Dude, you should have won this debate hands down.
Oromagi made so many red herring, genetic fallacies, strawmans and false equivalence fallacies it was just pathetic.
No reasonable person could ever think 1/6 was worse than the 2020 summer riots that killed so many and caused billions in damages across the nation.
And FFS, George Floyd was not murdered by Chauvin. Floyd killed himself. I do not care what the bought and paid for medical testimony says. The toxicology report said it all where the level of meth and fentanyl is concerned. The audio on the body cam of the initial responding officer approaching Floyd's car made it clear Floyd was already complaining of respiratory issues that only got worse during the entirety of the procedural arrest he kept resisting. The autopsy also showed no significant trauma to his neck from the knee hold either. People who actually believe Floyd died from that knee vs the fatal overdose of fentanyl are purely delusional and in denial, IMHO
"When con says that abortion is killing fetus, its wrong. Abortion is not killing fetus because a fetus does not have life of its own till 24 weeks and abortion is not possible after 24 weeks. So abortion before 24 weeks is just removing a non living thing from body. So there is noting morally wrong in abortion."
A fetus does have life, cellular life at its core.
The basic biological criterion for cellular life is met at conception, therefore the pregnancy is surely a "living" organism.
As such, a pregnancy terminates a living organism.
Abortions are done after 22-24 weeks, in rare circumstances, which demonstrates why less than 1.2% of all abortions take place after that timeframe.
90-94% of all abortions are before 14 weeks, with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. No "baby" involved.
Abortion is morally acceptable prior to fetal viability. Once viable, I take issue with abortion. Up to 20 weeks is long enough to decide whether or not you're ready psychologically, physiologically, and financially capable of birthing and raising a child for 18 years.
Byrd understood... yeah right.
Byrd was told... what those in charge wanted him to know.
Ashley wasn't alone. She had people beside her from all angles. She presented no weapons. She presented no immediate threat of harm or injury to Byrd.
He was a coward who panicked. He is the only Capital Officer to have discharged his service weapon among several other officers present who did no such thing. In fact, some officers even opened the barricades and doors to the building to grant access to those who showed up to protest the certification of the election results.
In the chaos of the entirety of the event, there is no way Byrd understood anything other than what he was told (manufactured) to believe without evidence to back it up.
And the FACT that the so-called rioters (not insurrectionists) have been hunted down and prosecuted whereas none of the BLM and/or ANTIFA rioters who did far worse over the prior summer demonstrates the left's hardon for those on the right while giving carte blanche to those on the left.
Your entire argument is set upon one false equivalency fallacy after another. I mean really, talk about inconsistencies and illogical reasoning to substantiate pedophilia. That is where you are going with all these children and porn, consent, etc. debates are you not!?!
The reason why children are not allowed to drive, own guns, watch porn, have sex with adults, etc. is they lack the cognitive ability to do such things without harming themselves or others without fully appreciating the consequences of their actions.
Organized religion is nothing more than a cult. Regardless of the denomination. It directs, implores, demands, and conveys a measure of "obedience" to the respective religion.
Throughout human history, every religion has been used as an excuse (reason) to justify killing in the name of their deity.
Understanding that organized religion is a creation of man, the very first version of mass hysteria and propaganda through threats of violence and fear of said violence, was monotheism.
Take religion out of your life and just be a good, law-abiding human being and life is great.
I already provided some data that demonstrates cats can and would prevent harm to human beings, let alone other animals.
I don't care about your personal anecdotal experiences; it is the bigger picture that is under debate here.
I did not ignore that critique cause over 90% of human beings who desire to procreate are heterosexual. Your point is an exception to the rule, one I care not about since it is outside the norm.
Look...the point of my comment was not about getting down to the nitty gritty of it all, it was purely on the basics of laws of attraction based in psychology. It begins with what was mentioned. First it is looks for men, and first it is stability and not looks for women. Seeing as we both agree on that salient point.
"Thats so bullshit i dont know where to begin. Yes, women put more pressure on social status and wealth as opposed to men but women do have physical preferences too, or all of them would be bisexual. Or would women be attracted to other women if they acted like a man? please."
>> What's bullshit about it? I mean really, you just admitted I was correct that women put more pressure on social status and wealth as opposed to men, and nowhere did I ever state women did not have some preference for physical attraction.
Your retort is purely sophomoric ignorance.
It is an affirmed psychological fact (studied relentlessly) that women look for stability before physical appearances. Yes, some women are mental and only go for the looks, and those women end up in horrible relationships, divorced, or victims of DV. That too has been studied and affirmed.
This is a yes and no debate. Yes for men, no for women.
Men want looks in the female, and women want social status, strength, and stability ... not looks.
Leviticus 18:22 ESV / 1,607 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 1,542 helpful votes
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
You have a plethora of links cited throughout your rebuttals.
Exactly which one(s) am I to look at, and why (as it relates to what I have put forth that you disagree with)?
I am not going on a fishing expedition to figure out which link and why. That's your burden, not mine.
>>retweets are not counterarguments and nothing you have said supports your manifestly false claim:<<
Easy to claim, so easy an amoeba can do it. Much harder to prove. Takes actual emotional and intellectual intelligence to do so. The latter you clearly are deficient in. But you are abundant in denialism regarding the last part of that statement. Genetic fallacy 100x
>>The Jan 6 committee is uncovering some new facts regarding Trump's disregard for election results and demonstrating that Trump was virtually alone in the White House in his determination to overthrow the government rather than accept his loss but new QAnon conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election are just a lame and easily disproved as the lie that Trump's legal team reprimanded for profound abuse of the law.>>
My links cited in the previous comment were in direct response to the above nonsense.
>>You were trolling according to your own definition by talking about me living in a fantasy land, Dunning Kruger, and other useless ad hominem inflammatory attacks. Also, look up the word "irony". The only one engaging in denialism is you, if you think about it. Why?...<<
"a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses or manipulating others' perception."
~ Making fact-based observations premised on your own writings (in tone, demeanor, etc.) and recognizing same as an observation is NOT "trolling." It is NOT "denialism" either. And it most certainly is NOT "irony" just the same.
>>...Well, Webster, Oxford, universities, and psychologists all acknowledge the semantic change with regards to gender *not* necessarily being synonymous with sex, and the term "woman" not necessarily having to be in terms of biology. There are tons of psychology journals that make it clear that gender, in 2022, is generally not regarded as the same as sex. A "woman" does not have to be defined biologically as ***the multiple definitions*** I provided prove.<<
I do not care what Webster has to say, since it has kowtowed to the liberal left mob in making nonsense out of previously crystal clear definitions based on actual scientific fact, and not emotive subjective bullshit.
Semantic changes have to be legit, not emotively driven with no scientific basis. Also do not care what psychological journals you refer to without citation since they are all, more likely than not, bastardized by liberal emotive drama and wokeism.
>>However, you not accepting this reality and thinking it is still 1800 or something is magically supposed to be convincing. Instead of using actual logic you just throw out words like "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument.<<
There is no reality to fantasy you clown.
>>Your whole case is based on an Appeal to Tradition fallacy, and can thus be rejected.<<
Easy to claim, harder to prove.
>>Conclusion? There has been a semantic change in the English language that allows "women" to be defined in terms of psychology and gender and necessarily not biological sex.<<
I continue to refrain from giving any opinion on this matter, as new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election. But I will wait for more affirming and damning evidence that will expose the truth we all have known all along.
>>I said ok because it seems like you have said a bunch of stuff i agree with (such as black people having more run down homes) the issue is you linked no studies for why they have rundown homes more often, whilst i did in my debate. There's just nothing for me to comment on, as there's nothing to critique, its an emotional argument, you're saying stuff without evidence. You can say its untrue, but can you prove it? your own personal opinion doesn't hold light compared to the empirical studies i linked backing my view with the same resolution.<<
(deep breath)
To me the things I speak of is pure common and educated knowledge. I have studied black American history for more than two decades. This is the comment section, not the debate section. I am not going to invest my time and energy to give a full-on response in the comment section when all I can expect, based on your past retorts, is a mere "ok."
Everything I said in my comment has been common knowledge for more than a decade. I need not cite anything to back it up.
Everything I said in my comment is objective based easily verifiable facts. If you disagree with them, prove me wrong. Otherwise, your continued wave of the dismissal "talk to the" hand maneuver is not proof of your argument, rebuttal, or loosely postured position here.
TWS1405 - " It is little to no academic integrity."
>>Yeah, ok. The vast majority of sociological studies show that systemic racism does affect the average outcomes of people based on race. Sowell is an economist. Systemic racism is not even his field of study. There are many experts who are in this field of sociological study who have conducted the studies and disagree with his assessment of their studies.<<
Sowell has studied far more than mere economics. And did you forget the obvious, he is black born into poverty in NC and grew up in Harlem FFS. He has augmented his scholarly knowledge beyond mere economics. He [is] a credible source for issues and matters affecting and afflicting the black community from historical to present day roots.
Also on systemic racism, that's a myth. There is no such thing. It is pure propaganda. Same for so-called white privilege (doesn't exist, a phrase coined to replace the bankrupt 'race card') and institutional racism. It's all BS designed to deflect from the true source of the problem: a lack of personal responsibility and accountability for the choices and actions made by many within the black community.
>>It's pretty common knowledge that predominantly black schools are funded less and their properties are worth less (because they're black).<<
That's uneducated common knowledge, a false narrative sold to anyone so who willingly drinks that false narrative Kool-Aid.
What is actual true common knowledge is that schools get a 44-50% of their funding from property taxes, taxes that are entirely dependent on market value of the homes within that school's district. Those values have two factors that determine their value, what the comparative sales are in the area of the homes being valued, and the condition of the home. If the home is in disrepair, it cannot be sold at the prevailing market value. When that home and surrounding homes are in disrepair, the value of those properties go down. When those values go down, the amount of property taxes assessed go down. Which means less money doled out to schools within the district. So, when blacks ignore broken windows (theory) and allows their neighborhoods to decay, they have no one but themselves to blame for not only that poor condition of the "hood," but also their schools.
So, when you say low property values and underfunded schools is because they are black is factually inaccurate. It has nothing to do with their skin color and everything to do with their complacency and apathy.
>>When we study "policing racial disparities" factors which lead to more run ins with the police outside of simply bias on the police is always paramount and factored in, in sociology we don't leave racial policing disparities to only the police being racist, hence our missunderstanding.<<
That was a bunch of garbled nonsense. Police go where the crime is, not where it isn't. There is no bias. You're conflating offender profiling with bias, or racial profiling. That's not how it works anymore and hasn't for quite some time. Yeah yeah, there will be a few bad apples that still act out of bias, but overall, there is no malicious bias or racial profiling. The best law enforcement tool in their investigative arsenal is offender profiling.
>>Police disparities do exist on average, and the reason for it is because of past racist laws. <<
Cite no less than 5 actual racist laws that have impact on current "police disparities" that exist, "on average" today.
>>This has far more to do than with just the police, but to do with economics created through unfair laws. <<
And pray tell what unfair laws would those be that are economic based?
Given the recently released photos from the super telescopes...it is clear things can come from nothing (which truly isn't nothing), per se, as there are certainly some things out there resulting in the vast number of stars, suns, planets and wonderous galaxies.
No, no minority group or any group for that matter should be "equalized" to another.
With the exception of the estimated 335,000 Africans brought to North America, everyone else pretty much came here from abroad of their own choosing looking for a better life. Once the Africans were freed, they could have accepted offers to leave. They chose to stay. They prospered. The very first female millionaire was a black woman. Many blacks excelled in academia and in professional positions - DESPITE - any level or measure of racism.
It wasn't until the 1960s where black Americans saw a downturn for their people, and it was of their own choosing and doing. Their failures were their own, but they blame whitey for their own problems.
They just need to accept their failures as their own, admit there is a problem among their own, and start forcing their own to take more personal accountability and responsibility for their choices and actions.
Your respect isn't a requisite where citing Sowell is concerned.
And it is black rednecks, and as far as I can surmise it is a valid perspective rooted in history. https://youtu.be/pls-Z0KOOgw
Modern day academics are liberal hacks pushing an agenda. It is little to no academic integrity.
Why no citations to Thomas Sowell? He is by far the foremost authority on black culture, the history of slavery in America and abroad, and why a subset of black Americans fail compared to other blacks coming to America from other nations. That would be very strong and compelling evidence right there.
"What really bores me is your rigidity. I see no point in debating you when you clearly have no interest in what I have to say and instead want to enter the debate to talk about your point of view while not caring about the points I send your way or internalising anything I say."
You have absolutely NO proof/evidence to substantiate this "...while not caring about the points I send your way or internalising (sic) anything I say" false allegation. It's just another excuse in a long line of excuses for refusing to go toe-to-toe with me, so you mock me instead.
The truth is rigid, it either is true or it is untrue. That is why I said to Bones as I will say to you here, I do not care what you think, feel, or believe; the only thing that matters is what you can prove. So far you haven't proven anything you claim to have proven let alone falsely alleged against me.
"You have no intention of changing your views."
Again, you have absolutely no proof/evidence to substantiate this allegation. If you come at me with the better, more well-informed position that forces me to question my position that I cannot adequately refute, then the appropriate response will be given. Be it change of mind, being on the fence until I research further, or agree to disagree. To date you have failed to give the better argued position, just emotive conjecture.
"I just imagine it will be a long day of passive-aggressive remarks and not much of anything being concluded from the debate. A lot of the things I choose to discuss I don't believe in. Half of it is just trolling and having fun. I think you would make it hard for me to even enjoy having a trollish debate with you."
Trolling for the purpose of just having fun = sophomoric banality
"I'm just not interested in debating you in the comment section about your takes; it takes too much of my time for something I feel little pleasure from."
>> Then you should not have replied/commented in the first place. Either way, this is just an excuse to substantiate the IC copout.
Do us both a favor, if you have no intention of following through when you engage another in the comments, then don't comment at all.
Yup, typical intellectual coward retort. "Whatever you say" and yet another logical fallacy associating me to someone I do not even know. Clearly in a derogatory manner.
TWS1405: "What you think, feel, or believe is of no consequence. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. Period."
I just shown you can put your argument back on you.
>> You did no such thing.
"Abortion laws differ widely depending on state. I'm unsure why you have this monolithic view that everyone should in law view abortion as wrong based on the amendments. Many People read these amendments and still disagree. That's all I'm saying, it detracts nothing from Bones' arguments that you bring that up. Its clear you brought it up because you think its obvious."
>> No, the laws do not "differ widely," and "Many People (sic) read these (sic) amendments and still disagree," both retorts prove that uneducated people in the law have no business making decisions on the law when they do not even understand what they're reading in the first place. If you knew anything about how laws work from state to state, it typically takes one state to test the waters and if they succeed then other states take a look at what they did, how they wrote it, tweak it a bit (most laws from state to state are vasty similar in intent and purpose, as well as being written nearly word for word), and implement the law themselves. I cited ONE Amendment from the Bill of Rights, one. And that Amendment is directly related to this debate/discussion as it clearly delineates when all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law are bestowed upon [a] person: at birth.
"Babies don't actually develop self awareness, till they're about...6 months I believe? therefore they have no moral autonomy of their own."
>> Self-awareness (let alone moral autonomy) is irrelevant in this debate/discussion. You've missed the point.
"I'm pro abortion. You just come across like a zealous lunatic with your black and white thinking. There's nuance here and you ignore everything Bones says which is true."
>> Zealous lunatic huh, resorting to unsubstantiated ad hominem arguments demonstrates you have no defensible position, which is more than obvious. I did not ignore "everything" Bones says, I rebutted it. And no, "everything Bones says which is true" couldn't be anymore further from the truth.
There is NO nuance with fact-based truths. Nor is it merely just black and white thinking. It is reality. It is fact. So many distort their truth based on appeals to emotion whilst ignoring truth. Truth that I conveyed. And you are doing exactly what you accuse me of ... ignoring the truth that I presented in my response.
>> Yes, it is an appeal to emotion. Baby, over historical record across various realistic disciplines, have recognized a "baby" as being a living post-womb "human being." Not in the womb.
"I thought that by this you meant that the fetus isn't a human or baby but killing a fetus is murder, ...."
>> I do NOT care what you think, feel or believe. The only thing that matters in the real world is what you can prove through objective fact based evidence.
"...murder is " the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. "
>> No kidding. But a pregnancy is not afforded the same rights as that of a born human being. That is THE distinction.
"...by definition abortion is murder and murder is morally unacceptable."
>> No, that is NOT how it works. Abortion is a medical procedure. Murder is a heinous crime that involves two already born human beings.
"And abortion is a way to avoid consequences for your reckless actions if you didn't want a baby you should've prevented it unless you were raped but if so then I'm not sure. I realized that this debate is stupid and there's no point for any of this at the end of the day there's still gonna be abortions, rape, and murder we can't stop it but we shouldn't embrace it, I forfeit this shit is pointless."
Dude, you should have won this debate hands down.
Oromagi made so many red herring, genetic fallacies, strawmans and false equivalence fallacies it was just pathetic.
No reasonable person could ever think 1/6 was worse than the 2020 summer riots that killed so many and caused billions in damages across the nation.
And FFS, George Floyd was not murdered by Chauvin. Floyd killed himself. I do not care what the bought and paid for medical testimony says. The toxicology report said it all where the level of meth and fentanyl is concerned. The audio on the body cam of the initial responding officer approaching Floyd's car made it clear Floyd was already complaining of respiratory issues that only got worse during the entirety of the procedural arrest he kept resisting. The autopsy also showed no significant trauma to his neck from the knee hold either. People who actually believe Floyd died from that knee vs the fatal overdose of fentanyl are purely delusional and in denial, IMHO
The debate to begin.
"When con says that abortion is killing fetus, its wrong. Abortion is not killing fetus because a fetus does not have life of its own till 24 weeks and abortion is not possible after 24 weeks. So abortion before 24 weeks is just removing a non living thing from body. So there is noting morally wrong in abortion."
A fetus does have life, cellular life at its core.
The basic biological criterion for cellular life is met at conception, therefore the pregnancy is surely a "living" organism.
As such, a pregnancy terminates a living organism.
Abortions are done after 22-24 weeks, in rare circumstances, which demonstrates why less than 1.2% of all abortions take place after that timeframe.
90-94% of all abortions are before 14 weeks, with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. No "baby" involved.
Abortion is morally acceptable prior to fetal viability. Once viable, I take issue with abortion. Up to 20 weeks is long enough to decide whether or not you're ready psychologically, physiologically, and financially capable of birthing and raising a child for 18 years.
Byrd understood... yeah right.
Byrd was told... what those in charge wanted him to know.
Ashley wasn't alone. She had people beside her from all angles. She presented no weapons. She presented no immediate threat of harm or injury to Byrd.
He was a coward who panicked. He is the only Capital Officer to have discharged his service weapon among several other officers present who did no such thing. In fact, some officers even opened the barricades and doors to the building to grant access to those who showed up to protest the certification of the election results.
In the chaos of the entirety of the event, there is no way Byrd understood anything other than what he was told (manufactured) to believe without evidence to back it up.
And the FACT that the so-called rioters (not insurrectionists) have been hunted down and prosecuted whereas none of the BLM and/or ANTIFA rioters who did far worse over the prior summer demonstrates the left's hardon for those on the right while giving carte blanche to those on the left.
Waiting....
Your entire argument is set upon one false equivalency fallacy after another. I mean really, talk about inconsistencies and illogical reasoning to substantiate pedophilia. That is where you are going with all these children and porn, consent, etc. debates are you not!?!
The reason why children are not allowed to drive, own guns, watch porn, have sex with adults, etc. is they lack the cognitive ability to do such things without harming themselves or others without fully appreciating the consequences of their actions.
"There is no magical switch at 18 where someone becomes a person."
> The issue has nothing to do with personhood and everything to do with cognitive abilities.
What is your definition of, or understanding thereof of the term "nationalism" or "nationalist"?
Organized religion is nothing more than a cult. Regardless of the denomination. It directs, implores, demands, and conveys a measure of "obedience" to the respective religion.
Throughout human history, every religion has been used as an excuse (reason) to justify killing in the name of their deity.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=religion+violence+book&iar=shopping&iax=shopping&ia=shopping
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more-focus-areas/resources/killing-in-the-name-of-god/
Mormon males and their violence towards women, subjugating them to their personal sexual desires via polygamy is abhorrent.
https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/tv/2441841/netflix-murder-among-mormons-true-story-salt-lake-city/
Understanding that organized religion is a creation of man, the very first version of mass hysteria and propaganda through threats of violence and fear of said violence, was monotheism.
Take religion out of your life and just be a good, law-abiding human being and life is great.
Arguing pedophilia is okay on any level is wrong on so many levels.
There is a difference between belief and understanding (i.e. comprehension).
https://www.askdifference.com/understanding-vs-belief/
Atheists have no faith or belief there is no god, they just understand there is no god as there is no reason to believe in one.
You losing this debate does not surprise me.
There is no such thing as sensible gun control.
Criminals do not obey the law.
Law abiding citizens obey the law.
Gun control laws inhibit law abiding citizens with ZERO effect on criminals.
still 'data"
pedophile pervert discussions here...
I already provided some data that demonstrates cats can and would prevent harm to human beings, let alone other animals.
I don't care about your personal anecdotal experiences; it is the bigger picture that is under debate here.
I did not ignore that critique cause over 90% of human beings who desire to procreate are heterosexual. Your point is an exception to the rule, one I care not about since it is outside the norm.
Look...the point of my comment was not about getting down to the nitty gritty of it all, it was purely on the basics of laws of attraction based in psychology. It begins with what was mentioned. First it is looks for men, and first it is stability and not looks for women. Seeing as we both agree on that salient point.
"Thats so bullshit i dont know where to begin. Yes, women put more pressure on social status and wealth as opposed to men but women do have physical preferences too, or all of them would be bisexual. Or would women be attracted to other women if they acted like a man? please."
>> What's bullshit about it? I mean really, you just admitted I was correct that women put more pressure on social status and wealth as opposed to men, and nowhere did I ever state women did not have some preference for physical attraction.
Your retort is purely sophomoric ignorance.
It is an affirmed psychological fact (studied relentlessly) that women look for stability before physical appearances. Yes, some women are mental and only go for the looks, and those women end up in horrible relationships, divorced, or victims of DV. That too has been studied and affirmed.
You're wrong. Again.
https://listverse.com/2020/10/21/10-heroic-cats-who-saved-lives/
https://cattime.com/lifestyle/22025-8-hero-cats-who-saved-their-owners-lives
https://www.boredpanda.com/hero-cats/?utm_source=duckduckgo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=organic
Cats are as compassionate and understanding as dogs. The above three links are only a few examples of cats doing heroic things for human beings.
This is a yes and no debate. Yes for men, no for women.
Men want looks in the female, and women want social status, strength, and stability ... not looks.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/study-shows-men-prefer-looks-women-prefer-social-status
Leviticus 18:22 ESV / 1,607 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 1,542 helpful votes
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
You have a plethora of links cited throughout your rebuttals.
Exactly which one(s) am I to look at, and why (as it relates to what I have put forth that you disagree with)?
I am not going on a fishing expedition to figure out which link and why. That's your burden, not mine.
Nope. You accused me of using common sense vs what I said was common knowledge. It is to you to refute my argument given within these comments.
Common knowledge. Not common sense. Not the same thing. Try again.
If I were allowed to vote, you would have mine hands down.
>>retweets are not counterarguments and nothing you have said supports your manifestly false claim:<<
Easy to claim, so easy an amoeba can do it. Much harder to prove. Takes actual emotional and intellectual intelligence to do so. The latter you clearly are deficient in. But you are abundant in denialism regarding the last part of that statement. Genetic fallacy 100x
>>The Jan 6 committee is uncovering some new facts regarding Trump's disregard for election results and demonstrating that Trump was virtually alone in the White House in his determination to overthrow the government rather than accept his loss but new QAnon conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 election are just a lame and easily disproved as the lie that Trump's legal team reprimanded for profound abuse of the law.>>
My links cited in the previous comment were in direct response to the above nonsense.
>>You were trolling according to your own definition by talking about me living in a fantasy land, Dunning Kruger, and other useless ad hominem inflammatory attacks. Also, look up the word "irony". The only one engaging in denialism is you, if you think about it. Why?...<<
"a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses or manipulating others' perception."
~ Making fact-based observations premised on your own writings (in tone, demeanor, etc.) and recognizing same as an observation is NOT "trolling." It is NOT "denialism" either. And it most certainly is NOT "irony" just the same.
>>...Well, Webster, Oxford, universities, and psychologists all acknowledge the semantic change with regards to gender *not* necessarily being synonymous with sex, and the term "woman" not necessarily having to be in terms of biology. There are tons of psychology journals that make it clear that gender, in 2022, is generally not regarded as the same as sex. A "woman" does not have to be defined biologically as ***the multiple definitions*** I provided prove.<<
I do not care what Webster has to say, since it has kowtowed to the liberal left mob in making nonsense out of previously crystal clear definitions based on actual scientific fact, and not emotive subjective bullshit.
Semantic changes have to be legit, not emotively driven with no scientific basis. Also do not care what psychological journals you refer to without citation since they are all, more likely than not, bastardized by liberal emotive drama and wokeism.
>>However, you not accepting this reality and thinking it is still 1800 or something is magically supposed to be convincing. Instead of using actual logic you just throw out words like "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument.<<
There is no reality to fantasy you clown.
>>Your whole case is based on an Appeal to Tradition fallacy, and can thus be rejected.<<
Easy to claim, harder to prove.
>>Conclusion? There has been a semantic change in the English language that allows "women" to be defined in terms of psychology and gender and necessarily not biological sex.<<
No, it has not.
Says you...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/levin-post-constitutional-america
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/josh-hawleys-humiliation-by-jan-6-committee-unconstitutional-mark-levin/ar-AAZVRsP
https://www.mediamatters.org/mark-levin/fox-news-host-mark-levin-i-hope-you-dont-watch-january-6-committee-hearing
https://uproxx.com/viral/mark-levin-josh-hawley-jan-6-committee/
https://www.theblaze.com/shows/levintv/mark-levin-jan-6-committee
https://www.foxnews.com/media/jan-6-hearings-abomination-american-system-mark-levin
https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/28/sean-davis-pelosis-jan-6-committee-is-a-farce-run-by-shameless-dishonest-partisans/
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/06/28/january-6th-emergency-hearing-delivers-laughably-absurd-bombshells-n585732
https://www.freepressfail.com/2022/06/12/its-morbin-time-the-jan-6-committee-is-officially-a-joke/
I can go on and on and on...
I continue to refrain from giving any opinion on this matter, as new evidence keeps being discovered proving that it was a fixed election. But I will wait for more affirming and damning evidence that will expose the truth we all have known all along.
>>I said ok because it seems like you have said a bunch of stuff i agree with (such as black people having more run down homes) the issue is you linked no studies for why they have rundown homes more often, whilst i did in my debate. There's just nothing for me to comment on, as there's nothing to critique, its an emotional argument, you're saying stuff without evidence. You can say its untrue, but can you prove it? your own personal opinion doesn't hold light compared to the empirical studies i linked backing my view with the same resolution.<<
(deep breath)
To me the things I speak of is pure common and educated knowledge. I have studied black American history for more than two decades. This is the comment section, not the debate section. I am not going to invest my time and energy to give a full-on response in the comment section when all I can expect, based on your past retorts, is a mere "ok."
Everything I said in my comment has been common knowledge for more than a decade. I need not cite anything to back it up.
Everything I said in my comment is objective based easily verifiable facts. If you disagree with them, prove me wrong. Otherwise, your continued wave of the dismissal "talk to the" hand maneuver is not proof of your argument, rebuttal, or loosely postured position here.
>>Ok.<<
What an exceptionally insightful and well-educated response; so enlightening where those things discussed are concerned.
//sarcasm//
TWS1405 - " It is little to no academic integrity."
>>Yeah, ok. The vast majority of sociological studies show that systemic racism does affect the average outcomes of people based on race. Sowell is an economist. Systemic racism is not even his field of study. There are many experts who are in this field of sociological study who have conducted the studies and disagree with his assessment of their studies.<<
Sowell has studied far more than mere economics. And did you forget the obvious, he is black born into poverty in NC and grew up in Harlem FFS. He has augmented his scholarly knowledge beyond mere economics. He [is] a credible source for issues and matters affecting and afflicting the black community from historical to present day roots.
Also on systemic racism, that's a myth. There is no such thing. It is pure propaganda. Same for so-called white privilege (doesn't exist, a phrase coined to replace the bankrupt 'race card') and institutional racism. It's all BS designed to deflect from the true source of the problem: a lack of personal responsibility and accountability for the choices and actions made by many within the black community.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/thomas-sowell-systemic-racism-has-no-meaning
>>It's pretty common knowledge that predominantly black schools are funded less and their properties are worth less (because they're black).<<
That's uneducated common knowledge, a false narrative sold to anyone so who willingly drinks that false narrative Kool-Aid.
What is actual true common knowledge is that schools get a 44-50% of their funding from property taxes, taxes that are entirely dependent on market value of the homes within that school's district. Those values have two factors that determine their value, what the comparative sales are in the area of the homes being valued, and the condition of the home. If the home is in disrepair, it cannot be sold at the prevailing market value. When that home and surrounding homes are in disrepair, the value of those properties go down. When those values go down, the amount of property taxes assessed go down. Which means less money doled out to schools within the district. So, when blacks ignore broken windows (theory) and allows their neighborhoods to decay, they have no one but themselves to blame for not only that poor condition of the "hood," but also their schools.
So, when you say low property values and underfunded schools is because they are black is factually inaccurate. It has nothing to do with their skin color and everything to do with their complacency and apathy.
>>When we study "policing racial disparities" factors which lead to more run ins with the police outside of simply bias on the police is always paramount and factored in, in sociology we don't leave racial policing disparities to only the police being racist, hence our missunderstanding.<<
That was a bunch of garbled nonsense. Police go where the crime is, not where it isn't. There is no bias. You're conflating offender profiling with bias, or racial profiling. That's not how it works anymore and hasn't for quite some time. Yeah yeah, there will be a few bad apples that still act out of bias, but overall, there is no malicious bias or racial profiling. The best law enforcement tool in their investigative arsenal is offender profiling.
>>Police disparities do exist on average, and the reason for it is because of past racist laws. <<
Cite no less than 5 actual racist laws that have impact on current "police disparities" that exist, "on average" today.
>>This has far more to do than with just the police, but to do with economics created through unfair laws. <<
And pray tell what unfair laws would those be that are economic based?
Given the recently released photos from the super telescopes...it is clear things can come from nothing (which truly isn't nothing), per se, as there are certainly some things out there resulting in the vast number of stars, suns, planets and wonderous galaxies.
No, no minority group or any group for that matter should be "equalized" to another.
With the exception of the estimated 335,000 Africans brought to North America, everyone else pretty much came here from abroad of their own choosing looking for a better life. Once the Africans were freed, they could have accepted offers to leave. They chose to stay. They prospered. The very first female millionaire was a black woman. Many blacks excelled in academia and in professional positions - DESPITE - any level or measure of racism.
It wasn't until the 1960s where black Americans saw a downturn for their people, and it was of their own choosing and doing. Their failures were their own, but they blame whitey for their own problems.
They just need to accept their failures as their own, admit there is a problem among their own, and start forcing their own to take more personal accountability and responsibility for their choices and actions.
Your respect isn't a requisite where citing Sowell is concerned.
And it is black rednecks, and as far as I can surmise it is a valid perspective rooted in history. https://youtu.be/pls-Z0KOOgw
Modern day academics are liberal hacks pushing an agenda. It is little to no academic integrity.
JFC. Morality is purely subjective. There is no debate here. It is the proverbial waste of time.
Yes, the voting requirements are TOO excessive for such a small crew that even frequents this cite. Branch out FFS!
Shelby Steele?
Larry Elder?
Candace Owens?
John McWhorter?
I can list more....
What does THBT mean?
Why no citations to Thomas Sowell? He is by far the foremost authority on black culture, the history of slavery in America and abroad, and why a subset of black Americans fail compared to other blacks coming to America from other nations. That would be very strong and compelling evidence right there.
"Equal opportunities, not outcomes."
>> That's called life. You only get out of it what you put into it.
"A death row inmate and a capitalist aren't equal in terms of wealth."
>> False equivalency fallacy
"What really bores me is your rigidity. I see no point in debating you when you clearly have no interest in what I have to say and instead want to enter the debate to talk about your point of view while not caring about the points I send your way or internalising anything I say."
You have absolutely NO proof/evidence to substantiate this "...while not caring about the points I send your way or internalising (sic) anything I say" false allegation. It's just another excuse in a long line of excuses for refusing to go toe-to-toe with me, so you mock me instead.
The truth is rigid, it either is true or it is untrue. That is why I said to Bones as I will say to you here, I do not care what you think, feel, or believe; the only thing that matters is what you can prove. So far you haven't proven anything you claim to have proven let alone falsely alleged against me.
"You have no intention of changing your views."
Again, you have absolutely no proof/evidence to substantiate this allegation. If you come at me with the better, more well-informed position that forces me to question my position that I cannot adequately refute, then the appropriate response will be given. Be it change of mind, being on the fence until I research further, or agree to disagree. To date you have failed to give the better argued position, just emotive conjecture.
"I just imagine it will be a long day of passive-aggressive remarks and not much of anything being concluded from the debate. A lot of the things I choose to discuss I don't believe in. Half of it is just trolling and having fun. I think you would make it hard for me to even enjoy having a trollish debate with you."
Trolling for the purpose of just having fun = sophomoric banality
"I'm just not interested in debating you in the comment section about your takes; it takes too much of my time for something I feel little pleasure from."
>> Then you should not have replied/commented in the first place. Either way, this is just an excuse to substantiate the IC copout.
Do us both a favor, if you have no intention of following through when you engage another in the comments, then don't comment at all.
Yup, typical intellectual coward retort. "Whatever you say" and yet another logical fallacy associating me to someone I do not even know. Clearly in a derogatory manner.
Whiteflame is one to be reckoned with in this debate.
TWS1405: "What you think, feel, or believe is of no consequence. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. Period."
I just shown you can put your argument back on you.
>> You did no such thing.
"Abortion laws differ widely depending on state. I'm unsure why you have this monolithic view that everyone should in law view abortion as wrong based on the amendments. Many People read these amendments and still disagree. That's all I'm saying, it detracts nothing from Bones' arguments that you bring that up. Its clear you brought it up because you think its obvious."
>> No, the laws do not "differ widely," and "Many People (sic) read these (sic) amendments and still disagree," both retorts prove that uneducated people in the law have no business making decisions on the law when they do not even understand what they're reading in the first place. If you knew anything about how laws work from state to state, it typically takes one state to test the waters and if they succeed then other states take a look at what they did, how they wrote it, tweak it a bit (most laws from state to state are vasty similar in intent and purpose, as well as being written nearly word for word), and implement the law themselves. I cited ONE Amendment from the Bill of Rights, one. And that Amendment is directly related to this debate/discussion as it clearly delineates when all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law are bestowed upon [a] person: at birth.
"Babies don't actually develop self awareness, till they're about...6 months I believe? therefore they have no moral autonomy of their own."
>> Self-awareness (let alone moral autonomy) is irrelevant in this debate/discussion. You've missed the point.
"I'm pro abortion. You just come across like a zealous lunatic with your black and white thinking. There's nuance here and you ignore everything Bones says which is true."
>> Zealous lunatic huh, resorting to unsubstantiated ad hominem arguments demonstrates you have no defensible position, which is more than obvious. I did not ignore "everything" Bones says, I rebutted it. And no, "everything Bones says which is true" couldn't be anymore further from the truth.
There is NO nuance with fact-based truths. Nor is it merely just black and white thinking. It is reality. It is fact. So many distort their truth based on appeals to emotion whilst ignoring truth. Truth that I conveyed. And you are doing exactly what you accuse me of ... ignoring the truth that I presented in my response.
"the term "baby" = appeal to emotion""
>> Yes, it is an appeal to emotion. Baby, over historical record across various realistic disciplines, have recognized a "baby" as being a living post-womb "human being." Not in the womb.
"I thought that by this you meant that the fetus isn't a human or baby but killing a fetus is murder, ...."
>> I do NOT care what you think, feel or believe. The only thing that matters in the real world is what you can prove through objective fact based evidence.
"...murder is " the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. "
>> No kidding. But a pregnancy is not afforded the same rights as that of a born human being. That is THE distinction.
"...by definition abortion is murder and murder is morally unacceptable."
>> No, that is NOT how it works. Abortion is a medical procedure. Murder is a heinous crime that involves two already born human beings.
"And abortion is a way to avoid consequences for your reckless actions if you didn't want a baby you should've prevented it unless you were raped but if so then I'm not sure. I realized that this debate is stupid and there's no point for any of this at the end of the day there's still gonna be abortions, rape, and murder we can't stop it but we shouldn't embrace it, I forfeit this shit is pointless."
>> Blah Blah Blah. Grow up.
Abortion meets one of the goals of Eugenics, reduction of the criminal element. And abortion has proven that theory to be proven true.
https://www.hli.org/resources/does-abortion-reduce-crime/
https://journalistsresource.org/economics/abortion-crime-research-donohue-levitt/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1999-08-08-9908080388-story.html
https://thecrimereport.org/2019/06/12/legalizing-abortions-tied-to-crime-drop-of-1990s/