CreateDebate


Amarel's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Amarel's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

You apparently didn't read the attached journal article abstract. No one is claiming what you are arguing against. There is a word for making up an opposition view that your opposition doesn't actually hold. And stop wearing other peoples' shoes.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

It would make sense if one of the authors stated that it is unknown for sure. They said right in their intro that this is merely the first national estimate concerning the issue. The methodological challenges to the paper are called "tenuous at best" by detractors, but without an explanation other than that survey respondents probably accidentally hit the wrong response. I find that challenge tenuous at best, given that challenge undermines every survey ever.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
2 points

That's certainly as good as your abstract, no?

No. The abstract provided comes from an article in a reputable scientific journal where the authors derived their opinions from data rather than hunches.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
0 points

primarily conceived to benefit the elite and keep the slaves and peasants from taking back the fruits of their own labor.

You’re always so fucking stupid. It’s hard to take your historical misreadings as honest ignorance. It’s a contradiction to pit property rights against fruits of labor, which is another concept you can’t grasp as demonstrated in your miserable loss in the debate on Marx’s labor theory.

“Hunter gatherers” were not a singular culture, but on the whole, their lives were much nastier, more brutish, and shorter, bullshit Rousseauian sentiments notwithstanding.

humans will go from having no social constructs

Language is a social construct, and even pre-humans have it. I wonder if you will ever understand the terms you use.

to having them and then one day replacing them with reason.

“Social construct” doesn’t mean “lacking reason”.

You will be a speck of horse feces trapped under the horseshoe of history, as it is removed from old Silvester the social construct steed and hung as a decoration in the motor vehicle of reason which will run you over and then back up on you.

That’s entirely unreasonable.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

And this is why the world hates Americans.

A false supposition. Travel some. You’ll get along fine.

1 point

don't snigger and brag about it like it's something you're proud of

The first part of your post suggests I do what I want, but the second part suggest I will do what you want. I won’t. Nor will I pretend the UN is worth a damn. It’s not.

Rule of law talk is pretty rich coming a guy who can’t understand property rights.

0 points

So you were really hoping the king of the world would arrest the president. Do you ever listen to yourself?

-1 points

Some regard treaties as the most important source of international environmental law

International law is a myth to lend greater weight to diplomacy.

1 point

You can't reneg on a legal contract whenever you feel like it.

UN members are bound by a treaty. We can and have broken those. And the consequences are the same as for any other diplomatic breach. That’s because the UN is a tool of diplomacy and nothing more.

What, you thought the King of the World would order a US President to jail? Only if we allow it.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

We are subject to our treaties because we say so. We can say otherwise whenever we choose. Signing a treaty has never served to relinquish the sovereignty of any nation. That’s not how treaties work. Besides the US is the teeth of the UN. They are all bark (or hapless fuckups) unless the US decides otherwise.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

But, when they added the words "under God", it EXCLUDED me because I don't think a belief in God is REQUIRED to proclaim your allegiance to your country.

It’s meant to articulate sovereignty. Under whom/what does the US fall? Under the crown? No. Under the UN? No. The US is one nation under none but the highest conceivable authority, whether or not you believe the authority conceived of actually exists.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

That's EXACTLY what it means...

You suppose the system is only imperfect on conviction? No, that’s NOT what that means

The appeals court is made up of judges - not a jury.. And, they grant new trials based on MISTAKE, not on how tough or lenient the sentence was..

“After a criminal trial ends in a conviction, the defendant can file a motion for a new trial. Courts grant these—though rarely—to correct significant errors that happened during trial or if substantial new evidence of innocence comes to light.”

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ motions-new-trial.html

How would you know that a jury wrongfully acquitted an offender?

Because I know why the jury decided to find “not guilty”, and it wasn’t because the person was not guilty.

IF a jury found somebody INNOCENT after a trial, then according to our system, he IS innocent..

People are found “not guilty”, they aren’t found “innocent”. And again, if you think a finding of not guilty is 100% valid, but findings of guilt are not, you’re inconsistently naive.

IF a jury acquits someone KNOWING that he committed the offense, that's called jury nullification. It's LEGAL

I didn’t say it was illegal. You know that an incorrect finding of guilt is also legal right? Are system doesn’t allow for a “guilt project” for retrying those wrongly acquitted. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

1 point

I’ll try to use it more often.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/anecdotally

https://www.yourdictionary.com/anecdotally

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/anecdotally

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anecdotally

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/anecdotally

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181546/is-anecdotally-a-proper-adverb

“you need to understand that this is an example of a sentence adverb, not an adverb of manner or an intensifier. That means that it applies not to a single verb, adjective, other adverb, or preposition, but rather to the entire sentence as a single syntactic constituent.”

“The sentence adverb is clearly a grammatical structure to native speakers”

0 points

And the death penalty is not the act of killing a baby .

1 point

Not for anything he did so far.

Mueller was asked point blank if his investigation was interfered with in any way, and he said no. No obstruction occurred.

Mueller was asked point blank if they found that Trump colluded and he said they didn’t have enough evidence in a 2 year investigation to determine any kind of Trump collusion.

But yeah, if he commits a crime and there’s prosecutable evidence, he can go to jail after leaving office.

1 point

They are different issues .

1 point

Having a finding overturned doesn’t necessarily mean the person was wrongfully convicted. Sometimes it’s just a more lenient jury. Anecdotally, I’m aware of 2 recent local cases where lenient juries wrongfully acquitted the offender.

1 point

Like I said, perhaps the death penalty needs a different threshold of proof. Some cases have certainly used DNA and other modern techniques for prosecution. You won’t read about them on the innocence project, because there’s no changing their case.

You mentioned progress. Better evidence is progress, so that’s good. I don’t see how letting criminals free is necessarily progress. Given high recidivism, it may be the opposite of progress. Crime reduction would be progress, but I don’t see that coming out of these reforms. Maybe Trump is just as regressive on reform as he is on the death penalty, making him not schizo.

1 point

If children are innocently put in timeout, the problem isn’t time out. If an adult is incorrectly issued a speeding ticket, the problem is not traffic fines. If anyone is punished to any extent when they are innocent, the punishment isn’t what’s wrong. The innocence project uses DNA and other new methods to introduce reasonable doubt to criminal cases. That tells me that we can now be more sure in some cases than ever before. Though perhaps the death penalty needs a different threshold of proof. The evidence project uses some very useful tools to meet that threshold.

Getting better at finding evidence doesn’t equate to throwing out punishment. It can be an argument in favor of it.

1 point

Isn’t a reinstatement also a reform ?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

You’re still overlooking the importance of the fact that all of your suppositions come from a position of ignorance (non-omniscience). Not only can you not know what an omniscient god would know, but you also can’t know the nature of omnipotence or omni-benevolence. Why should all-powerful mean impossible power? Why should all-goodness mean goodness according to mortal you?

You seem to suppose the the most powerful being should be so powerful that they can do what’s impossible, rather than merely all things that are possible. You seem to suppose that an omni-benevolent god would do good according to your mortal estimation. But “good” according to your mortal estimation requires logically impossible things, and there is no reason to suppose that “all-powerful” means “beyond all-powerful”. There is similarly no reason to think an all-knowing being would know what a round square looks like.

I believe these suppositions are rooted in an idea of god as magical, rather than god as ultimately natural. Magical god tends to be the target of atheists, while ultimately natural god is often god to theists.

If omnipotence means powerful enough to do all possible things, then impossible things are irrelevant. Perhaps creating a universe according to god’s own logic is the most powerful and good thing a god can do. Perhaps this is the best of all possible worlds, and your mortal preferences against bad things are merely mortal preferences. This would mean that it is better that people can murder than if people could not. Only an omniscient god could know all the consequences of disallowing evil in a universe where disallowing consequences is logically impossible and thus a non-alternative.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

I’m not arguing about existence. I’m saying that Paul never knew the living Jesus. His biblical interaction with Jesus comes after the crucifixion. That’s the same as Joseph Smith, who is not an accepted figure outside of Mormonism. My contention is that Paul should not be accepted either.

Much of what Christians believe comes from a guy who never met Jesus. Much of what Mormons believe come from a guy who never met Jesus.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Your position is just as valid as the opposite position.

What position is it that is opposite mine in this case?

1 point

You like to pretend that you believe morality has no basis, that’s why you put it in scare quotes all the time. But you cant logically believe that there is nothing that a person ought or ought not do. You can’t actually believe that any given behavior is equivalent to any other given behavior. That’s what it would mean for morality to not exist, and if actions reflect beliefs, you don’t believe it.. If you believed it, you would have died long ago for lack of any preferences.

0 points

So using your logic, since Jesus never mentioned Pedophilia, then it must also be ok?

In his day it pretty much was ok. Glad I’m not a Christian, but that explains some issues in the church.

God did speak to the sin of Homosexuality!

And of mixing cloth! Drop the holier-than-thou act. There’s a bit in the Bible that you don’t follow. That puts you exactly on par with a repentant gay Christian. Exactly on par.

Read Roman's in the New Testament to see what God had to say

You mean Paul. That was Paul who said that. He never even met Jesus. Joe Smith has his own little Road to Demarcus moment in America. I bet you’re not Mormon.

Your arguments do not hold water.

You’ll have to present an argument then. Address mixed cloth and the fetish of kissing.

How about speaking to something that actually has some substance... ahhhh maybe the science of Biology?

I did. Kissing is counter to biology.

Our bodies are designed for a man and woman.

Yeah, I get that. I’m not even arguing that. I’m saying that on biology terms, you have your own unnatural fetish sanction by tradition (kissing), and on sin terms you mix cloth.

What's your excuse for denying Science?

You know how babies are made, right? Not with your mouth.

I will wait for those verses from Jesus, talking about the importance of the material in our clothing.

Jesus left cloth and gayness to the Old Testament. I guess they are both that important.

1 point

Do you know what you are doing right now? You are making the case for people into Bestiality, Necrophilia, etc. etc.

That slippery slope doesn’t hold if consent and harm avoidance is maintained as a moral principle. I’ve said nothing against either of those principles.

You, on the other hand, seem to support the principle of tradition above all else. Kissing is acceptable because of tradition. Never mind that it checks the same boxes as other sexual perversions, it is acceptable tradition. If necrophilia were around long enough, your argument against kissing would hold against necrophilia as well. There isn’t one.

You are saying that the manner in which people choose to use their sexual organs, or lips, etc. is ok no matter what other's think. Everything goes no matter how unnatural.

I’ve literally made a case against kissing for being unnatural. Why do you support it?

Rational people understand the difference between kissing between a man and woman, and a man and man.

Yeah, one is gay and one is straight. But both are an unnatural sexual fetish. I bet there’s gay and straight foot fetishes too. Both are perverse. I’m not arguing that gayness is natural, I’m arguing that your kissing is unnatural and that you mixed clothes are against the Bible.

A man and woman are scientifically and Biologically designed for each other.

A mouth is literally the beginning of the digestive system. It is designed for food and verbal communication. Sexual pleasure from kissing is an unnatural fetish, and so far you have denied this.

I'm starting to think you must be Gay to not admit the obvious.

It may suit you if I was (like it would suit Nom for me to be a Jew), but I’m not. Neither am I a Jew. Neither am I a racist. But you and Nom can knock yourselves out.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

This demonstrates that Paul had no interaction with the living Jesus. Paul’s word is as valid as that of Joseph Smith’s.

How much of Christianity is a church of Paul; and how much is a Church of Jesus?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Paul’s affiliation with Jesus is posthumous, even according to the Bible. That seems to put Paul’s work on par with Joseph Smith’s.

1 point

Why do you post such pointlessly ridiculous trash?

Nom said to the mirror. It was the last time he ever spoke.

1 point

And he never told her to go back where she came from. .

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

I did not dispute this, I merely asked if such characterizations of god would be possible and how can it is known these characterizations are possible.

I restated the two alternatives, not because you disputed them, but because you accepted one for argument and ignored the other. True characterizations of God cannot be known. In dealing with the ultimate nature of reality, all is speculation.

I stand on the position that evil is either something that objectively exists or it is something that subjectively exists. If it objectively exists what blocks mortal beings from being able to observe objective morality?

My position was that the existence of evil from our mortal perspective, could conceivably be in the service of an ultimate good which we cannot perceive, but which an all-knowing god would. For example, many positive virtues are developed only in the struggle against badness and evil. Thus a god who does not allow for evil would be failing to allow for higher achievements of good.

It does necessitate a malevolent god if that god exists and if that god has the knowledge of evil and the ability to stop evil, but opts to allow evil to persist.

What if it were the necessary nature of the universe that humanity is the means by which God combats evil? It would then be a contradiction of God’s own logic to intervene.

If it is necessary for humans to combat evil, then it is necessary for God not to.

You’re applying human morality to God, who is not a human. The human perspective is one of partial-knowledge, partial-power, and partial-goodness. If there is an Omni-benevolent-good-knowing god, your moral reasoning is too limited to be applicable. Again, you just don’t have all the necessary information to make your judgment.

1. Mortal Evil exists.

Ok. Agreed.

2. There is an ultimate good that can arise as a product of mortal evil.

Ok. Worth considering.

3. If God lacks the power to reach this ultimate good without mortal evil then he is not omnipotent.

Unless the logic of the universe is the omnipotent power of God expressed in the ordering of what is otherwise randomness and contradiction. Then evil must be combatted through the logical process, as an example of God’s omnipotence.

4. If God lacks the knowledge to reach the ultimate good without mortal evil then he is not omniscient

Your expressing a mortal preference against mortal evil with no reason to suppose that a good god should have that same preference. Especially given an omniscient god would have the big picture knowledge to know if mortal evil is actually evil.

5. If God has both the power and knowledge of a way to achieve the ultimate good without pain, suffering and mortal evil--he is not omnibenevolent.

I’ve challenged points 3 and 4. It seems the crux of the matter is that you are applying mortal preferences to an immortal god. If god had your same mortal preferences, then I wouldn’t expect god to have immortal characteristics such as those being discussed.

On the other hand, I am fully willing to accept the proposition that whatever the characteristics of God, the nature of reality is acceptable to God. Thus, mortal evils are acceptable to God.

My push-back is on the conclusion that God’s acceptability itself derives from evil rather than good, given we only have a humans eye view. Supposing that God should like what you like or hate what you hate in order for God to be good seems as shortsighted as one might predict from a mortal perspective.

1 point

In pretty much every Disney movie with human characters, the romantic couple kiss. The prince kisses the princess. This is a mild form of sexual interaction, but it is sexual interaction nonetheless, and does nothing for the reproductive process. It is thus, unnatural. Biologically, mouths are for food consumption. Yet this mouth fetish is not only widely accepted, probably even by you, but children are constantly exposed to it.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

What do the words "inspired by God" mean to you?

To most people, it means that every word spoken, was inspired by God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

That includes Jesus, the Son of God!

If I tell you that all my words are inspired by god, that does not make all my words inspired by god.

It takes some analysis to even come to the conclusion that God and Jesus are the same. So it is perfectly reasonable to ask for the words of Jesus in quotes that are distinct from the words of the father in quotes.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus was on this planet for over 30 years and never found homosexuality an important enough issue to comment on.

To compare the materials in our clothing, to Homosexuality

The Bible admonishes mixing cloth twice. How many times does it admonish homosexuality?

makes it time to IGNORE!

You already said you know I’m not a Christian. But I am addressing the issue with Christian source material. You clearly feel more strongly about homosexuality than you do about mixing cloth, but both are in the Bible. So why the difference in emotional content?

I have read nothing in the Christian New Testament concerning cotton. Give me the verses....

Jesus talks about mixing cloth as much as he talks about homosexuality. Homosexuality is not mentioned by Jesus, nor by any disciple who knew him.

NO ONE IS TRYING TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS ABOUT THE CLOTH THEY USE IN THEIR CLOTHING!

No they aren’t. That’s because pretty much everyone, likely including yourself, has already fully adopted and accepted mixing cloth as standard practice.

1 point

Idk, he seemed a little animated about Warren’s bigotry .

-1 points

the answer is god can create a puzzle that he cannot solve. However, now we must ask if it is possible for something to live beyond the limitations of logic and ask how do we know God lives beyond logic.

The two arguments I gave is that God created the logic of the universe, or God is the logic of the universe. If God is the logic of the universe, then we need not look for the ways in which God is beyond logic. It would be God’s omnipotent nature that created the existence of logical impossibility.

However, these things are objectively evil, evil does exist.

If you are saying this from the perspective of a mortal human, this is not an argument. A mortal human isn’t in a position to make the claim you’ve made.

Even so, let’s assume that we do know objective good from evil. It does not follow that any evil necessitates a malevolent god. That’s the same faulty logic that implies the existence of any good necessitates the existence of a benevolent god. Since some good is not sufficient to imply an all-good god, some evil is not sufficient to imply a malevolent god.

If evil necessarily exists as a logical contrast to the good, then the all-powerful nature of logic, as embodied by God, necessitates the existence of evil as a contrast to an all-good God. The existence of said evil cannot be justified except by one who is all-knowing, and can see the ultimate good that arises as a consequence of mortal evil. Without omniscience, you just don’t have all the facts.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

God says that every word written down by men in the Bible was inspired by God!

Which words in the Bible did Jesus day about gayness?

Just because people do things that the Bible says we should not do, does not mean God is ok with it. Some things were spoken to as issues of the time.

My point is t that people sin, my point is that you do. Are your clothes all 100% Cotten? So you eat corn grown in fields that also sow soy beans? There is no explanation of an issue that needed addressed with these things back in the day, thus there is no way to say it no longer matters.

How many times did the Bible speak against gayness? How many times did it speak against multiple cloth clothes?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

The last I knew, kissing is not given special appreciation days in our schools or Disney World

My point about kissing is that it is unnatural, in that it is a sexual act between romantic partners and does nothing for sexual reproduction. People at Disney can openly kiss each other. They kiss in almost all the movies and cartoons.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

I’ll concede the point that gayness is not likely to be a natural population control. That was a stretch. But my point is this, we don’t actually know the workings of any kind of divine plan. There are gay Christians who would really like to know why they are attracted in ways they would rather not be. Saying “don’t do that” isn’t a sufficient answer for them when they can’t shut it off.

As for biology, we obviously know how reproduction works and gayness doesn’t fit the bill. But neither does kissing. By design, we derive quite a bit of pleasure from all manner of things associated with reproduction that are not actually reproduction. Which is unnatural then? The pleasure; or the act that causes it? Do you kiss your wife? Why?

Of the apparently unnatural things humans seem to do, gayness would be one among many. I’ve never seen you crusade against smoking, or tattoos, or air conditioning. Or mixing of clothe for that matter.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

God has already told us in the Bible that Homosexuality is a perversion.

God also told you not to mix clothe. God also told you not to have various plant stuff in the same field. But we do these all the time. What did Jesus say about gayness?

1 point

I would love to talk with a Gay person who admits his sexual orientation is not natural.

What if homosexuality increases in human populations when our numbers get high, and it is a natural mechanism designed to reduce reproduction? What if it is natural, from a God’s eye point of view which you don’t have?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
2 points

If you are saying Gay people are so shallow that they would support killing babies just so they can get married?

If all Republicans are like you, then a gay person who believes their marriage is a civil right will have only the Democrats to turn to, even if they agree with Republicans on everything else. As for abortion, it’s very clear that voting Republican isn’t going to reverse Roe, that takes an unelected Judge. So if voting Democrat means a chance at attaining his marriage, and voting Republican still means not reversing Roe, it’s not too shallow to vote Dem.

Fortunately, now that gay marriage is a thing, and most Republicans aren’t kicking and screaming about it, you’re starting to see a little bit of a shift in that demographic. All I’m saying is let that shift happen. The sanctity of your marriage is in tact, regardless of tax policy.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
0 points

A counterargument here is that this is not what is meant by omnipotence. Instead, omnipotence refers to god being able to do all logical things. Yet, if god's power is limited by the realm of logic, is that true omnipotence?

God would either have created or God is the logic of the universe. If God created it, then God can manipulate it. In which case God can create a puzzle God can’t solve and yet solve it, because the law of non-contradiction won’t apply. If God is the logic of the universe, then it’s Gods all powerful existence which set the standard by which you present your logical challenge.

The counterargument here is that God is willing and able, but does not wish to interfere with free will.

There is another counter argument. The limited mortal perspective is not sufficient to judge what is truly evil. The big picture, from the perspective of eternity may find that, in fact, no evil exists beyond our mortal perspective which is necessary and of infinite benefit which we do not understand.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

If two people decide to divorce, Government dictates that no matter who is at fault, the money will be divided equally.

Any kind of prenuptial is protected in the contract. If there is no stipulated prenup, then of course government would have to decide the standard for that kind of contract.

It is not something to take lightly

No one is implying it is.

Tax payers are forced to support spouses with healthcare, social security, etc. etc. etc.

That’s a tax allocation issue, not a marriage issue. I don’t believe private healthcare is required by law to cover spouses. If that’s the case, it shouldn’t be. If public healthcare covers spouses that’s just a healthcare policy issue, not a marriage issue.

How would you like to support the healthcare for 30 wives on one man's healthcare policy?

I don’t even want to cover that one man’s policy. Nothing is stopping each of his 30 wives from getting covered individually by my taxes, just as he is covered.

Under the precedent of Gay marriage, there is no group that could not demand marriage right's

Yeah.

My biggest concern is how LGBT activists have taken control of the Democrat Party, and forcing their agendas into our public schools

That’s a separate issue.

This is the slippery slope when activist groups control our Government through big money donations and votes.

I think people tend to support politicians who push their agenda more than politicians are bought for agendas. They all answer to the ballot box.

Maybe you are not concerned with what is happening to our culture, BUT I SURE AM!

Oh, I am. So are a lot of gay people who actually agree with you about a lot of things....except for this. And if you make this the hill to die on, then you keep a whole bunch of people who would otherwise be on your side, excluded to the side where they have no choice but to support abortion.

Gay pro-lifer wants to get married, is he accepted into your party? Or does he have to support baby killers just to seek what he sees as a civil right? Why don’t you give him the easiest choice?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

A few topics of depth come through every now and then. And a few debaters of depth come through every now and then. And on rare occasions the two even match up.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
-1 points

You should know better than to take any of his debate topics at face value.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

I didn’t think he could get the funding to build more facilities. And if he could, I would expect it to go toward conditions in the current facilities.

1 point

Yes. A church can ban gay marriage from their congregation without running afoul of the Constitution.


1 of 177 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]