confronted with basic questions. I get your point despite of this problem, but you really need to find a logical way to describe the standard you argue for.



oppression of a group and the punishment of an individual who did something wrong are two very different things
We oppress a group called criminals. This group was born with the specific genes and in the specific circumstances that shaped them into criminals. We also oppress a group called LGBT. This group was also born with the specific genes and in the specific circumstances that made them LGBT. Both of these groups had little control over how their lives turned out.

You are arbitrarily creating a divide between criminals and LGBT. I do not deny that there are differences, but your choice of wording shines through here that this particular one of your arguments is flawed and reliant upon rhetoric alone. First of all, you are referring to "oppression of a group", nothing wrong here. But you then go on with "punishing an individual who did something wrong", which is arguably an attempt at scaring me from making that comparison. Your attempt failed.

First off all, criminals include all sorts of people, with a lot of different actions leading up to their arrest. Secondly, you are completely ignoring both the fact that criminals is a group, and the fact that they are far more oppressed than any other group, including LGBT. Thirdly, instead of calling prison oppression, you called it punishment. This strongly suggests you think that these people DESERVE to be in prison, and that their inhumane treatment is not an unjust use of power. You then refere your subjective axiom.



In other words, your moral standard condemns murder as immoral and justifies the inhumane punishment of murderers. As you might know, the moral standard of the past condemned LGBT as immoral and justified the inhumane punishment of LGBT, for example through oppression. These situations are the same situation, there is no difference. The people in the past had religious beliefs, they didn't think they were oppressing innocents, they thought they were serving justice by punishing sinners. My point wasn't that murderers and LGBT are remotely similar. My point was that the future might condemn our moral standard and our treatment of "immoral" people, without us even having a clue that our actions aren't justified. Therefore, it makes no sense to condemn the actions of humans in the past when we ourselves are repeating or continuing this trend. 
Topic's author
#98
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
No - it doesn't mean in the courts or the government, that's you tacking on extra stuff so that obvious examples of oppression aren't oppression. Furthermore, how does you point out that me saying that morality is subjective have anything to do with the interpretation? Because that's what I was responding to - you said that the interpretation of morals is subjective, no - not if we accept an subjective axiom - because the axiom "you ought to value human well-being" isn't necessarily what causes the most "good", it cause the most human good, yes, but to say that it causes the most good period, is just false. That's why the axiom is subjective.

Now you appeal to determinism, but their is a key flaw here, even if I were to accept that argument - you miss the fact that you have to still put people away so that they cause no more harm - LGBT people don't cause any more harm than the average citizen, but I would deny your appeal to determinism in the first place - if determinism was true then we would be incapable of changing our implicit biases, but we can, the things that we want - they can change - and even if it in accordance with something else you have still done something which is "willfully". Therefore, no, your red herring is not effective at distracting the conversation. 
#99
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Now you appeal to determinism
OBJECTION: you are the one that appealed to determinism. Proof:
you do not "choose" you gender identity - just like you do not choose your sexual orientation
 ...
we do not know 100% of the cause of such things
In other words, you previously claimed that (1): you do not choose to be LGBT, (2): you do not know the causes for people being LGBT.

These claims of yours cancel each other out. If one cannot predict or explain the process by which a person finds himself to be LGBT, then you can't deny that choice is involved. Unless your genes pre-determine you to become LGBT then the choice is involved. But you claim that people don't choose their gender identity -- (which sounds absurd and requires evidence of gay people in the past never being married to a woman). If by "gender identity" you mean your genes, then yes choice isn't involved. But we are talking about de facto sexual expression. One's sexual expression IS a choice, this is a fact unless you can prove that gay people in the past never married a woman, effectively choosing to be straight.


the things that we want - they can change - and even if it in accordance with something else you have still done something which is "willfully".
Are you claiming that one chooses to be a criminal? What if one is born a criminal, being trained by one's own father. Have you "chosen" to" be a criminal? Do you bear personal responsibility for your own path of life? Of course not, your father figure chose to make you a criminal. Your "will" was being manipulated by the pre-determined world around you; more specifically, your father figure. Turning away from being a criminal might happen as a result of interacting with society and being exposed to the law and moral standards. 

Your claim that being a criminal is in any way more in your control than being LGBT has no basis in reality. We know for a fact that there are multiple scenarios under which becoming a criminal is basically predictable. We have no such situation for gay people. There is also the fact that criminality is not eradicated by societal norms, while the number of gay people depends on how accepting society is towards the said group. Take a look at ancient Greece where at one point gayness was basically seen as a status symbol, and look at the number of active gays as compared to those in today's Iran. This correlation between societal acceptance and numbers is not present in criminality.

I, therefore, refuse to accept your line-in the sand describing LGBT as a group while a criminal is "an individual". The action of "oppressing" LGBT people is no different from our oppression of criminals. Stop calling red herring. This is a branching forum, not a debate.


LGBT people don't cause any more harm than the average citizen
Harm is the moral standard of today. In the past, the moral standard was more based on religion. The same way harm is punished today, breaking religious rules was punished in the past. LGBT people were punished for breaking the moral code written in the Bible (or Quoran). My argument still stands. The actions of people in the past were no less moral than the actions of police officers today. You judge the actions of the past based on the moral standard of today -- which I refuted by pointing at future moral standards.

My argument still stands: any accusation you raise against past oppression of LGBT people can be raised against our society as well. 
#100
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
  • peculiar to a particular individual: PERSONAL 
    • //subjective judgments
  • modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
    • //a subjective account of the incident


how does you point out that me saying that morality is subjective have anything to do with the interpretation?
Hear me out. You claimed that moral axioms are subjective while their interpretation is objective. This makes no sense. An interpretation is always subjective, regardless of which thing is being interpreted. Even if all humans agreed that morality is about the axiom "reducing harm" the interpretations will be subjective. There are different measures that can be made to reduce harm, many of which contradict each other. Socialism and Capitalism both promise to do the same thing, and both have their upsides and downsides. This also applies to moral standards -- it's a trial and error process. Therefore, no moral standard is objectively right, we can only call them different in effectiveness. This means that any fair punishment might seem unfair from a different perspective. This is what happened to LGBT people in the past, and this is how the future might look at our current treatment of criminals.

The conclusion is that our judgement of the past is a judgement of their standard, not their actions.

We cannot call the actions of a person immoral if they conform to the moral standard of his society.

Even Christianity, which claims there is a divine moral standard, acknowledges this.

"To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law." [Romans 5.13]
Nobody can be charged for breaking a moral law they were not aware of. Your condemnation of people in the past is not valid if they were ignorant of the standard you use.
Topic's author
#101
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
There is a difference in not choosing your sexual identity and not having (free) will - its like saying because I said you couldn't choose your skin color that I was appealing to determinism - that's ridiculous - simply stating that something is not a choice of a person is not an appeal to determisim.

If one cannot predict or explain the process by which a person finds himself to be LGBT, then you can't deny that choice is involved.
Next, no, that is a non-sequitur - we do not know how neurons specifically fire, does that mean that the process of neuron's firing is inherently a choice? No - you've presented a nonsequitur - either we know the cause or we are the cause  - no - it is possible to not know the cause of something and it also not be a choice - like the formation of black holes or the firing of neurons.  Furthermore, I did not say "we don't know what causes sexual identity", I said "we do not 100% of the cause of such things" - if you quoted me entirely you would see me literally cite that the general cause is biological and neurological wiring..... this is perhaps one of the biggest strawman's you've made thus far. 

Yes, sexual expression is a choice, but its also freedom - heterosexual people are not persecuted for their sexual expression, the fact that homosexual and bisexual people are is a blatant case of oppression. IF heterosexual people can express their sexuality without consequence, THEN any other sexual expression like heterosexuality should be able to express their sexuality without consequence. Of course, you aren't always allowed to express sexuality, but in general, heterosexual people are not oppressed on a case of receiving job opportunities or receiving medical treatment.


Your claim that being a criminal is in any way more in your control than being LGBT has no basis in reality. We know for a fact that there are multiple scenarios under which becoming a criminal is basically predictable. We have no such situation for gay people
This is ridiculous - we know that certain conditions make you more or less likely to become a criminal, but we know that in general there are people who undergo those situations and do not become criminals. The fact that this happens is not evidence that they do not choose to do so, it means that trying to hold a specific demographic who have been induced towards more criminality cannot necessarily be held responsible as a demographic, but individually that is not the case. Furthermore, there are circumstances which people are more or less likely to be criminals - that is not the case for gay people - we know that there are psychological, and biological causes of being gay - we simply do not know the exact causes. 


"Harm is the moral standard of today. In the past, the moral standard was more based on religion"
So any harm done is justified because there was a different standard? Because that's untrue - the subjective axiom of valuing well-being has been present as long as their been sentient creatures. The standard hasn't changed, just that we actually recognize it. "Religion" being the standard of harm is ridiculous, as religion does not have standard morals, and they are not interchangeable - it is another non-sequitur.

" interpretation is always subjective, regardless of which thing is being interpreted. Even if all humans agreed that morality is about the axiom "reducing harm" the interpretations will be subjective"
No - not necessarily - the interpretation to the question 2 + 2 is always 4, the interpretation to the question of where do we live is always "the earth", you can be more or less specific, but when dealing with the empirical the interpretations are empirical, they are only subjective whenever you introduce further bais. For example, cutting your arm off empirically causes mental and physical harm to the individual - therefore that interpretation is objective. But, furthermore, this is also operating on a different definition of subjective here

"1.1Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence" [LINK]

Drop all the fallacies and maybe I'll consider responding again.







#102
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Theweakeredge.

Yes, sexual expression is a choice, but it's also freedom.



So why are you not prepared to bestow choice and freedom upon Mr or Mrs P.

Selective morality relative to social trends and pressures, that's why......Exactly the same way that we used to treat Mr and Mrs LGBT.

But of course LGBT is now bang on trend, and social pressures have somewhat reversed.

Such is the fickle nature of humanity.


Topic's author
#103
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you referring to pedophilia? Because that harms children.... children, fundamentally, cannot give informed consent. Stop
#104
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Theweakeredge

Informed consent, that's a separate and multi-faceted argument....And not directly relative to your comments.


Nonetheless, the highlighted comment, clearly threw up an obvious contradiction in your  ongoing data output.

What's sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander, as it were......You require jam on everything.
Topic's author
#105
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
No - it proves that you have no functional understanding of sexual orientation. 

So, let's say we're discussing actions - the mere fact that we ought to be able to behave freely, does not mean that killing be illegal is contradictory - it means that normal behavior and killing are two different categories of acting. You are making a continued false equivalence in your homophobia. 
Topic's author
#106
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
The reason pedophilia is harmful is because it a sexual attraction to undeveloped humans, to humans who can not give informed consent- that is not "unrelated" - that is you trying to hand wave away valid points. You can continue to insist your assertion all you like, but that is all they are, assertions.
#107
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Theweakeredge.

Homophobia?


And sexual attraction is just that....And will only manifest as sexual expression.....See your above  #101.

Sorry, but just pointing out your obvious contradiction.


And sorry if it rattled you a bit......Hopefully, that's something you will eventually learn how to cope with internally, rather than with unfounded criticisms and accusations.


Topic's author
#108
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Notice that you fail to substantiate your assertion.

Furthermore, the homophobia I address is you conflating pedophilia with homosexuality - they different sorts of sexual attraction. You've even failed to actually rebut my point, until you do - you will receive no further response. It is clear to me that you aren't an intellectually honest interlocutor - so - either properly rebuke my argument or you will receive no more response. That is all.
#109
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Theweakeredge

My assertion, was your obvious contradiction.

So, I don't need to substantiate my assertion.

As your obvious contradiction, obviously substantiates my assertion.

It's obviously there to substantiate, in black and white.


And rather than conflate, I was merely pointing out that G was (and still is in fact), vilified in just the same way as P.......Perhaps you're to young to remember.... Though a learned person should be aware of these facts.

I think perhaps that you are overly worried about being seen to step outside of current PC conventions.


Read and ignore.
Topic's author
#110
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
It seems you've failed to choose either of the choices I presented. As such, I see no point in replying, you've proven my point

#111
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Theweakeredge

You had already proved mine.

56 days later

Topic's author
#112
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@DianaLambert
That'd be a legitmately interesting thing to research

76 days later

#113
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Jokes aside, your arguments are on point. Well argued, zedvictor.
I was similarly impressed. And praise on argumentation from Athias is high praise indeed. Where do you hide this Zed?

#114
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Not always so liberal Mr E.

I just say things as I see them.

Relative to age, conditioning and experience.

I guess that Theweakeredge was similarly motivated.
#115
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Motivation does not excuse a lack of logic.
#116
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
True.
Topic's author
#117
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
Yay - such a circlejerking of illogical thinkers - how fun. 
#118
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
You reply to them, the error is yours. They say intentionally rude and nonsensical stuff to make you bite and then like a fish on a hook, the harder you bite the more you suffer.

Let go, let the worm be.

Everyone who is even slightly sane can see a severe difference between pedophilia and homosexuality between consenting adults.
Topic's author
#119
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
So you say without giving me the oppurtunity to actually reply to you as you still have me blocked.... and, since there's a chance you might respond - it's kinda weird that you'll appeal to me for a presidency as you have me blocked.

Its not even like I was being much of an asshole at the time - you were just being deliberately obtuse. If I recall - "You won't even acknowledge that males and females are different? blocked." Not word for word of course, that's just the main idea there. But uh... no, that wasn't my point, and even if it was, instead of actually engaging in the ideas you merely blocked me out of... frustration for not being able to rebuke it? idk. I'm not voting you for president, I don't think you'd be good at it. 
#120
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Theweakeredge
I am happy about it, I ran to prove to someone who told me to run that even if I put my all into it, the userbase is too toxic and rigged against me for it to succeed. I also was curious of where I stood with people, an event like this helps reveal that.