I remember you bringing up Mohammad hijab in one of our debates. This man is a snake, a deceiver. You should watch Cosmic Skeptic on him. Cosmic Skeptic is a philosopher from Oxford University. You will see how much of a deceiver he is when he debates someone who knows their stuff. He will use any tactic to make him and Islam look in a good light.
I believe it's a really good argument. At least 20% of the Quran is about nonbelievers and how repulsive they are. I recall listening to the audiobook for it and hearing for at least the first two hours about how none believers will go to hell and how much they will suffer. After that, I lost interest in hearing the the rest and shut it off. When we refer to nonbelievers as lower than creatures, It appears clear why Muslim extremists can do what they can against non believers when the Quran talks about how stupid, lame and evil they are for hours on end of endless writing.
I never claimed Chinese products are bad because they're Chinese. ", China is giving enough freedom to the citizens(and the rights can be revised through a collective effort, and not filibustered every time lol), rather America is giving people too much rights in some areas(e.g. Guns) and too little in others (e.g.abortion). A divided house doesn't stand, lincoln would be crying if he sees what America is today."
Taiwan was fascist. Yet now it no longer is. There's a lot of what ifs. I don't think China becoming so powerful is beneficial to the development democracy or world peace. I'm unsure of how you can argue China has been beneficial for the world at large. Sure they have offered goods for much cheaper than what other nations could offer. However, i don't see lower quality, cheaper goods outweighing the cons of the nation gaining more control and influence at the world stage, hindering the development of democracy and personal freedoms both on the internet and in developing countries. I'd rather pay a little more for my goods than see people lose more freedoms and become more under the thumb of the Chinese Government.
I personally find moral questions like this very vague. Beneficial for who? the world at large or the Chinese populace? there's lots of guess work and assumptions made in discussions like this. If we're talking in terms of more beneficial compared to what was or what could of been, you can get radically different answers. On a personal note, i find Mao to of been an unsavoury leader. Who, Without him China may not of been as oppressive as it is today. Although this is once more, guess work.
Einstein definitely did believe in a monist/pantheist God, he was talking about the Abrahamic God, as i said pantheistic Gods can be much more impersonal. Simply give Einstein a google along with the term pantheist.
I'm unsure of where you got that quote from, but he definitely was a pantheist. Maybe he was talking strictly in terms of the Abrahamic God? pantheistic interpretations of God are generally much more impersonal.
All it takes is to look at the UFC to know which is the best martial arts. Wrestlers dominate. Kung fu? not so much. If a woman wants to learn a fighting style, I suggest jiu jitsu.
"I add that, even if it can be found that there is some biological condition which makes people feel as though they are the opposite gender, this does not support CON's argument - even if there is a biological grounds for trans individuals beliefs, the question becomes are those beliefs valid and do they correspond to reality? After all, is objectively the case that, if someone wishes to identify as a mouse, some part of their brain corresponds these desires, however, despite the presence of the biological groundings of such beliefs, we can still exclude these beliefs as absurd and incongruent with reality. "
Once you open the box, that sex isn't always binary. The door is then opened for other potential lines to be drawn on what constitutes someone's sex. I assume there's a difference between someone identifying as a mouse and the opposite gender. As secondary sex characteristics exist on a spectrum. Which means we all have some feminine and masculine features. In terms of animals, there isn't "animal" and "human" features in our minds. There isn't really a distinction which can be made where we can say "this is an animal feature" and "this is a human feature" in someone's mind like we can with sex. Is a genetically engineered "mouse" with a human brain still a mouse or would it attain personhood? This mouse would love the music I do, feel the way I do and think as such. His genes are as mine in the mental aspect. Since you're a solipsist, shouldn't the makeup of the mind hold more weight than the makeup of body? to me this debate just shows how little we understand transgenderism still. To me, still considering the "mouse" a mouse would be identity erasure of his human aspects, and his human ancestry.
"Then you must also make a case that women who are and have been raped in history, also shouldn't care that they were raped if they found the man sexually appealing. Should women not care if they were raped if the man is appealing to them? Are women incapable of knowing who they do and don't want to have sex with without being told?"
To develop this idea, I think my wording was wrong. What I'm getting at is that if children can consent to sex with the right socialisation and only feel raped because of socialisation. Can you not use this same argument and say women can only feel raped to begin with due to socialisation? I will gladly accept this debate if you wish to do it. You have a massive burden of proof criteria to fulfil.
I don't believe sex is ever as simple as tying one's shoes. For many, sex is an act of great emotional vulnerability and bonding with another person (especially for women). To argue a child cannot then be raped with proper education, is saying we only see sex as an act of great emotional bonding and vulnerability because we're told too or at the very least, whether that emotional bonding should ever be seen as regretful is fully down to socialisation not nature. If children only ever feel raped due to socialisation and not nature. Then you must also make a case that women who are and have been raped in history, also shouldn't care that they were raped if they found the man sexually appealing. Should women not care if they were raped if the man is appealing to them? Are women incapable of knowing who they do and don't want to have sex with without being told? Wouldn't it make more sense to not impart your views of sex on the child? and allow them to develop their own sense of sexuality so you can be sure not to be socialising them to your own view, as those you are arguing against you claim do? To argue that sex is as simple as tying shoes, is simply your view. Many see it as a deeply emotional and even spiritual union to only be had with someone you're sure you love, can you prove this view wrong? Your confounding variables are also inaccurate, as it doesn't take into account the development of the child and whether they may end up as a Christian later in life, or a Muslim. Even in polygamous societies, monogamy is still always considered righteous. Once more, if you think children can consent to sex if taught properly, you should also support children being able to get their drivers license at any age. If a child can consent to sex, do you also support children being able to work in steel plants and salt mines?
I don't necessarily think your argument is bad. I just personally don't really see how you can go about proving something such as this. We can reach high levels of probability, but I doubt that all factors can become alienated. A lot of what goes into being able to consent to sex isn't the age gap, but rather the gap in societal freedoms. For example, an adult person may be able to work, earn money, and drive a car. All of this extra freedom gives the adult a lot of power over the younger. Even if an adult does not have a car or a job, it isn't as bad because they can do so if they want to, whereas children cannot. They're at very different stages in their lives, kids are still learning basic multiplication with very little life experience. It becomes hard to say that children know when having sex is in their best interest when they're at a stage of development where we wouldn't even trust them to drive a car or pick up our groceries. Once you argue children are competent enough to consent to sex, you should also be arguing for their rights to work as truck drivers and medical professionals.
I believe this debate will turn into a deontology vs. utilitarianism debate over whether the lives saved by paid kidney transplants outweigh the deontological argument that people may only sell their kidneys because of unfair pressure. I believe it will probably come down to personal preference, but maybe ill be surprised!
Best of luck, sir! RationalMadman made an excellent point about the ambiguity of the description you provided. I want to be clear that I will only make comments on Quranic scripture. If you believe the hadiths are valid in this discussion, I may make use of teachings from them as well.
Okay, I understand. Are we going to debate about what mental illness is and whether ODD should be included in the current scientific definition? or are we actually debating what should constitute a mental condition in the first place and debating whether ODD should be in that definition?
Would it be possible for you to include your definition of a mental disorder in the debate description? Since we need to agree on a definition to debate before even discussing whether ODD should be included in the DSM. Otherwise, we'll be talking past each other. The World health Organisation describes a mental health disorder as follows; "A mental disorder is characterized by a clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotional regulation, or behaviour. It is usually associated with distress or impairment in important areas of functioning. "
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders
Poor impulse control is characteristic of all conduct disorders. "The chapter includes oppositional defiant disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder (which is described in the chapter ''Personality
Disorders"), pyromania, kleptomania, and other specified and unspecified disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders. Although all the disorders in the chapter involve
problems in both emotional and behavioral regulation, the source of variation among the
disorders is the relative emphasis on problems in the two types of self-control."
If you look at the index in the manual you offered. If you go to the section where it talks about conduct disorders (page 495), it says people with conduct disorders have poor impulse control although the level of poor impulse may differ greatly between the disorders, but poor impulse control is a problem for people with ODD.
It says people with ODD act this way when not in a bad mood. If i simply give a quick google search for ODD on psych and medical websites, one of the first signs they all say is poor impulse control. Nowhere does it seem to say do people with ODD do not suffer from poor impulse control. In the opening statement it says people with ODD have poor impulse control but are more intermediate than people with intermittent explosive disorder (IED).
"the criteria for conduct disorder focus largely on poorly controlled behaviors that violate the
rights of others or that violate major societal norms. Many of the behavioral symptoms (e.g.,
aggression) can be a result of poorly controlled emotions such as anger. At the other extreme,
the criteria for intermittent explosive disorder focus largely on such poorly controlled emotion, outbursts of anger that are disproportionate to the interpersonal or other provocation
or to other psychosocial stressors. Intermediate in impact to these two disorders is oppositional defiant disorder, in which the criteria are more evenly distributed between emotions
(anger and irritation) and behaviors (argumentativeness and defiance)"
That's true, but that doesn't now mean its one dimensional or what i said is wrong. Even in conduct disorders the main sign of having one is inability to control impulses. How is that different from OCD? my argument still stands regardless if its categorised the same as OCD or not. The difference between a conduct disorder and a compulsion one isn't that one is necessarily compulsive and the other isn't, its decided based on whether the behaviour is anti-social or behaves in a socially acceptable manner. It may seem odd if someone has OCD, but it doesn't offend or hurt anyone. Conduct disorders can too be compulsive and is indeed the main sign of one, just like OCD.
That's true, but mental illness exists on a spectrum. Everyone has narcissistic qualities as long as you have an ego, but we wouldn't say most people have the mental illness of being a narcissist if they're only selfish sometimes. Its only when it gets to the point of being almost delusional and compulsive do we consider someone a narcissist. When someone even if they wanted cannot take their focus off themselves. Its normal for kids to be more argumentative, the difference between a normal kid and a kid with ODD is even if the child recognises the authority as reasonable, correct and right, they still argue against it as they simply feel compulsed' to do so even if they know its wrong. Just like turrets. a kid without ODD will stop arguing once they know they know they're wrong. They can control whether they argue or not. People with OCD cannot control themselves and people with ODD cannot either. OCD also exists on a spectrum. Some are more tidy naturally, but what makes it be considered OCD is whether it becomes compulsive and non-negotiable and negative to their mental and material well being.
What is a mental illness is dictated depending on whether your condition affects you compulsively, negatively and persistently without much control over it. people with ODD like to argue and disagree just for the sake of arguing and disagreeing. Almost like its a compulsion. My co-workers daughter actually has this problem and if i say to her a plant is green she will disagree and try to tell me its red, even though she knows its green. Wouldn't you say that's unusual? having ODD isn't simply being argumentative or liking debate or not being a bootlicker.
any variety? I'm unsure what you mean by that! any variety of what? even if you then prove you're a chad. You would then also have to convince her she would gain enough pleasure from kissing you to actually want to do it....which i think is really out of your control. What if his GF is a devout Muslim woman and grew up in a conservative household?
I believe it's fair to say that both the Jedi and the Sith have advantages and disadvantages. Too much emotion from the Sith, and too much repression from the Jedi.
I remember you bringing up Mohammad hijab in one of our debates. This man is a snake, a deceiver. You should watch Cosmic Skeptic on him. Cosmic Skeptic is a philosopher from Oxford University. You will see how much of a deceiver he is when he debates someone who knows their stuff. He will use any tactic to make him and Islam look in a good light.
I believe it's a really good argument. At least 20% of the Quran is about nonbelievers and how repulsive they are. I recall listening to the audiobook for it and hearing for at least the first two hours about how none believers will go to hell and how much they will suffer. After that, I lost interest in hearing the the rest and shut it off. When we refer to nonbelievers as lower than creatures, It appears clear why Muslim extremists can do what they can against non believers when the Quran talks about how stupid, lame and evil they are for hours on end of endless writing.
its obvious? who do you think is obviously going to win? I must not be very bright.
ooo, fun! good luck to both.
I never claimed Chinese products are bad because they're Chinese. ", China is giving enough freedom to the citizens(and the rights can be revised through a collective effort, and not filibustered every time lol), rather America is giving people too much rights in some areas(e.g. Guns) and too little in others (e.g.abortion). A divided house doesn't stand, lincoln would be crying if he sees what America is today."
We can debate this, if you want?
Taiwan was fascist. Yet now it no longer is. There's a lot of what ifs. I don't think China becoming so powerful is beneficial to the development democracy or world peace. I'm unsure of how you can argue China has been beneficial for the world at large. Sure they have offered goods for much cheaper than what other nations could offer. However, i don't see lower quality, cheaper goods outweighing the cons of the nation gaining more control and influence at the world stage, hindering the development of democracy and personal freedoms both on the internet and in developing countries. I'd rather pay a little more for my goods than see people lose more freedoms and become more under the thumb of the Chinese Government.
I personally find moral questions like this very vague. Beneficial for who? the world at large or the Chinese populace? there's lots of guess work and assumptions made in discussions like this. If we're talking in terms of more beneficial compared to what was or what could of been, you can get radically different answers. On a personal note, i find Mao to of been an unsavoury leader. Who, Without him China may not of been as oppressive as it is today. Although this is once more, guess work.
https://mythoslogos.org/2014/10/13/einsteins-judeo-quaker-pantheism/
Einstein definitely did believe in a monist/pantheist God, he was talking about the Abrahamic God, as i said pantheistic Gods can be much more impersonal. Simply give Einstein a google along with the term pantheist.
I'm unsure of where you got that quote from, but he definitely was a pantheist. Maybe he was talking strictly in terms of the Abrahamic God? pantheistic interpretations of God are generally much more impersonal.
"I think like Albert Einstein" that's funny because Albert Einstein did believe in a God, a pantheistic form of God derived from Spinoza.
That's why i chose to only talk in the scripture and not people. As people aren't the book. But maybe he has something up his sleeve.
well you're definitely correct. I'll edit it for us.
All it takes is to look at the UFC to know which is the best martial arts. Wrestlers dominate. Kung fu? not so much. If a woman wants to learn a fighting style, I suggest jiu jitsu.
https://www.boywiki.org/en/Main_Page
???? wtf is this website
Just no one is viewed as the winner i suppose.
never mind, i see you're con now. My bad my bad.
I see i've convinced you! xD
"I add that, even if it can be found that there is some biological condition which makes people feel as though they are the opposite gender, this does not support CON's argument - even if there is a biological grounds for trans individuals beliefs, the question becomes are those beliefs valid and do they correspond to reality? After all, is objectively the case that, if someone wishes to identify as a mouse, some part of their brain corresponds these desires, however, despite the presence of the biological groundings of such beliefs, we can still exclude these beliefs as absurd and incongruent with reality. "
Once you open the box, that sex isn't always binary. The door is then opened for other potential lines to be drawn on what constitutes someone's sex. I assume there's a difference between someone identifying as a mouse and the opposite gender. As secondary sex characteristics exist on a spectrum. Which means we all have some feminine and masculine features. In terms of animals, there isn't "animal" and "human" features in our minds. There isn't really a distinction which can be made where we can say "this is an animal feature" and "this is a human feature" in someone's mind like we can with sex. Is a genetically engineered "mouse" with a human brain still a mouse or would it attain personhood? This mouse would love the music I do, feel the way I do and think as such. His genes are as mine in the mental aspect. Since you're a solipsist, shouldn't the makeup of the mind hold more weight than the makeup of body? to me this debate just shows how little we understand transgenderism still. To me, still considering the "mouse" a mouse would be identity erasure of his human aspects, and his human ancestry.
"Then you must also make a case that women who are and have been raped in history, also shouldn't care that they were raped if they found the man sexually appealing. Should women not care if they were raped if the man is appealing to them? Are women incapable of knowing who they do and don't want to have sex with without being told?"
To develop this idea, I think my wording was wrong. What I'm getting at is that if children can consent to sex with the right socialisation and only feel raped because of socialisation. Can you not use this same argument and say women can only feel raped to begin with due to socialisation? I will gladly accept this debate if you wish to do it. You have a massive burden of proof criteria to fulfil.
I don't believe sex is ever as simple as tying one's shoes. For many, sex is an act of great emotional vulnerability and bonding with another person (especially for women). To argue a child cannot then be raped with proper education, is saying we only see sex as an act of great emotional bonding and vulnerability because we're told too or at the very least, whether that emotional bonding should ever be seen as regretful is fully down to socialisation not nature. If children only ever feel raped due to socialisation and not nature. Then you must also make a case that women who are and have been raped in history, also shouldn't care that they were raped if they found the man sexually appealing. Should women not care if they were raped if the man is appealing to them? Are women incapable of knowing who they do and don't want to have sex with without being told? Wouldn't it make more sense to not impart your views of sex on the child? and allow them to develop their own sense of sexuality so you can be sure not to be socialising them to your own view, as those you are arguing against you claim do? To argue that sex is as simple as tying shoes, is simply your view. Many see it as a deeply emotional and even spiritual union to only be had with someone you're sure you love, can you prove this view wrong? Your confounding variables are also inaccurate, as it doesn't take into account the development of the child and whether they may end up as a Christian later in life, or a Muslim. Even in polygamous societies, monogamy is still always considered righteous. Once more, if you think children can consent to sex if taught properly, you should also support children being able to get their drivers license at any age. If a child can consent to sex, do you also support children being able to work in steel plants and salt mines?
I don't necessarily think your argument is bad. I just personally don't really see how you can go about proving something such as this. We can reach high levels of probability, but I doubt that all factors can become alienated. A lot of what goes into being able to consent to sex isn't the age gap, but rather the gap in societal freedoms. For example, an adult person may be able to work, earn money, and drive a car. All of this extra freedom gives the adult a lot of power over the younger. Even if an adult does not have a car or a job, it isn't as bad because they can do so if they want to, whereas children cannot. They're at very different stages in their lives, kids are still learning basic multiplication with very little life experience. It becomes hard to say that children know when having sex is in their best interest when they're at a stage of development where we wouldn't even trust them to drive a car or pick up our groceries. Once you argue children are competent enough to consent to sex, you should also be arguing for their rights to work as truck drivers and medical professionals.
I believe this debate will turn into a deontology vs. utilitarianism debate over whether the lives saved by paid kidney transplants outweigh the deontological argument that people may only sell their kidneys because of unfair pressure. I believe it will probably come down to personal preference, but maybe ill be surprised!
Best of luck, sir! RationalMadman made an excellent point about the ambiguity of the description you provided. I want to be clear that I will only make comments on Quranic scripture. If you believe the hadiths are valid in this discussion, I may make use of teachings from them as well.
Okay, I understand. Are we going to debate about what mental illness is and whether ODD should be included in the current scientific definition? or are we actually debating what should constitute a mental condition in the first place and debating whether ODD should be in that definition?
Would it be possible for you to include your definition of a mental disorder in the debate description? Since we need to agree on a definition to debate before even discussing whether ODD should be included in the DSM. Otherwise, we'll be talking past each other. The World health Organisation describes a mental health disorder as follows; "A mental disorder is characterized by a clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotional regulation, or behaviour. It is usually associated with distress or impairment in important areas of functioning. "
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders
Do you agree with this definition?
You too, best of luck!
Would you like me to accept the debate challenge?
Poor impulse control is characteristic of all conduct disorders. "The chapter includes oppositional defiant disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder (which is described in the chapter ''Personality
Disorders"), pyromania, kleptomania, and other specified and unspecified disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders. Although all the disorders in the chapter involve
problems in both emotional and behavioral regulation, the source of variation among the
disorders is the relative emphasis on problems in the two types of self-control."
If you look at the index in the manual you offered. If you go to the section where it talks about conduct disorders (page 495), it says people with conduct disorders have poor impulse control although the level of poor impulse may differ greatly between the disorders, but poor impulse control is a problem for people with ODD.
It says people with ODD act this way when not in a bad mood. If i simply give a quick google search for ODD on psych and medical websites, one of the first signs they all say is poor impulse control. Nowhere does it seem to say do people with ODD do not suffer from poor impulse control. In the opening statement it says people with ODD have poor impulse control but are more intermediate than people with intermittent explosive disorder (IED).
"the criteria for conduct disorder focus largely on poorly controlled behaviors that violate the
rights of others or that violate major societal norms. Many of the behavioral symptoms (e.g.,
aggression) can be a result of poorly controlled emotions such as anger. At the other extreme,
the criteria for intermittent explosive disorder focus largely on such poorly controlled emotion, outbursts of anger that are disproportionate to the interpersonal or other provocation
or to other psychosocial stressors. Intermediate in impact to these two disorders is oppositional defiant disorder, in which the criteria are more evenly distributed between emotions
(anger and irritation) and behaviors (argumentativeness and defiance)"
best debate on the site.
That's true, but that doesn't now mean its one dimensional or what i said is wrong. Even in conduct disorders the main sign of having one is inability to control impulses. How is that different from OCD? my argument still stands regardless if its categorised the same as OCD or not. The difference between a conduct disorder and a compulsion one isn't that one is necessarily compulsive and the other isn't, its decided based on whether the behaviour is anti-social or behaves in a socially acceptable manner. It may seem odd if someone has OCD, but it doesn't offend or hurt anyone. Conduct disorders can too be compulsive and is indeed the main sign of one, just like OCD.
That's true, but mental illness exists on a spectrum. Everyone has narcissistic qualities as long as you have an ego, but we wouldn't say most people have the mental illness of being a narcissist if they're only selfish sometimes. Its only when it gets to the point of being almost delusional and compulsive do we consider someone a narcissist. When someone even if they wanted cannot take their focus off themselves. Its normal for kids to be more argumentative, the difference between a normal kid and a kid with ODD is even if the child recognises the authority as reasonable, correct and right, they still argue against it as they simply feel compulsed' to do so even if they know its wrong. Just like turrets. a kid without ODD will stop arguing once they know they know they're wrong. They can control whether they argue or not. People with OCD cannot control themselves and people with ODD cannot either. OCD also exists on a spectrum. Some are more tidy naturally, but what makes it be considered OCD is whether it becomes compulsive and non-negotiable and negative to their mental and material well being.
What is a mental illness is dictated depending on whether your condition affects you compulsively, negatively and persistently without much control over it. people with ODD like to argue and disagree just for the sake of arguing and disagreeing. Almost like its a compulsion. My co-workers daughter actually has this problem and if i say to her a plant is green she will disagree and try to tell me its red, even though she knows its green. Wouldn't you say that's unusual? having ODD isn't simply being argumentative or liking debate or not being a bootlicker.
This has to be a troll debate xD
any variety? I'm unsure what you mean by that! any variety of what? even if you then prove you're a chad. You would then also have to convince her she would gain enough pleasure from kissing you to actually want to do it....which i think is really out of your control. What if his GF is a devout Muslim woman and grew up in a conservative household?
Your entire argument is based on the assumption his GF will view you as a chad.
I'd love to debate this if nyx finds it a bit tricky in the end!
I believe it's fair to say that both the Jedi and the Sith have advantages and disadvantages. Too much emotion from the Sith, and too much repression from the Jedi.