Total posts: 1,065
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Job is a pretty scientific book. You should read it sometime.
Also, the premise is "God created the world."
Considering the crapshoot that is Evolution and the fact that many scientists are abandoning it in favor of a multiverse theory that is based on pure wishful thinking and not raw empiricism or even epistemic logic of some sort shows that there is just one premise that holds true.
Something created us.
Now, that something came down 2,000 years ago, walked among us, did miracles among us, fed us, taught us, and died and rose again for us.
People literally walked and talked with God and decided to kill him. Just shows how pigheaded we humans really can be. Jesus never did anything that deserved death. In fact, he even defended the temple when people were trying to use it to line their pockets with money by taking advantage of people, something many Athiests wish Christians today would do with some televangelists.
Now fast forward to today, and this God is still performing miracles, raising the dead, and appearing to people. And others are seeing Him in their after-death experiences.
So yeah. The Bible is the only book that makes an iota of sense given the facts.
Created:
-->
@Shila
What does that have to do with anything?
Now Biden can't even string two sentences together.
Also, Rand Paul served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and he couldn't disagree with Biden more on issues.
Being on some committee in Congress doesn't mean you're right.
Your arguments and the facts and logic are what say you're right.
Created:
One more thing. I am honored you think I am James Agresti, but I'm not.
Though I'll wear it as a badge of honor, because he is an amazing researcher who runs a thinktank cited by many, MANY publications.
Created:
From the study by Just Facts:
Since the 1950s—as far back in time as data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration extends—the frequency of strong-to-violent tornadoes has slightly declined.
Some have claimed that tornados have become more common due to global warming, but as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration explains, this is an artifact of “increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting.”
In contrast, strong-to-violent tornadoes “would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports.” Thus, they are a more accurate and salient measure of U.S. tornado trends.
* * *
So even with better measuring technology, more a tive tracking than ever before, and more, the number of tornadoes declined slightly.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Somebody voted for Biden and it shows...
Instead of actually looking at the research, checking the links, doing some actual fact checking, Oromagi just says "if most people failed the test is flawed."
My gosh. Just Facts actually linked meticulously to their facts about the questions. They do extensive research and they include all the links.
Well, maybe most people failed because the news is full of crap. And I guess if someone reads the news a lot, like you, then they will not believe facts.
Btw, Just Facts also has a fact-checking arm called Just Facts Daily where they fact check the news. If you truly cared about the "integrity of fact checking" then you would respect this organization as well. They actually follow their standards of credibility and they meticulously document their facts with lengthy footnotes that often quote the paragraphs they took the fact from to provide context, in addition to providing the link, on their main think tank. On their Just Facts Daily they always, ALWAYS link to the primary source.
That is significantly better work than even fact-check.org does.
Created:
Scientific Survey Shows Voters Across the Political Spectrum Are Ideologically Deluded
By James D. Agresti
April 16, 2021
Results by Ideology of Falsehood
Among questions in which the wrong answers accorded with partisan agendas, an average of 57% of answers were liberally misinformed, while 28% were conservatively misinformed. In other words, voters were twice as likely to believe certain progressive myths than conservative ones.
For all 10 of the questions in which the electorate was most deluded, the wrong answers they gave concurred with progressive narratives propagated by the media. Moreover, the false answers they gave were often far removed from reality, not just slightly mistaken. For example, 66% of voters thought that doubling the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour would raise the average income of families in poverty by 25% or more. The real figure is about 1%.
Results by Politics, Age, and Gender
The survey also recorded voters’ ages, genders, and who they voted for in the presidential election. This allows the survey to pinpoint the segments of society that are most and least informed about specific issues. The sample size of third-party voters were too small to produce meaningful data.
The results show deep partisan and demographic divides, with different groups being more or less knowledgeable depending upon the questions.
On average, the rates at which voters gave false answers varied from 61% for Biden voters to 42% for Trump voters. From worst to best, the false answer rates for the various groups are as follows:
- 61% for Biden voters
- 56% for 18- to 34-year olds
- 53% for females
- 51% for 35- to 64-year olds
- 51% for 65+ year olds
- 49% for males
- 42% for Trump voters
All of the questions, the correct answers, and the full survey results and methodologies are detailed below. The survey was conducted on November 4–11, 2020.
SOURCE (and questions with the proper answers and how people responded):
Created:
-->
@Shila
stole the land from Native Indians
Source?
They never paid the slaves
Not true. In the Reconstruction, reparations were paid to many former slaves in the form of significantly discounted (and even free land) and other federal assistance. [1]
Moreover, the "War on Poverty" was also a significant redistribution of wealth through tax dollars that sought to directly benefit Black Americans communities. [2] [3] [4] [5] [a]
The definition of reparation:
: the payment of damages : INDEMNIFICATIONspecifically : compensation in money or materials payable by a defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a result of hostilities with the defeated nation —usually used in plural [6]
The definition of indemnify:
to make compensation to for incurred hurt, loss, or damage [7]
So these programs definitely qualify as reparations.
The problem was that these policies also included many other policies that were not beneficial to Black Americans. So, while it is completely true that black people did receive reparations, the reparations came with other policies that crippled the economies, family structures, and more of Black Americans, such as the War on Drugs. [8] Ultimately, this led to a negative impact.
Americans cannot give away what is not theirs to begin with.
Unfortunately, this is a lie that just won't die due to academia willfully ignoring history.
For starters, Americans won much of the land from Native Americans in military conquests. [11] [12]
Furthermore, Manhattan was purchased from American Indians. [9] The Native Tribe there believed that no one owned land, so they thought they were getting a fantastic deal. [10] But other tribes did begin to implement the same purchasing idea amongst each other. [9] There is a similar such history through much of the early colonial years, through most of America's colonial history, of colonists purchasing land or winning it through military conquests. [12]
Another valuable point to bring up is that we don't really know for certain whom the first aggressor was in the wars between the Native Americans and the European settlers. Both sides would regularly attack and raid each other and rape each others' women. [12]
Get a history lesson.
I studied this issue a lot in college on my own time and, honestly, my conclusion is that we simply can't state unilaterally that white people stole land from American Indians. The American Indians had extremely diverse ideas among the different tribes. Some were warrior tribes that just conquered land. Others were anarchist tribes that didn't have any formal government. Others did not even believe in land ownership as a concept, but looked at the land like mother nature supplying free land for all. American Indians had their own struggles, economies, and wars and such with each other as well, and oftentimes the colonists would ally themselves with whatever tribe promised to be their ally. This led to other tribes attacking them.
Sometimes American Indian tribes just decided to attack colonists for no perceived reason, even though there were treaties. And the colonists also did the same. So we can't really just claim the white man stole everything. There is A LOT of history to consider. Could it have happened? I am certain there have to be at least one or two instances of it. But, unilaterally, we cannot just claim white people stole all of it. Because that is patently false.
SOURCES:
NOTES:
[a] I cited sources from across the ideological spectrum simply to show that virtually everyone agrees that the war on poverty was a massive investment of American tax dollars toward people, while some sources show how the main recipients were Black Americans. This would count as reparations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You keep saying I have an ego, but you have continued to dodge my studies, statistics, and my historical facts in favor of silly childhood insults.
Are you really this dense or are you a troll account?
Created:
-->
@Shila
share the country
America isn't a white country. It is for all people who choose willingly to emigrate here, and all people who are born here.
Additionally, maybe if they didn't buy millions of Africans and force them to work in the fields for about 150 years and then breed them like dogs to they could sell the offspring for a profit then there wouldn't be so many black people to "share" with.
Now that they live here, and were born here, and (at the time) legally emigrated here, even if it was against their will, this country is just as much for every black citizen as a white citizen. This has nothing to do with "sharing." It is the birthright of every Black American to be a citizen of this country. It is their right.
But the slave trade and slavery and everything that came from it honestly is white peoples' fault. They (old southerners specifically, and their children) are mad that they had to actually be good human beings and agree with science and stop oppressing a whole ethnic group because they wanted free labor.
But America is a nation of freedom, liberty, and justice for all. This country isn't owned by any one person. It is a free land where anyone has an equal opportunity and equal rights. To think of it as "sharing" is appallingly elitist and ethnicist. This country, by the nature of the document we wrote in 1776 that founded it, and the subsequent one that was written in 1789, with amendments, is for everyone who is born here and anyone who checks the boxes to move here, and it is not "sharing" at all. It is giving people what is rightfully theirs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The ninjas killed whole villages in minutes with a sword. Nobody heard them coming, and nobody heard their victims scream.
You're telling me guns work better?
Created:
Posted in:
But a little background on how little college has actually affected my work:
I graduated with a degree in communications in 2017.
Since then I held about 5 or 6 jobs. While in college I interned under someone who won political campaigns, worked for major newspapers, and did other stellar PR work. That internship taught me more about communications than my 4-year degree.
Fast forward. My first job out of college was in fast food. My second job out of college was an internship with one of the greatest naval architecture firms in the world as their communications consultant.
Then I left that internship to work for a political copywriting firm. The firm actually hired me IN SPITE OF my degree. He said he never hired people from my college because they all had the wrong political ideology, but hired me because of my extensive experience as a journalist.
So, that journalism experience came from running my own blog and writing for another one as a paid staffer. I also ran Facebook and Twitter marketing campaigns and such. All of this was experience either with the internship or on my own, while I was attending college.
Then I left that job and started another news outlet. It got pretty big. Not Fox News big, but I have quite a few viral articles under my belt. I left it when, in COVID, all the revenue sources dried up and I was being paid just 25% of what I once was running the website. It just became unsustainable.
Now I work as a Public Relations consultant and I currently have a nationally-syndicated talk show host as my client.
I got, like, 90% of my work due to experience and not a sheet of paper saying I did good and checked the proverbial boxes.
Communications is a dying field, unfortunately, since computers are now writing articles, checking grammar, being the avatars for explainer videos, and writing advertising and other copy.
So would I say college was a good ROI for me? Fuck no. But getting experience in my field, on my own, and building a resume and products that showed my abilities is what set me apart from the other candidates.
But, unfortunately, my route is not viable for most students anymore. They need to start their own businesses, because the workforce is centralizing and computers are taking over an unprecedented amount of jobs. And there is an oversaturation of coders in the current job market, and there are also computers that write and validate code, which means that, if you don't start your own business, or you don't make the right connections to someone who can hire you, then you will be out of a job soon, even with your fancy MIT degree.
What is stopping Google or Microsoft or most other companies from hiring someone from India who only needs $5/hr to survive? Even if they pay the indian $10/hr, he will be living like a KING in his country, and he will probably be doing your job.
But, now with bots being able to pass the turing test and such, and becoming e extremely competent in a wide range of historically human fields, jobs such as marketing, sales, video creation, music production, coding, voice acting, in-person acting, animation, journalism, web design, graphic design, photoshop, modeling, and more are going to be axed almost completely by computers within the next 15 years. Even robots do the bulk of manufacturing jobs, and those robots are getting cheaper by the year. There are algorithms that make hiring and firing decisions before recruiters even look at a single resume. AI is going to seriously fuck up the job market and many, MANY people are going to find themselves obsolete as workers, to quote The Twilight Zone.
So it might be a good idea to start your own company and use the robots to do your work until you figure out job security. Learn coding for yourself so you can build the robots that make your business work, or simply purchase the software that others made so you don't have to do the work.
That is what I see happening, and it will attack e everyone equally, regardless of their college degree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I was about to pull out all the statistics about the different college majors and how most of them don't lead to a better paying job, but then you beat me to it!
Created:
-->
@badger
There's no fallacy here, you're just dumb
Let me ask you, did the study prove hot temperatures CAUSED hateful tweets? No. No it did not. It found a correlation, and it wrongly assumed causation.
The study authors claim, without evidence, that humans cannot adjust to hotter temperatures, even though they found hateful tweets in colder temperatures as well at an equal amount as in hotter temperatures.
But even so, they didn't prove this. There is nothing whatsoever in this line of reasoning that equals a cause-effect.
To assert otherwise is "just dumb." The rest of us over here will continue to let logic and reason, not fallacies and emotions, determine our opinions.
Created:
-->
@Shila
I mean. The study didn't find it cooled off. The study didn't find that at all. In fact, it found it persisted. I think this is because many Twitter accounts are bots.
Also, ICYMI, liberals are just as hateful as conservatives on average. [1]
Liberals tend to want to silence everyone who disagrees with them just as much as Conservatives do. [2]
Personally, I try not to do that. And that is one of the reasons I have decided to stick to this site even though it is very close to a liberal/center-left echo chamber lol.
I also have liberal friends, and I welcome their comments. The thing I have tended to notice, though, is they often do not welcome mine. Some do. But most don't.
The same thing is true with my conservative friends. Some welcome it. Some don't.
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
Define "best president." And also, how long has your "lifetime" been?
Created:
One thing that was so great about DDO for many years, though not toward the end, was that there were a crapton of active accounts and these accounts debated issues from all over the interests map. Science, religion, politics, public policy, philosophy, cars, etc.
This website seems to have, like, 12 or 14 active members on it, maybe slightly more, at any one given period of time. And most of the debates are the result of extreme echo chambers or forfeits and defaults, rather than engaging debates that merit voting.
This website is also seems to be prone to having new accounts of people who log in once and then never log in again, or stop after 2 or 3 days total.
So I propose that we all share the forum posts, debates, and more on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Like, make engaging posts on those platforms that make others check out the website and then some will explore it and want to make new accounts.
This way, even if the accounts are temporary, there will always be a new onslaught of them, and, over time, it will raise the total amount of active accounts and create a much bigger active userbase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Transhumanism is going to come in the form of NeuraLink if we don't do anything about it.
I think it is a bad idea. Right now, human beings are not really hackable. We can he brainwashed and stuff, but we cannot be completely taken over and held against our will. To be placed in such a category, we, at some point, need to voluntarily give our trust over to someone else for long periods of time.
Implanting some sort of chip into people's brains comes with this problem of instant hackability of humankind. Kind of like that Songebob episode where Plankton made all of Bikini bottom wear a helmet that gave him full control over them.
Yeah, it could end tribalism, but it could also destroy humanity, free will, change our very biology, or do many dangerous things to humankind.
Moreover, who is to say the AI in our brains will be truly morally good? What if they decided the AI part is superior to the human part due to some flaw in logic (computers DO, in fact, many mistakes in reasoning) and then control us to turn us into robots completely against our will?
These are the problems with adding either sentient AI or a chip into everyone's brains. The computers WILL mess with the humans they inhabit.
Plus, what happens if one of these chips breaks down and then causes the brain to shut down a necessarily bodily system? This is also a very real possibility.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Yeah but it's archaic, meaning it is no longer in use.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Yup. Tooooootally not relevant at alllllllllll
Created:
Also, ethnicism isn't a work in Merriam Webster's dictionary which, once again, proves my point. Because, in this discussion, it doesn't exist as a word since merriam Webster is being used for definitions. So it is impossible for people to be something that doesn't exist.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
The burden of proof is on you to define terms for your argument. Not on me to supply them.
But since you decided to go with merriam-webster:
Race: any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry.
Multiracial: composed of, involving, or representing various races
Racism: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
So... let's break this down now. Most black people in America are multiracial. This is because the ones here are mostly descended from slaves and were either raped by, had romantic relationships with, or later on down the line married someone of a differing race.
This means thsy most black people fail to fall under definition one because they have inherited physical traits from at least two "races."
So what this means is that most black people in America fall under "multiracial."
This is important because the third definition of racism means that there must be a belief that tangible racial differences that produce a superior species.
But in order for people to believe this, there first has to be ACTUAL tangible differences between races. Once again, most black people are not actually black, they are multiracial.
So this means that black people cannot truly be racist toward other white people because they, themselves are also partly white. Therefore there is little actual existence of "black people" who can be racist because there are very little actual black people.
Now, a multiracial man can be racist for sure. A multiracial man can hold racist beliefs. But, since the vast majority of black people are not even black, then arguing that "black people" are racist is really, REALLY stupid and illogical.
But now let us further unpack the definition of "race." Everyone of a particular race must share a similar ancestry.
Merriam webster defines ancestry as: line of descent : LINEAGE
And Lineage means: descent in a line from a common progenitor.
So, from this we can determine that the definition of race means all those who descend from one common ancestor. Therefore, what this REALLY means is all human beings are one race. This means that there is no such thing as a "black race" or a "white race." We are all one race because we all have a common ancestor.
So what does this mean? It means that the REAL definition of racism is people who believe humankind is superior to other kinds. So, therefore, can black people be racist?
On all counts, no way especially NOT to white people. Because they are both the same race, and therefore the definition of racism does not apply to the favoritism or other things that supposedly exist.
So, therefore, it is logically impossible for people to be racist toward other people because of the definitions of these words. To be racist toward other people would claim that mankind has multiple ancestors, which is impossible due to the current research proving otherwise. [1]
Now, it IS possible to be hateful to other ethnic groups, as ethnicity and race are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. But it is impossible for people to be racist.
Also, your single poll is not representative of the sample group and therefore fails basic methodological testing.
SOURCES:
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@TWS1405
I like how I am now a liberal because I disagree with terrible methodology and horrible logic. I think Oromagi can cue you in that I am about the furthest thing from a liberal possible.
Unless this post somehow didn't include me. That is possible.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
stare at a computer screen
Not to mention that Twitter purposely shows people extremist statements because it garners engagement ad traffic for advertisers. [1] And the fact that Twitter is, like, at least 20% bots. [2] [3] [4]
Like, honestly, do people really think websites like Facebook and Twitter get billions of unique visitors a year? [5] [6] There aren't even 8 billion people in the world [7] but somehow Facebook gets 20 billion unique visitors??? And Twitter clocks in at almost 7 Billion!
Those two explanations alone can account for the "rise in hate speech" on warm and cold days, when people stay inside more. But the weather, itself, is not causing it, which is what the correlation/causation fallacy shows.
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Then why did you, in the very beginning, ask me about if all citizens or just some should have guns? And why even ask these questions at all if you and I agree that guns shouldn't be limited?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
So what are you arguing then? That only the mentally ill should be unable to defend themselves?
Created:
FROM THE STUDY:
Findings
The prevalence of hate tweets was lowest at moderate temperatures (12 to 21°C) and marked increases in the number of hate tweets were observed at hotter and colder temperatures, reaching up to 12·5% (95% CI 8·0–16·5) for cold temperature extremes (–6 to –3°C) and up to 22·0% (95% CI 20·5–23·5) for hot temperature extremes (42 to 45°C). Outside of the moderate temperature range, the hate tweets also increased as a proportion of total tweeting activity. The quasi-quadratic shape of the temperature–hate tweet curve was robust across varying climate zones, income quartiles, religious and political beliefs, and both city-level and state-level aggregations. However, temperature ranges with the lowest prevalence of hate tweets were centred around the local temperature mean and the magnitude of the increases in hate tweets for hot and cold temperatures varied across the climate zones.
Interpretation
Our results highlight hate speech online as a potential channel through which temperature alters interpersonal conflict and societal aggression. We provide empirical evidence that hot and cold temperatures can aggravate aggressive tendencies online. The prevalence of the results across climatic and socioeconomic subgroups points to limitations in the ability of humans to adapt to temperature extremes.
Funding
Volkswagen Foundation.
LINK:
Created:
POTSDAM, Germany — Climate change may be the cause of rising tensions and hate speech online, according to new research. Study authors from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research say incidents soar by more than a fifth when the temperature rises.
Global warming is getting people hot under the collar during conversations on social media in particular. Temperatures above 86°F show a consistent link to this phenomenon. The study authors say this applies to all climate zones irrespective of socioeconomic differences such as income, religious beliefs, or political preferences.
The findings, published in The Lancet Planetary Health, have implications for social cohesion, suggesting there will be more aggression and violence unless greenhouse gas emissions fall dramatically. Scientists used a computer neural network to analyze four billion tweets from users in the United States.
“People tend to show a more aggressive online behavior when it’s either too cold or too hot outside,” says study first author and PIK scientist Annika Stechemesser in a media release.
You can't make this stuff up, folks:
Proof that even scientists fall for the correlation/causation fallacy.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
You still didn't admit you ignored my whole rationale and simply substituted your own.
If you don't want to define anything, then how in the world can you even claim black people are racist?
You have to define these terms before you can climb any "truth."
Truth isn't undefinable.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
It's NOT my truth. It is THE truth.
Big words coming from a man who is scared of accepting definitions.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Define race.
Define black.
Define racist.
Define white.
Define biracial.
Define multiracial.
And, I guarantee you, that it will then be impossible to prove your "truth."
Since the overwhelming majority of "blacks" are not even black. They are multiracial or biracial.
But here's what's even crazier. You can't even argue that there are different races because black people and white people are all part of one race. So it is impossible to be racist to members of your own race if you then turn around and favor other members of your race.
Plus, all I have to do is prove that any portion of black people are not racist, and your premise is completely destroyed, since you decided to say "blacks," meaning the collective whole, are racist.
But. You know. Go ahead and believe your supposed "truth." It was peddled by the KKK and the Confederacy and the south for years to oppress an entire people group.
I'll just be over here living in reality, with my black friends, in my city with black people in it, all getting along with each other just fine because we aren't racists.
Created:
Also, why in the world are so many seasoned debaters so quick to agree to the either/or fallacy?
How can any of you remotely prove "blacks" all do something?
Created:
Are you, like, paid to be this racist by the Russians or something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Admittedly, Mikal conceded the debate in the comments after the round,
I didn't know that. Gosh it was so many years ago but I remembered the forum saying he destroyed Bluesteel.
Anywho, thanks for the link! And you're right, she did win by a long shot.
I also forgot about the trick they used back then of using url shorteners to have more characters lol.
I remember looking at that going "woah! That's so brilliant!!" Lol.
Man good times. Good times.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, I am not convinced on windmills, but I can see the argument for solar panels since there is no known way to safely recycle them ot even dispose of them apparently.
Do you have any good literature on windmills being "not great" for the environment?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
That is why you'll find that Title as the first line of my post.
Except it wasn't...
Your title left out "expected to."
And in the original article, you know, from the Associated Press, that I linked to, (since you didn't even cite a link for your original post) they linked to a NYT article.
I did this because, since you didn't leave a link to where your article was from, I had to go find it, like I normally have to do when you claim things, and fact check it, like I normally have to do when you claim things, because, as usual, you got the facts wrong.
Created:
I guess nobody will publicly disagree that electric cars are not good for the environment. . .
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yeah. When I was a kid I feel like the news was different.
In high school I wrote a long, 30-page senior project on bias in the media. It was peer reviewed by one journalist and another communications scholar. Back then, at least, the news talked about the same topics. They just had disagreements on the facts and think tanks and interpretations of the facts. There was a lot of cherry picking and such in the news, but the news largely tried to talk about facts and not opinions.
But then, in 2014 or 2015 or so, idr when exactly, the news radically shifted, with the left and the right becoming two completely different bubbles.
I also think sourcing and journalistic standards of reporting went drastically downhill since 2014 or 2015 or so. AP stopped linking to sources altogether, as did Reuters and all the other newswires when, before, they would actually provide the link.
Furthermore, there was a lot more logical analysis and syllogistic thinking in the news before 2015. Around 2015, primary sources and studies and linking was replaced with experts and talking heads.
This wasn't just on the left. This was on both sides of the aisle.
Now the news is basically a fifth grade essay with schoolyard logic, "my daddy says your daddy is stupid," type articles.
I largely have stopped reading the news because of it. I now almost exclusively read the Congressional Research Service, Just Facts, ProCon.org and a few select think tanks like AIER and EPI (just to understand the liberal opinion) and other websites of similar quality.
I will also occasionally browse the WEF's website and Rand Corporation, not for factual reporting, because most of it is complete horse manure, but because the Rand Corporation is basically the Defence Department's think tank and the WEF is the collection of businesses that control many governments and economies. These two entities control a lot of the global political scene, so I like to see what horrific policy they will try to shove down people's throats next. It's kind like reading the news before the news, lol.
Created:
The actual title of the article is "Trump Org. CFO expected to plead guilty in NY tax case" [1]
Additionally, there was no primary source document linked to in the entire article, only other AP News articles and one New York Times article.
Furthermore, the New York Times article that was linked to also failed to link to any primary source document.
This is all, therefore, hearsay [2] and not actual proof of anything.
Without any citation of primary source documents, [3] it is impossible to determine if the news reporting is factual or complete fiction. From what I could tell, the links were just a Rabbit Hole [4] to more news reports, which linked to more news reports, which then linked to more news reports, at which point I stopped trying because it appeared to be hearsay and not credible reporting.
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lair77
Getting a 3.7 in organic chemistry is not the same as getting a 3.7 in Introduction to American Government 101
You're right. Chemistry is easier. 😏
No seriously though. I took an intro to American government course in college as an elective and the amount of studying one has to do to become competent on American Government is, like, astronomically massive. You need to know the Supreme Court cases, the Annotated Constitution, the notes on the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist and Antifederalist papers, historical laws passed by Congress, and all the different types of constitutional interpretation methods and the justifications behind them.
At least in chemistry almost everyone agrees with the laws of logic and the scientific method. In American government, you literally have Supreme Court cases decided on a whim, with no reference to original intent, previous Supreme Court cases, or even any actual facts. But that then becomes the law of the land until some new Supreme Court case repeals the previous ruling. And in Congress there are so many different philosophies on what Congress is supposed to do that you often get laws passed that blatantly violate the Constitution, but it could be years until the Supreme Court strikes them down. There are, quite honestly, no agreed-upon standards in American Government. It is the wild west.
Of course, in an introductory class they don't cover all of this. But they also do not cover most of chemistry in a Chemistry 101 class. If they did cover everything in 101 classes, then there would be no reason to suck college students dry of their finances for 4 straight years.
Created:
Posted in:
Welp, based off the APA's definition of intelligence:
The ability to derive information, learn from experience, adapt to the environment, understand, and correctly utilize thought and reason. [1]
I would argue good grades do not determine intelligence, since they do not measure the ability to learn from experience. They do measure everything else in that definition, though.
However, the APA's definition of "measures of intelligence" is:
a series of norm-referenced tests used to determine an individual’s ability to learn, reason, understand concepts, and acquire knowledge. [2]
I would argue that grades do fall under this category, as they measure students' ability to learn, reason on tests, prove they understand concepts, and show they have acquired knowledge on a subject.
Though some could argue that grades do not measure acquiring of knowledge and are not norm-referenced. This could be true depending on a school's grading policies. There is a push in many schools and universities to grade students based on race and gender as opposed to objective standards:
Oak Park and River Forest High School administrators will require teachers next school year to adjust their classroom grading scales to account for the skin color or ethnicity of its students.School board members discussed the plan called “Transformative Education Professional Development & Grading” at a meeting on May 26, presented by Assistant Superintendent for Student Learning Laurie Fiorenza. [3]
Changing grading scales on the basis of skin color is not norm referenced, and therefore does not constitute a viable measure of intelligence. However, there is also a push to remove many grading standards completely:
Equitable grading involves eliminating the 100-point grade scale and not penalizing students for late work and missed assignments if they can demonstrate subject mastery and even if they must retake tests or redo other assessments along the way.Feldman says these assessment practices can help address stubborn achievement gaps and streamline the grading hodgepodge. But moves toward equitable grading seem to be rolling out in a patchwork fashion, and not without pushback and confusion. [4]
Putting aside the blatant racist connotations of such policies, since that is an entirely different discussion in and of itself, removing standards on the norm-referenced tests fails to test anything, meaning grades at participating schools do not measure intelligence.
So, basically, it depends where you go to school and what the grades are measuring.
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Hmm. Interesting.
I am guessing you mean materialism in the economic sense, correct? There's, like, 4 different types of materialism.
You say you're a liberal, but the current Pope is a socialist. Do you consider socialism the end goal of liberalism?
So I guess you aren't a Roman Catholic, then. The vast majority I meet are Roman Catholic.
Personally I believe that Jesus did exist, that the gospels are real eyewitness accounts that were preserved perfectly (though not in the form of majority manuscripts), and that what Jesus taught was that we, as humans, are hopeless entrapped in sin and we will never be able to reform ourselves. This is why He died for our sins and He changes us and makes us new.
With our nature being changed into that of the good human, we are better people, and can create a better world. Btw, I think part of being a good human is to examine all things and hold fast to that which is true, not to shut off our eyes and ears to everything that doesn't agree with us. After all, if it is false, then we have nothing to worry about. And better yet, we can now better explain to someone else why something is false, knowing what it teaches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Ok. I can see where you are coming from. And I am sorry you knew people who killed themselves.
I can say I knew people who defended themselves successfully with weapons.
I know someone who successfully fought off attackers and saved his coworkers' lives because he brought a gun with him while they were relaxing after working all day. He fended off multiple attackers because he was armed.
There was also the viral video of the Army Vet who pulled out his gun and averted a mass shooting by firing at the attacker before the attacker could get out a single shot.
The point I'm making is that guns are used all the time for defensive purposes and save many lives. According to a survey published in 2000 in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, people use guns to defend themselves and others 989,883 times a year. [1]
This number was roughly held up by another 1993 survey that found that people use guns for self protection of themselves and others 1,029,615 times a year. [1]
Furthermore, in 2013, the CDC determined that, in most surveys, civilians use guns to protect themselves as much as criminals use guns. [1]
So, the problem with the news is they never report on these situations or the important data like what I listed above showing that people commonly use guns for protection. [2]
SOURCES:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Nah fam. Look at my definitions again...
Cult is "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious."
Christianity is a religion. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are cults, because they are unorthodox and spurious forms of a religion.
They have firmly held beliefs that are unorthodox and spurious.
I, personally, believe the known universe points directly to God. The realms of philosophy, empiricism, rationalism, epistemic logic, all end up at God, because He created the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
That's mostly a Klan term without much meaning beyond insult. Was that your intent?
I didn't know it was an insult. That is what a lot of reformed people and even some hardcore catholic apologists have called that persuasion of Catholicism. Is there a different term I should be using? Is it Latin Rite?
C.S. Lewis is a very interesting pick. What is your favorite theology book by him? I had to read Mere Christianity in both college and high school. I know he's written a lot more than that, but I must admit that is the majority of my exposure to C.S. Lewis beyond Narnia.
No preference to any church father. Interesting. Is this because of a theological belief or you just don't happen to like any one particular Church Father over the others?
I'll also give you my answers so you understand where I was coming from when I called you a Romanist:
I'm closest to Reformed Baptist (London Baptist Confession of 1689 if that helps). I grew up non-denominational but happened to end up in a couple Reformed Churches in college which is where I picked up all the terms. That and minoring in theology. The old joke goes, if you want free theology classes, just anger a Reformed believer lol. Yeah I learned a LOT in a few short years just from asking questions and angering some of them by accident lol. They tend to use the phrase "romanist" when talking about Catholics who have a strict adherence to Papal infallibility and veneration of the Pope to the maximum possible.
I like John Gill. Mainly because he is extremely thorough in his research. But, obviously, nobody is perfect except Jesus.
I like Clement of Rome and a lot of Justin Martyr. But I can't say ALL of Justin Martyr because I haven't finished reading him yet lol. Justin Martyr is great to me because he makes strong use of epistemic logic, which I like a lot.
Created:
I was one of "those people" who didn't let a virus with a 99.5% survival rate dictate my life choices.
And, I have to say, at least where I lived, Restaurants went to shit, apartment maintenance went to shit, a bunch of activities were closed even though they had very little chance of spreading COVID (they were outdoor events with plenty of space for social distancing), stores were out of, like, 1/3 of everything.
And, in most cases, the reason was "for your safety we are not doing xxx."
I literally ended up not going to Baltimore because 90% of the hotels didn't even properly clean their rooms, have breakfast, working wifi, working or open amenities, and, you guessed it, they all blamed COVID.
So, at least anecdotally from my life, I would have to say I agree. What I saw, there was no way America didn't get collectively lazy and just use COVID as an excuse to get paid the same amount of money for less work.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Why can't you boomers actually take the final redpill though and admit it's the Jews behind this bullshit.
SOME jews. SOME jews are behind SOME bullshit.
For goodness sake. The holocaust deniers aren't Jewish. The anti-semitic neo-Nazis aren't Jewish. Most Billionaires who control the global economy aren't Jewish. In fact, Klaus Schwab is a german who is possibly descended from royalty depending on which researcher you ask.
And the Kennedys, the Catholic Church propaganda machine, and most of the Conservative media empire is not run by Jews.
Yes. Soros, Adler, and a few others use their money for propaganda and such, but, by and large, most of those who are pulling the strings are not Jewish.
But, of course, SOME are.
Fun fact. Did you know 90% of the libertarian political and philosophical machine is run by Russia? Crazy, huh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Irish Catholic is my heritage, culture, my family
Out of curiosity, are you a Romanist? Who is your favorite theologian? And your favorite church father?
Created:
Posted in:
Bluesteel won that debate
Really? Do you happen to have the archive link for it? I remember Mikal winning it.
Also, lmao on Oromagi being a secret government AI.
Created:
Posted in:
Btw, when I say "good debater," here is my methodology:
Destroying the other person's argument using any method that works.
Oromagi, you have great potential to be better than Mikal. But, imho, your biggest problem is you really LOVE to appeal to authority. This makes your arguments really weak because, many times, your authority is simply just dead wrong or does not actually prove their statements with cited evidence. WaPo and any other news outlet, 99% of the time, is not the best source to use for a debate on anything.
But, when you are on the defensive, your way of eviscerating other peoples' arguments is stellar. You get people to agree to your definitions, make them become a straw man of their own argument, and then destroy the position you made them take. That is amazing skill. Mad respect.
But, unfortunately, the biggest flaw in that is that the person can simply pick away at your attempts to guide the argument into your straw man, and I think that is where you fall apart.
Mikal used to do the same thing you did, but his source material was, like, Congressional Research Service-level sourcing. He would pull reputable studies out of the depths of the internet to supplement his side and use the same method you did. Studies few people even knew existed.
Moreover, he would (generally) use pure logic rather than rely on logical fallacies to destroy the other person's arguments. He would start with a premise that is a kink in the other person's argument and then turn that premise into this gigantic bulldozer that completely destroys the fortified walls in the other person's argument. Kind of like with Socrates asks a single question in Plato's Republic that causes a chain reaction of problems in the other person's argument.
Like, I will admit I am an experienced persuader who has also been in my fair share of debates, (in real life. Not on DDO or DART), but the way you basically make people pick up the noose to hang themselves with when you debate them is just uncanny. And that is what makes you a great debater.
So that is why my nominations stand at Mikal and Oromagi, and it is also why I theorize you guys are the same person lol. But it appears you said you were on DDO as well so maybe not lol.
Created: