CreateDebate


Conro's Waterfall RSS

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

First, this is my first post in about 6 months, so thank you for posting something so egregiously offensive and ignorant that I was inspired to reply to you.

Now.

That's why he made women for a reason, it was for men.

What the actual fuck is telling you that women were made for men? Women, like men, are independent agents that may or may not interact with other independent agents. They may marry men (if they want), cook for men (if they want), work for men (if they want). The key thing is that they can choose, like any other independent agent, to do so; they're not a pack animal to be bartered off and told to do things because others own them.

How kind of your god to make women such that men, in their infinite wisdom and compassion, could love women. And the ways they show their love! Such as the unequal pay, the constant harassment and misogyny, the spousal abuse, the sexual assaults. Because clearly every man deserves a woman to love (and love him back) because that's what God ordained.

It's pigs who think like this -- that women are objects to fulfill their sexual desire, that women have an obligation to fulfill men's desires and wishes -- that cause so much strife in society because no one challenges their view. Please, go up to a women and say "You are mine. Go make me a sandwich" and see if you won't get broken nose.

"It's not natural and it's now how God wanted us to be from the very beginning."

That's false. Unless you believe that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, then we may have a whole new set of problems. God didn't fucking care. Humans have been around for far longer, and homosexual behavior even longer still.

Let's take intelligent design to be a valid theory (it's not). So don't you think, when God decided to make those final few gene changes in the embryo to make the first few human beings, God would've said -- if he actually cared about homosexuality -- "Hm, I want to make sure none of that filthy homosexual behavior all those animals are partaking in is not done by my perfect creations. I better not give them that gene/inclination because that would be pretty fucked up of me to make someone born that way, and then require them to change the very fundamentals of who they are in order to get into Heaven."

Clearly there are enough human beings on the planet, and homosexuality in no way makes heterosexual couples less inclined to have children. It's not like humans are in danger of dying out because heterosexuals aren't having sex anymore.

So thanks Srom, for being so fantastically obtuse, to bring me back after half a year of absence. I hope some day you won't be such a tool with regards to women and sexuality.

Conro(767) Clarified
1 point

Okay phew, I was really concerned. Thanks for the clarification!

4 points

I thought this was a parody video for almost the entirety of watching it. Thanks for the chuckles though; I really hope this guy isn't representative of your personal arguments because quite frankly, they are incompetent. Regardless of whether or not I believe in God, anyone with a shred of logical capabilities (I hope) could see that his arguments are circular at best and riddled with fallacies at worst.

And then, more on topic, why does there need to be a war on Atheism, or Christianity for that matter. If you look to the most historically successful people on Earth, the ones who have existed for thousands of years, outlasting all their persecutors, the pogroms, the ethnic cleansing, you'll realize that the common thread is they know how to integrate into a society and synthesize their values with that civilization. Being at peace with other religions does more to perpetuate your own religion than any "war" on religion (short of literally waging war on that religion).

0 points

Mhm, please, tell me how your private school education necessitates that you are "gifted" and that you are more intelligent than all those imbeciles at public schools. Please continue to tell me, then, that this private school education gives you the capability to understand and criticize public education, which you clearly are so experienced with.

Obviously, not all students learn the same way. You think the standardized curricula (and standardized tests that grew out of that) afforded students more paths of learning? Common Core education provides merely a framework in which states will be given more leeway to approach specific curricula, as well as giving teachers the opportunities to modify their teaching to enable student growth. For a great example of how tests will be modified to encourage actual learning (creative, applied problem solving, rather than rote memorization of processes). For some great analyses of the math section of the Common Core, please see the link below. Or, for an example of how a Common Core question might be would be different from the current sort of standardized test question, see http://map.mathshell.org/materials/download.php?fileid=822. The standards from before would have asked for maybe, how many gray squares are in pattern three. It definitely would not have asked for a predictive model of the tiles.

The sorts of questions that will be implemented by Common Core standards (at least by the states adopting Smarter Balance assessment systems) will be much more in line with expecting students to actually struggle through problems, to face failure, and to give them a more reasonable expectation of how learning is done. Learning isn't a formula; it's a mindset.

Supporting Evidence: Mathematics Assessment Project (map.mathshell.org)
1 point

You have provided no definition of God, life, or really better (and timescales in which we can measure "better").

Additionally, it is logically impossible to make any sort of judgement without having some confirmation of God right now. That is, assuming there is a God (at this moment, and whatever God is), it would literally be impossible for someone to conceive of existence without God. Similarly, assuming there is no God, it would literally be impossible to conceive of a consistent definition of what God would be.

That being said, the existence of a God is rather unimportant. For many people, the idea of a God is the important thing; living as if there is a God (however one defines God) provides a manner in which one may live, just the same as living as if there is no God provides a manner of living. It comes down to personal preference, and whether or not you see a God as being necessary for you to live a happy (however that is defined) life. I cannot say for you whether your life would be better with or without God. Only God could tell you that.

1 point

Has anyone here read any of the Common Core standards? Through my University, I've taken several courses regarding education, been placed in classrooms (before and after implementation started), and talked to a wide variety of educators.

Everyone has almost unanimously been optimistic about what the new standards will mean in terms of education.

Previous standards were WAY more focused on testing and evaluation. The new standards--while yes, they have exams--is focused quite a bit more on assessment. Equating the two is quite a mistake: evaluation is "Did this student get a C or above on this arbitrary exam?" Assessment, on the other hand, is more "How is this student approaching this topic, and how, as an educator can I do better to provoke and enhance his or her interest in this subject?" There is quite a bit more leeway for educators to make the time for exploration rather than memorization and teaching for the test. All the criticisms on the other side mention the emphasis on rote memorization and the lack of practical experimentation and implementation, which is exactly the changes that will hopefully and probably be gained when the standards are implemented fully.

Jumping the gun, before the standards are even fully in effect, let alone for the several years afterwards that it will take before results can be measured, is effectively saying the education system is good as it is. Accepting the education system as is is not only dangerous but irresponsible; these kids need to be prepared to learn and innovate at a much higher rate and scale than ever before, and implementing standards like Common Core will greatly help.

We are currently in the midst of a revolution in the education system in the US. So many points (technology, teaching methods, federal/state standards) are converging that it will be exciting to see what comes out.

Conro(767) Clarified
1 point

Obvi

1 point

I'm living in "communal living" right now, part of the Berkeley Student Cooperatives. Houses have to pass fairly rigorous health and habitability inspections by both school, BSC, and city officials. We buy organic food collectively, share and cook it collectively. We do 5 hours of workshift a week, keeping the house up to shape. There's great house cohesion, everyone respects one another. Someone can be fined for being "uncooperative" and missing too many workshifts.

Communal living is very easy, in fact. It just depends on your lifestyle; I probably wouldn't be living in a cooperative if I had a family, or at least I wouldn't be living in a large cooperative. Perhaps sharing a backyard garden space with a few families in one neighborhood, but that's probably the maximum.

1 point

Not necessarily. Why could something not exist perpetually and eternally? I see no reason not to believe this is the case, and in fact, if one does not accept the fact that something could exist eternally and perpetually, then one cannot believe in a God (who would, by definition, have to exist eternally and perpetually). Either you accept that things may exist without a creator (the only argument that would, in fact, allow for an omniscient, omnipresent deity), or you require the need for a creator (but then who created the creator?). And clearly we may reject the latter, so we are left with the former argument; and really, if something may exist without a creator, then why invoke a creator at all?

1 point

There's problems with both your second and third assertions. Existence hardly implies creation, and even if it did, a creator would not be necessitated.

Or, if you would like, we could attack the argument from a different angle.

Assuming there exists a creator, must there not also exist something to create the creator (after all, the first creator exists, and from there it follows your initial argument). And on and on the argument goes indefinitely.

There are much stronger arguments in favor of a creator; the existence theory is perhaps the most tenuous.

1 point

It could be learned, sure, but imagine how much of our society would have to change. Dates, signs, books, the Dewey Decimal System, clocks, computer systems especially (Y2K part 2), and the list goes on an on.

2 points

The problem with this system is that it is unintuitive. All our number systems have either a physiological logic (base 60 uses our knuckles, base 10 our fingers, base 20 fingers and toes), or a simple logical basic (binary is on/off). Switching over would be incredibly impractical, difficult, and just not very useful. Besides, I like dividing by 5.

1 point

"Those models are primarily economic in character. They are not analogous to comparisons of a civilization's manners."

Nevertheless, people use them as a way to describe cultures as well. I also wasn't commenting on manners as an indicator of civilization.

"Nigh every anthropologist and historian, if not every educated person, to have lived in the thousand years which preceded the 1970s. See, I can appeal to authority too. The anthropologists to whom you refer, who reject classicism, are mere parvenus."

Those anthropologists existed in a world where it was still scientifically credible to distinguish various ethnicities as 'white>color.' On the other hand, anthropologists of today have the best technology with which to analyze data, the funding to perform more intensive surveys and studies, and the approach that most closely matches the scientific method.

"An impartial comparison, not couched in the meek and ambivalent terms of which modern historians have become so enamoured (lacking the courage to defend an opinion, they simply avoid opinions), will affirm that China and Japan were indeed superior in philosophy and economy, to those neighbours which they disparaged."

What is a superior philosophy? How can one view on how to live life be any better than another? Economically speaking, even, you could make the argument that the economies of China and Japan may have been more forceful, but perhaps the neighboring countries had a more stable economy. Or more sustainable. Or it had the best benefits for the locals. Or it better matched their religious/moral ideologies.

It's not that I'm displaying sympathy for the conquered. It is more that one needs to analyze both countries from both countries' perspective and place each one's story in its own cultural framework.

An analogy may be made with respect towards IQ tests; If you were to give a sub-Saharan man the IQ test typically given a metropolitan American, he would undoubtedly get a lower score, if not judged to be mentally deficient. But that would not mean he was dumb; it would mean the IQ test had been prepared for, written by, and used facts relevant to very different demographics. I hope you can see what I'm trying to say.

"But how can it be declared a breach of morality to destroy a race, when there exists no universal morality"

I suppose that is a fair point, although it's a pretty obvious one. Of course there isn't a universal morality, but there are sets of social laws that are constantly shifting that are an effort to please the most amount of people. And generally, killing people goes against those social laws. And especially killing of innocents (which really, one's ideology, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. cannot be a crime, at least without going through a review of those social contract laws which is what the judicial process is for).

"nation were to persist in dishonour, and in the destruction of virtue, then I could not declare its annihilation to be immoral."

Well what is virtue or dishonor? And why should it matter if either are practiced or not? And would it be virtuous to do something immoral yourself in order to destroy something immoral? These are all philosophical quandaries that are essentially unsolvable.

"I do, however, disparage the common negro."

Race based judgments are simply not fair (as vague and vacuous as that word is). It is also a blatant violation of your objectivity that you love so much, as evidenced by your discussion of the impartial comparison of China/Japan and their neighbors.

Conro(767) Clarified
1 point

The book was by Peter Watts, excuse me.

1 point

I read an interesting novel of this sort, titled Blindsight by Frederick Pohl.

The contemporary world of the novel wasn't communist, per se, but it was based on properties of association rather than properties of competition.

The closer we get to making basic living (food, electricity, health care) as cheap as possible, the more likely that people will be taken out of labor intensive jobs to be supplanted by robots/AI/mechanized labor, and the mroe likely that work itself will be voluntary. After all, if a machine can produce your food, yyour electricity, and take care of you, why do you need to work? To earn a profit? For what, your living needs have been taken care of.

From this point of view, the author essentially views the world as in a state of decadence and stagnation, and eventual decline and destruction. So ultimately, it seems to me that the argument would be communism is a potential stepping stone to destruction, at least if we aren't careful with how it is applied.

A plug for the book as well. It was a seriously good read. Makes you question existence, what it means to be conscious/sentient, and the pitfalls of anthropocentrism.

1 point

It is impossible to quantify "civilized." That's why modern anthropology is steering away from saying First, Second, or Third world. Who's to say that Roman civilization was "better" than any or all of the conquered nations' civilizations? That's the same arrogant, patronizing attitude that has characterized/characterizes (to an extent) the Western world throughout history.

But this point is rather off topic from the main topic, and we are both in agreement that Hitler was "wrong on almost everything" (which is itself an ambiguous claim, and therefore rather indefensible because of it and also because of the expansiveness of the claim).

2 points

Here, here! Fight the inflation of petitions

Realistically, however, the 2nd proposition would be hard to do because of the open nature/no-account-necessary style of signing the petition.

1 point

Have you heard of the vocal minority? Generally, it appears to me that there are small minorities of theists and atheists that like to argue to till they're blue in the face, but the vast majority of both sides are willing to let the other alone.

And really, that's all we should hope for; you have your beliefs, I have mine, and our mutual beliefs are of no concern to the other.

2 points

This isn't really a problem with a binary solution; that is to say, the issue is much more complicated than saying "We will support these guys, and not those guys."

I firmly believe any subgroup that has enough support for itself to maintain a functional society has the right to self determination. Heck, if a group wanted to secede from the U.S., and all the people in the entire territory where they live wanted to secede as well, I would let them (given that I had the power to grant them that wish). Self determination is one of the most fundamental rights human beings have as part of our social contracts.

This is why I think Israel should be allowed to exist, as well as Palestine. Or, alternatively, Palestinians, if not given a sovereign state, should be allowed to represent themselves in their own country (i.e. be given the right to vote).

And ultimately this is why I dislike America's tunnel-limited vision of Israel's future; America seems to often blindly take the side of Israel rather than critically examine the relationship. I'm not saying we should cut off all aid or even any aid or suppor, but what I am saying is that Israel would probably benefit from a resolution of the conflict with Palestine, and therefore perhaps some critique's of Israel's policies are in order. America tries to be a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but too often America takes the side of Israel over Palestine without giving due consideration to Palestine's concerns.

1 point

Perhaps he shouldn't have said eating is a desire, because obviously as both you and he point out, it is an action. What he should have said is hunger is a desire which precedes and leads to eating (or even just a desire to eat can lead to eating, not necessarily hunger). The action of choosing to eat or not to eat, as you say, is a choice that we may make. However, we cannot control whether or not we wish to eat, the desire part of this chain of events. This is the instinctual part I believe iamdavidh was referring to.

"Dogs will eat constantly because there is not act of eating, dogs and many animals have an indefinite end, which means that it is instinctual to keep eating as along as it is there."

I hardly think this is true. I have personally seen my dog, cat, bird, other birds, raccoon, and a multitude of other animals not eat even when there is food present. To say that humans are the only "rational" beings (if we go by your definition of "rational" which seems to be the ability to enact choices to achieve some end, which I personally disagree with) would be patently false then.

"The same goes for sexual orientation. It is not instinctual."

And for the same reasons I demonstrated above, sexual orientation would be a desire, and would therefore be instinctual, same as hunger as opposed to eating.

"Wrong, Everything humans do is based on choice, which means human action."

Even this is false. You cannot force yourself to not breath, to not make your heartbeat (short of wounding it), or stop your brain from using electrochemical signals to process and create thoughts (short of, again, wounding it). If you wish to take action against your various bodily functions, those would be choices, but the pre-existing nature of your heart, brain, and lungs would not have arisen through choice. That is, unless I suppose before each thought, breath, and heartbeat you make the conscious choice not to kill yourself... ;)

1 point

That's called "coming out of the closet"... You may have heard of the phrase before. Just because they may have not realized they were gay until later in their life, doesn't mean it hasn't been true for their life, if that makes sense. It could be your acquaintance had never had a homosexual experience before (pornography or in real life), and thus thought that what he experienced with the girlfriends was as good as it gets. But then, after trying out some new things, it looks like he found what he had been looking for. So you see, he didn't convert to being gay, he just realized (emphasis on realized because it implies pre-existence) he was gay.

2 points

Agreed, there is no sufficient reason why someone else, not involved in your actions, should be able to dictate, "You may not use your bodily appendages for such and such actions because I find them immoral; your brain must not release endorphins or other pleasure hormones when engaging in sexual activity with a member of the same sex; and you may not display your affection for a member of the same sex because I am uncomfortable with displays of affection of this nature." It's silly, and the religious, naturalist, evolutionary, population control, and those kinds of issues just muddle the core issue: the liberty to do with your body what you would like to with consenting adults, if it doesn't harm the other individual or the rest of society. Even the "rest of society" clause I put in there is a little iffy, because such a thing would be much too difficult to quantify.

1 point

Your examples are based on regulations that affect substances or actions that harm the individual and/or surrounding individuals. Killing the person (obviously harmful), banned chemicals (because they harm humans, the animals or both, as you note in your last sentence), and drugs (because they may harm the individual, although for certain drugs I disagree with the government's interpretation of "harm"). However, homosexuality and homosexual activity has not been conclusively proven to harm the individual or surrounding individuals (many would in fact argue that allowing homosexuals to be open and honest about their relationships without fear of prejudice would be beneficial to them (obviously) and their surrounding individuals (less obviously, but clearly possible)). Therefore, your argument that "if I say homosexuality shouldn't be regulated/prohibited, then neither should other things do to their body such as murder, drugs, and foods" is completely invalid because you misunderstand the point of these regulations.

2 points

If you would be so kind, I would very much like to see the specific studies these statistics are being quoted from, and not just the regurgitated babble from a homeschooling manual. When talking about studies, it's pretty important to be given all the date (60% of a sample size of 10 isn't terribly significant, while it would be more concerning if it was say 60% of the population of the United States). Additionally, in reference to your point about the number of sexual partners, honestly I don't see any reason why having a lot is terribly bad. As long as the individuals are consenting, practicing safely and responsibly, it is of no matter to me (and actually it isn't any matter of mine anyway to butt into or judge their sex life).

The AIDS victim stastic about the the number of partners is rather telling. Obviously, those who are more promiscuous are at a higher risk of contracting the disease. However, that doesn't mean that those who are demographically similar (i.e. homosexuals in general rather than promiscuous homosexuals) are similarly prone to the disease.

As for the "86% of homosexual males use various drugs to enhance and increase their sexual stimulation," I'd have to question the definition of drugs. Are we talking Viagra? Alcohol? Marijuana? Or other harder drugs? I have a feeling it's one of the first three. And on top of that, I would have to put this stastic into perspective by asking what is the percentage of heterosexual male and females that partake in "drugs to enhance and increase their sexual stimulation."

Speaking of life expectancy and suicidal risks, I'd have to ask you a question. Have you ever heard of bullying? LGBTQ teenagers (and adults, really) are perseceuted or bullied daily, either in the schoolyard by intentionally malicious upstarts, passively by a culture that uses "gay" as a synonym for stupid, or actively by the various governments and institutions around the world that either make homosexuality a crime or relegate homosexuals to second class citizenship. I wonder if it's perhaps these unique pressures (torments, rather in the extreme cases of suicides) that give rise to the higher likelihood of suicides.

I'm sorry, but until you can provide something other than references to an out of date homeschooling manual, you cannot be taken seriously. Also please try to not misquote, misrepresent, or use outdated data. The Kinsey Institute has updated their information. Additionally, after a bit of digging, I found some analyses off the Bell and Weinberg study (from which a majority of your stats are taken). Common critiques (as I alluded to earlier) are that the homosexual sample size was not taken at random (while the heterosexual sample was), the heterosexual data was not given (so we can't really compare the homosexual data and say, "Oh look how promiscuous they are," when in fact, since data wasn't included, heterosexuals may be more promiscuous), and the way the homosexual data was collected was from locations that weren't necessarily the best places to find your average Jane/Joe homosexual (e.g. singles bars and gay baths). Try to do some digging next time.

(and here's some more links: http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php is probably where you would find the information you would want to throw at me to counter my points

and here's the Kinsey Institute's updated info: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html) )

Supporting Evidence: the critique of your stats (www.jeramyt.org)

1 of 23 Pages: Next >>

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