Total posts: 3,778
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Thank so much, for her. She is an incredible young lady. I call her an old soul. I recognized it very early in her life. She just thinks of things that took me 30 years to even start to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't agree with the broad strokes of "objective morality," because it assumes one's morality is everyone's morality, and I disagree. Morality is an intensely personal concept some may share - -in fact, many can -- but we each bring our own experience and expectations to the party, and those are not mutually accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Yeah, we blocked each other a few years ago. I'm willing to unblock, but it may take a bit. I don't remember how it's done, just know it can be.
Oh, yeah...
Armstrong was a genius. Had an opportunity to see him perform once, long, long ago. Magic!Thanks for the reminder
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thanks, but can't take the credit for the poem, that was all my granddaughter. She did not consult me at all; just showed me her finished product. I cried reading it, seeing as she was just 11. 14 now, and still a very old soul. However, we did publish the poem in a small book which I illustrated. Yeah, that wand took a bit of conjuring to get it right. If you like, I'll send you a link for purchase - it's on Amazon
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Thanks. I'm just fine. Couldn't be better, even if this were heaven. Well, that's what we make of it, isn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Some may think so. Let's just say I was able to get out of the buried coffin and just found the surface again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
According to one site, https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/average-iq#:~:text=The%20average%20IQ%20of%20countries,Finland%3A%20101.20 , the average IQ worldwide ranges between 85 - 115, evidence that it is measured differently depending on country. With so many variable tests, who knows how accurately a person's "intelligence" is tested/rated. I don't see how you say, categorically, that China ranks highest, orally other country, because that may only depend on their assessment, but who says anyone's test[s] are any better than anyone else's? In the US, we have at least 5 separate tests, all which result in different values, but all are considered "official."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Yes, the Bible tells us in very clear language that Jesus died for us, but also resurrected for us. All of us.
But God's chosen were not just Jews, but the whole of the House of Israel - all twelve tribes, not just one of them; Judah. The other tribes are among us, but they mostly have no idea of their heritage and ancestry. They will, one day, have the knowledge, and all will, on that day of known reunion, be joyful.
Created:
Posted in:
A poem by my 11 year-old granddaughter, published in 2022 [will be 14 in March]
By Myself
When I'm by myself
And I close my eyes
I'm a chicken pecking at a wall,
A girl alone at a ball,
I'm a petal floating in a pond.
I go far and beyond,
A sly fox looking for prey,
A tree that will sway.
A cat in your face,
I'll win in a race.
I'm a girl who will listen,
A wand that will glisten.
I'm whatever I want to be,.
Anything I care to be.
And when I open my eyes,
What I care to be
Is me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Are you gay being a cis male engaging in a sexual relationship with a trans female
...for contacting sexually the arousal of another cis male prostate gland releasing its fluid.
Your reply to ranacat doesn't cut it, because your initial post [above] is lacking the phrase cited below your first post by description of not just a sexual relationship, but one resulting in a release of fluid. That's called baiting in some circles. Not all "sexual" relationships result in male orgasm, my friend, even between males, because they don't, and because in some relationships, there is no stimulation of the genitals to achieve release, etc, etc, etc. That's why the quotes around "sexual," because that's a loaded word that does not always result in '"premature efactulation."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If Jesus claimed that only dead Jews could forgive sins using himself as an example. Then the Holocaust was totally justified.
if/then logic isn't [logical], because the 'if' statement is virtually always false as given, and, therefore, cannot justify the 'then' statement, unless 'if' is changed.
Example: if wishes were fishes, [then I would be... [whatever I claim I would be, but I'm currently not]
I'm not familiar with Christ saying only the dead can forgive [Jews, or otherwise], but I'm very familiar with a repeating theme of our necessity to forgive others, and to do so repeatedly. We're not dead, nor were those Christ enjoined to forgive others. I did a search for the statement you made as I quoted above, and find no N.T. reference that Jesus said that. However, it occurs to me that when Jesus died, were you implying that he could still forgive? Let's recall that he rose on the third day, presumably a Sunday following his Friday crucifixion; hence the typical Sunday worship of Christians as opposed to Friday sundown -Saturday sundown as the Judaic Sabbath.
Created:
Posted in:
I suggest getting an honorable mention as the debater in the top 20 with the most no-vote ties: 8 of 11 ties that no one, zip, nada, bothered to read and vote. Over 400 of you who are "active," which is one of the site activities, yeah?, cannot be bothered to read and vote. If I was not also in the top ten in voting [in fact, for my single year, plus presence, I've voted more often than just 7 of you], so I'm trying to contribute, and wish that more did, as well. Thanks, everybody for your ignorance. What is this site all about, anyway? It's apparently premature efactulation; a bunch of adolescents who have no idea what stuff is really all about [and yet, most of you are well. beyond the trustable age, and are not yet trustable. That's 30, by the way, to boomers]. I have two more debates in in voting with no votes; go ahead; make it a round 10. There happen to be two more in voting with no votes. Make it an even dozen no vote ties. Congratulations. I have a life and I'll get back to it.
Au revoir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Most analogies have their root in fact. If not Adam and Eve, someone else. Determinism is not the alternate reality
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Freedom to make informed choices is probably as good as it gets.
That's saying the same as free will is as good as it gets. Of course, we should make informed choices. Adam and Eve were not thrown into Eden without advice.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I'm not the typical Christian who tries to fit one God into three personages, or three personages into one God.
It is much more simple, and practical: three separate, holy personages are three separate Gods, united in their purpose to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, specifically, in our case, Earthlings. Further, we, Earthlings, by our obedience, can ultimately become like them, gods, ourselves, just as children grow into adults, but adults obedient and committed to law: holy law, by which the universe functions. Thus, there are actually many gods, of which our trinity is but one set, dedicated to Earth, who created Earth. our trinity, along with all these other gods, have created, over time, the expanding universe, each one, a portion of it, peopling planets like our Earth. Such events continue into the eternal past and future, with Earthlings ultimately taking part in that expansion. Our Earth is but one of countless planets created for this purpose for many, many people, each children of a specific one of the many gods. Further, we have Mothers, as well. It is a sensible family organization spread across the universe. We, on Earth, are just one branch of a very extensive family.
Created:
-->
@Bones
I agree that this is not systemic racism as defined by you, but it as good is.
Don't make it sound like that's just my definition of systemic; it is not exclusively mine. It is a universal standard; the only logic that holds.
Created:
-->
@Bones
Do you believe individual racism is an urgent issue which needs to be addressed?
Yes, but, in a democratic republic, the only means to change is to follow the law by each individual, and to fairly mete out justice to violators in all cases. The system is already set up to do that, but both sides need to improve their performance. To that end, it is still individuals who change; not the system.
Created:
-->
@Bones
If everyone in the system is racist,
It should be obvious that everyone in the system is not racist. Come on. That the media would have you think so is just as obvious, but they are more guilty than most.
Created:
I will try this again:
The system is not people, it is the documented rules of the road. The people are not the road. The people act either within the system or outside of it, just as some people ignore road rules, run stop signs, red lights, cross a double-yellow, and even a double-double yellow, to turn, etc, etc. The rules are precise; the observation of them is what the root cause of racism is all about. Why is that so hard to understand?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You are entirely ignoring the point:
(THEN) the law should treat violators EXACTLY THE SAME
Given that the law is absolutely silent on racial differences, that means the law does not distinguish racial differences and that means the racial animus is NOT SYSTEMIC, it is individual. Those who break the law, even by their interpretation of it, ought to be prosecuted for it. That we do not is just further evidence of individual cause, because the law has no mention of relaxing punishment. That is so bloody obvious, it ought to hit you over the head. That is does not ought to also indicate who has the problem of knowing the difference. Hint: it isn 't the law. What do you think "system": means, after all? Nothing is a system that does not have a consistency to its rules. How people approach and practice those rules is the variation, the disparity you see. If the law did stipulate racial discrimination, then you have systemic racism. It once did, but that time has passed. Some people just don't get it, yet. Got a mirror?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
100-to-1 crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparity
Your citation of an ACLU study does reference the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, affecting Title 21 USC [specifically, §841], but that law says nothing with regard to sentencing guidelines being adjusted by race, so your citation means nothing. If people in the system of criminal justice are making sentencing guidelines based on race, they do so contrary to this, and every other law by elimination of racial profiling in any jurisdiction on any matter, because that is the law of the land, and all such laws have been eradicated. It is individual racism, not systemic. Individuals can act in groups, and that does not make the matter systemic. Systemic is defined as being legislated, documented law or procedural policy, and only that.
Again, show me any law, or official policy, not some study that alleges systemic racism. Allegations are rampant; the real deal is, so far, evasive, and it will continue to be so.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The "powder-cocaine" versus "crack-cocaine" sentencing disparity is only one example of this.
Show me the current statute allowing that disparity. Show me the departmental policy that allows it. You cannot because it doesn't exist. It is individual choice to creep.
Show me the person who, while driving, always stops at stop signs, and does not merely slow down, and begin a creep, then a full throttle progress through the intersection. It's the creep, by individual choice, that is your disparity because the law simply does not document it. The law, the policy, demands a full stop.
Why is that so hard to understand? Why do you all seem to think that because people do that creep, it must by systemic? It is chronic, it is even pandemic, but it is NOT systemic. The system is documented; the creep is by ignorant and deliberate choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Randomness is an entirely different set of circumstances than those of free will. Free will can be calculated in advance, and, shy of any limitation, can be fully exercised. The idea of causation is also a red herring that does not necessarily limit free will. Relative to religion, for example, sure, my parents had much to do with the thoughts they had on the subject to influence me in my childhood, but to say they had sufficient influence to ultimately prevent my own choices in that regard is folly. Today, I know for myself that I was taught correct and sustaining principles and I first knew this at fourteen. By 19, I had manifestations I witnessed by faith that sealed the deal.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
...state officials all worked together as an institution to promote racist violence, created a system that covered-up racist violence
No, that is not the distinction I am making. My argument is that all the actions of all those levels of law enforcement are Not acting as an institution; they are acting against the institutional requirements, which are the system. They are not creating anything but chaos, because the system is already defined; they all collectively ignore it. That is individual racism, even when exhibited by a large group. Individual racism can be calculated and executed, just as working within the system is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
...if it were science, the "skeptical" would not be necessary.
I'll give you one example of why that is a fallacy.
So science is a body of knowledge of testable theories with repeatable and reliable results. I find holes in that definition, but I'll agree in principle.
I see a designed experiment to test the effect of a tsunami on a beachfront coastal village. A doable test, in theory, by miniaturization is possible, but the actual test design has a long, narrow steel, rectangular tank filled with ocean water with a big paddle at one end and a beach at the other end. The "tsunami" is created by the big paddle. Reliable test? Nope.
Show me the ocean bound by flat, vertical sides, an d a flat bottom. Show me the ocean with a paddle. Ive been in four of the five Earth oceans; never saw one fitting those features.
That's supposed to be science? Hogwash. That's a high school science fair project. What happened to attempting to duplicate real conditions? You bet science should be skeptical. Why is a new, infant science, climatology [it's barely 200 years old] so lacking in skepticism? Because it is not yet science.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
But, your example varies entirely from my argument, that CURRENT statutes and procedural policies no longer have Jim Crow, or any other racially biased content, at any level of jurisdiction. They used to, but they were legislatively and procedurally banned and eliminated, by several factors, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and those racist laws have been, by now, completely stricken from law and policy, which I why I can challenge anyone, even you, to show me a current law or policy that has racially biased content, at all. No one has ever been able to demonstrate a single instance. So, you throw out a wish balloon by a fictitious 400M race. Sorry, your come back is flat, Keep blowing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Since there is no standing rule of DebateArt for final-round argument, it would be up to the initiator to impose in a debate challenge, your suggestion included or not.
I agree with MisterChris and oromagi, in principle, however...
For example, in your 4th round of our debate on the stopped clock, you offered an example of a previous round's argument concerning time zones by the "cars should have suspensions" paragraph. Since you argued time zones in previous rounds, I did not consider the cars example as a violation of my personal rule of no new argument in the last round. Ignoring my rebuttal of the time zone argument in the first place [for all reasons I noted] I had no problem with the cars example.
However, as you well know, you imposed no such last round argument prohibition. Even so, I think it is not fair play to offer a last round new argument, particularly for the initiator's opponent [me, in that case], because that player is always going to have the last word, and I don't think the last word should be an argument to which the initiator cannot respond.
Good debate, by the way. I really enjoyed it, and am glad you proposed it.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Question: Once the gun goes off, aren’t the rules for everyone at that point, equal?
No, because as the race organizer, you have established a system, a timed 400M race. However, you have then arbitrarily altered the conditions of the system, without making a change to the system, by not starting the clock simultaneously for all runners. You allow a group of runners a 100M start without starting the clock until they complete the 100M distance. Theoretically, one of that initially untimed group will likely reach the finish line first, but you have violated the rules [the system] by two factors:
1. Not all runners were started simultaneously
2. Since the race is both a time and distance race for all runners, time has been deleted as an equal and impartial qualifier of winning, even though the distance remains the same for all runners.
Both factors are violations of the system by the organizer, acting, not within the system, but outside the system, on an individually chosen basis. Individual, not systemic discrimination.
Created:
Posted in:
No DebatArt policy prohibits last-round new argument, but the practice is flawed, particularly for the debate initiator, whether Pro or Con. For the initiator, leaving new argument until the last round is self-limiting, not advantageous, because, while the opponent can still rebut that last-round new argument in their last round, the initiator has no remaining round to defend their last round new argument. One constant is that initiators always have the top frame of each round.
This condition has been attempted to be rectified by calling waived rounds, but that practice is flawed as well, not to mention prohibited, since Policy dictates there shall be argument [including rebuttal and defense] in all rounds designated by the initiator. It has the further imprimatur of cowardice by the initiator by not rendering the first argument in the first round, preferring to see the opponent's argument first. If we initiate a debate, we ought to take the first crack at argument and stop playing waiver games.
We have the opportunity in Description of all debates we initiate to define rules of the road. These are not binding, so say Mods, but, as voters, we can choose to abide by them or ignore them, making it a risk for either opponent to break initiator-defined rules. I have attempted this, myself, and was willing to accept consequences. One rule should always be: No new arguments in the last round, whether or not it becomes policy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Deeds are actionable documents of execution of law and policy, but are neither the law nor the policy. Neither the law nor the policy demands the alleged verbiage as reflected on these actionable, executed documents. Again, individual racism, even on a large scale.
Is the distinction becoming clear, yet?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A system that does nothing to mitigate potential (and demonstrable) bias by the individuals responsible for enforcing the law could be considered a system that at best, IGNORESthe bias that contaminates its operation and at worst, PROTECTS the bias that contaminates its operation.
So, address the real systemic issue: Prosecution of wrong doers. The system is not the problem. How the system is utilized is the problem. Address THAT. And don't use Hillarious Balloon Girl for your prop.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why do minorities receive longer sentences for the same crimes ?
Because individuals within the system are not following the law, but that's individual racism, not systemic, by definition. The laW DEFINES THE CORRECT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. People are disobeying the law, and should be prosecuted for that, not by changing the system, yet again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Is telling your wife you like her dress or her hair if you really don't think that, is that a deliberate deception, or an attempt to keep peace, or maintain law and order? Consequences are the true measure of what is deliberate deception. So, what is it to you if Trump said that Stormy lied by accepting money to shut up? The money was for her to keep quiet; it's a legitimate deal, which she broke. Half of Trump's counted "lies" [deliberate deceptions] fall into that category, yet are still counted.
Whereas, Biden's gaffes [such as regaling stories of kids rubbing his hairy legs] are plain brain farts. Doesn't matter if its true, or not; it's competency doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Since when is thought, alone, a denial of rights? Anyone's thoughts can do no harm if they remain thoughts. Actions may have rights-limiting consequences, but thought, alone? That's an overreach. That's thought police, and entirely SJW tactic. Reel it in, yeah? As in "get off your [own] high horse."
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
P1: As usual, when one proposition fails, the syllogism fails, and is not longer a syllogism.
P2: "Jim Crow laws practice systemic racism" is a failed proposition since Jim Crow laws no longer exist to practice currently.
C: In legal practice, systemic racism no longer exists.
Created:
One might argue, in use of terms de jure and de facto, that systemic racism in the U.S. is neither de jure, nor de facto.
De jure systemic racism implies that whether or not racism exists in reality, there is legal recognition of it.
De facto systemic racism implies that legally and procedurally, there is real systemic racism.
Neither condition holds.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I agree with the definition as stated above:
Those making the charge often even include definition of systemic racism, and that definition is reasonably consistent that systemic racism, or institutional racism, as opposed to individual racism, includes the necessity of there being current statutes and procedural policies that allow racial animus in this country.
Any racism other than that is individual racism, regardless of the number of individuals who express it, because they are not backed by any legal statute or procedural policy. That they are backed by reports and studies with statistical data, notwithstanding, there is no defined "system" behind it, because reeports and studies, and their data do not have the imprimatur of systemic law and policy at any level of jurisdiction.
If there is, someone would have demonstrated it by now. No one has.
Created:
There have been many debates on this site with the charge that systemic racism exists in America. Those making the charge often even include definition of systemic racism, and that definition is reasonably consistent that systemic racism, or institutional racism, as opposed to individual racism, includes the necessity of there being current statutes and procedural policies that allow racial animus in this country.
Those debates supporting the proposition that system racism exists all cite documents of government agency reports, academic studies, and industrial reports of demonstrated racial animus, complete with statistical data. The flaw in every one of these arguments, in every debate, is that none of these reports and studies include citation of a single current legal statute or procedural policy that stipulates the allowance of racial animus. None. Zip.
If you claim that systemic racism is based on such laws and policies, why don 't any of you cite them? Your claim, alone, by your own definitions, fail to impress.
Until someone can cite such current laws and policies, by which virtual all proponents of the notion define their cases, all your reports ands studies and statistics are sounding brass, full of fury, but signifying nothing.
Cite a law. Cite a policy. That's all. The caveat is that they must be current. Jim Crow is not current, I couldn't care less what SloJoe says, because he cannot and does not cite currency, either. Find one and give it voice. Then, you have case. Without it, you got squat.
Created:
So far, though I'm not the judge:
Discip: you don't know me; I don't dabble as that suggestion would imply.
Reece: Practical, though I just bought a new one a year ago.
FLRW: nope, same response as to Discip
Supa: Intriguing
oromagi: Practical, again, but a different theme. Good; our current dishes [stoneware by Ruska] are now out of production, and their value is rising exponentially, so, yeah, it has possibilities to protect them by use of new dishes, instead. Our anniversary is next month, so, the gift will be appreciated.
Sum1hugme: Nope, 48 years this August; so, not likely to happen now; we're still too much in love.
Reece, v2: ? Yeah, high meta, alright. Intriguing by the mystery
Intel: I like it; an expanded story that shifts gears by having my wife going out after I leave and come back, but she's still out. A bit pf paranormal [flying dishes] to boot. nice.
Skeptic: Practical, and different again 3x. It even rings true because we do that from time to time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No, that is not interesting. It sounds exactly like an idea from a guy who hasn't had a new idea since he sloshed his way through law school.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
@Bones
If you will read my argument fully, you will note my ire is not in wearing a mask, it is in the vacillating advice given by people who claim to follow the science, which disagrees with most of the vacillation. Particularly from "I am Science" himself. [What he actually said is "when you argue with me, you argue with science." That's saying teh same thing. Just as I say, "when is Fauci going to model his mask[s] like a diaper?" He needs it, pissing into the wind.
Created:
Posted in:
So, while wearing her black mask, Kammie tells us if we've been vaccinated, we don't need to wear a mask. She's been vaccinated. Oh, never mind, in spite of Kammie, the CDC says even vaccinated, a mask is recommended, again. Who's following the science, anyway? They're all following the Pied Piper of political science, which is science in name only. Kind of like climatology.
And when is Fauci going to model his mask as a diaper? Not soon enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
And 65% of those 12 people are iterations of Fauci, who ought to next wear a mask as a diaper.
Created:
Posted in:
Competency, anyone?
How many of these blatant gaffes are y’all going to allow before you start counting them like you did alleged Trump lies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That's a tough one, because DArt does not count activity well enough to make an easy accounting of the rule you propose. For example, member participation in Debate would be better counted if we knew, not the number of debates, because they vary in numbers of rounds, but by number of rounds argued by all members, currently 493. I think that data point is "Number of arguments" listed beside the pages of debates, but I'm not sure.
As for forum, I think the number of posts registered would be the measure, but they are not totaled other than for each member, currently 524 of them, but not a grand total.
However, because we may know that 493 debaters [but that includes inactives], and potentially the number of rounds [10.672 as of now], that would mean 1% of members [4.9] have waged some 9,600 rounds, and I don't think that's the case.
For Forum, not knowing the grand total of posts, I cannot hazard a guess.
Created:
Breaking away from my typical ranting, here's a story for which you will provide the best and funniest ending. Better yet, you are the judge. Here is the beginning of the story; you do the rest:
My wife and I decided to split the household chores. One night, it was my turn to do the dishes. When the table was cleared, the dishes, utensils, cooking gear stacked at the sink, I opened the tap, ran the water over my hands, closed the tap, dried my hands, grabbed my car keys and drove away. I came back with...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Why does DEBATEART allow such stupid pseudo-christians like FAUXLAW within this forum that takes down their esteemed position on the internet?
Valid citation, please, that fauxlaw, by moniker, has direct affect on the web's opinion of DebateArt attributed to fauxlaw, specifically, or is this just more mud-stuck- -on-the-side-of-the-road, and, therefore, useless, senseless, and vindictive opinion? Mess not, that ye be not messed.
Created:
Posted in:
Anyone who is riveted on identifying runaways is obviously just a stick in the mud on the side of the road. Looks like a grave marker to me.
Requiescet in pace
Created: