Science and/or math.
You should try it sometime. It beats the hell out of being wrong.
The atheist worldview provided know basis for knowledge.
Ahahahahahahahahaha!
No. Not know. And:-
If it doesn’t have to be renewed, then what you have is not a clearance.
Everything the guy says is false, Amarel. You're in good company.
Nahhh. It’s not a high level clearance so it doesn’t have to be renewed. But I willingly give it up to stand alongside my brothers.
You are a science denier and a liar.
Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent
Mhm. I remember that chapter on CreateDebate points.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You quote something and then make a comment which is entirely irrelevant to the quote. It's annoying. Stop it. If you don't have anything relevant to say in dispute then simply stfu. It's easy. Just practice.
If my DNA test doesn’t, in some way, test for my biology, what does it test for??
Your DNA doesn't test for your Jewishness you imbecile. Shut up you utter tard. Shut up and actually read some science.
Genetic markers cannot determine Jewish descent
I get a little bit of satisfaction seeing a lot of downvotes and knowing that you wasted a little extra time because of me.
Which supports my point that you are a textbook narcissistic psychopath. When you have no idea what you are talking about you don't simply keep your mouth shut like a normal human being. You write 10,000 words of irrelevant, pompous nonsense and then blame the other person's "understanding" when he points it out.
NOM should i add to Global Chaos by firing up the grill and having some nice ribeyes produced by Capitalism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, I agree. Cows would not exist were it not for capitalism. Good point. We can add that to the ever-increasing list of divine gifts capitalism has given us.
You told me to explain something right before you banned me. It’s all the same since you wouldn’t understand the explanation anyway. You’re fairly stupid.
If you cannot explain your reasoning in a clear and simple manner then that is not the fault of anybody except yourself, you pointless Jew imbecile. The purpose of communication is not to misrepresent what you have read or deflect from it entirely with no reasoning why. My purpose is debate, so I explain what I mean as clearly as a I possibly can. Your purpose is DEFLECTION and MISREPRESENTATION, which is why you purposefully make everything you write as convoluted and difficult to comprehend as you possibly can.
Go away you effing retard.
Free will is nothing more than the experience of making a choice.
But you can't make a choice in a deterministic universe, because the future is already set before you make it. For God's sake if you are going to comment then PRODUCE A GODAMMNED COUNTERARGUMENT! Don't just write a one-sided bunch of meaningless opinionated nonsense and ignore the counterarguments which are in plain sight.
God, you're so stupid.
Given our primitive understanding of time, we cannot assume that our current assumptions about time are at all comparable to our incorrect previous assumptions about our physical place in the universe.
This literally, LITERALLY translates to: we cannot assume our assumptions are incorrect. It's the actual dictionary definition of a circular argument.
Our subjective experience is shaped by objective reality.
This is completely irrelevant to the point being made.
In addition to terms like past, present, and future we have terms like before, during, and after. These terms which we use to illustrate our temporal experience are also necessary for articulating causality.
Also irrelevant to the point being made. The point being made is that past, present and future do not exist in an objective sense. Your reply is a total deflection of what you are responding to.
If you wish remove time as an argument against choice, you’ll find that you are removing causation as well.
Wtf? Remove time? Who said anything about "removing time"? Can you read English, Amarel? Because it does not appear that you can. The word you are looking for is causality, not causation, and causality has no relationship with choice one way or the other. A cause can produce an effect in a deterministic universe just as easily as it can in a non-deterministic universe, so you are evidently just practising your usual trick of writing lots of words which don't actually mean anything in relation to the topic under discussion. If you believe that "causation" supports the notion of free will, then EXPLAIN WHY you goddamned pointless moron. Writing a bunch of random gibberish does not move this thread forward in any way, shape or form. In fact, all it does is annoy me to have to reply to.
You can't make an informed decision, if the ONLY choices you have are BAD and WORSE..
You are correct to point this out and it is a fallacy which is ingrained into mainstream American culture simply because it has greatly assisted the rich in the control of democracy. Many Americans are of the belief that, provided you have two or more options, you have freedom of choice. But as you rightly explicated this is not entirely true if neither option is favourable to you. Even slaves had a choice using the modern American definition, since they could either kill themselves or continue to work. This is extending it into an ad absurdum for clarity, of course, but the general principle remains the same if you're asked to pick between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
I'm a Determinist, so yea... no free will. Just a series of events and causes.
I'm a fatalist. Not that I can even remember the difference. As I recall, they are very similar positions on the issue.
Consider--one could take out loans, go to Community College and not even work (or hardly work) so that they have plenty of time on their hands and a stress-free financial life for 2-3 years, and then when it is time to pay the money back they will have a degree that the income is so much greater than the amount borrowed you will not even "feel" the pay-back plan--just like an extra monthly utility bill or so.
That is idealism. The entire point of the debate is that it doesn't always work that way, and it is not always (or even usually) the fault of the person who has borrowed money. Many people with degrees struggle to get jobs precisely because the student loan system has saturated society with university degrees, so they are now arguably not even worth the loan money it takes to acquire one in the first place. I used to know a guy with a PhD who worked as a cashier in a 24 hour garage because it was the only job he could find. It is a flawed argument to say that your income will always be higher with a degree, because that simply is not always the case.
If you are 34, and still making such poor choices--that is their fault and their fault alone. It is very different than a 19 year old.
It isn't about their "poor choices". As I've pointed out, bank loans are not presented to the public in a neutral, fact-friendly way, otherwise only truly desperate people would ever take them out in the first place. Loans are a product which the bank advertises. That is, a bank tries to persuade you to buy its product, and money is not a difficult product to sell because there are always people who need it. In fact, 34 year olds usually need money more than 19 year olds do because by that age people are supposed to be independent.
I think your blame game against people who are often genuine victims is short-sighted and cruel. One need look no further than the 2008 crisis for evidence of this. Many people who were already in debt to the banks lost their jobs because of an economic crisis which was completely out of their own control. It is effectively nonsensical to say that people should be held responsible for things out of their control simply because they are 34, or 44, or whichever age you want to stipulate.
Cleary, the reason the banks offer loans is to make a profit. Now, having said that, the loans are actually a fantastic resource, if used wisely--much like a credit card
Since you have to pay back more than you borrowed, a bank loan actually makes you poorer than you were initially. The same applies to credit cards. Hence, mathematically, these things are the precise opposite of "fantastic resources". They are financial traps which force the people who take them out into servitude to the banks.
The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined[1] grouping of white supremacists/white nationalists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, and other far-right[2][3][4] fringe hate groups.
The alt-right movement has been considered by some political researchers a terrorist movement and the process of alt-right radicalization has been compared to Islamic terrorism by political scientists and leaders.[190][191][192][193][194]
A research study of 447 self-identified alt-right members found higher levels of psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism compared to the general population; and that members of the alt-right were more likely to express prejudice against black people and admit to engaging in aggressive behavior. Alt-right members also had significantly high levels of dehumanization, with the mean alt-right scores comparable to how the general public views the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Alt-right members viewed Hillary Clinton, Muslims, feminists, Nigerians and journalists as the least well rated groups on the dehumanization scale while white people, men and Americans were rated the best.
A paper on the subject stated that it clearly fell under an extremist movement, saying that "alt-right adherents also expressed hostility that could be considered extremist: they were quite willing to blatantly dehumanize both religious/national outgroups and political opposition groups"
I agree--however, that is a problem of poor parenting, teaching, guidance, etc. etc.
The real issue rests considerably deeper because you have to remember that parents and teachers are also influenced, both by society and their own experiences within it. If someone has had success then it stands to reason they will advise others who might be looking for guidance to do the same things, without really considering that the circumstances might be completely different.
The reality is that we live in a world where people compete to influence and persuade us every minute of every day, and many of those people cannot be trusted to give us good advice. Parents and teachers are supposed to be the people we can rely on to push us in the right direction when we are too young to fully understand the world ourselves. Hence, if they are the ones giving us bad advice it implies a problem with the actual functioning of society.
But in any case, the point I was trying to make is that nobody makes decisions in a vacuum, or indeed with foreknowledge of what the future holds. Hence, the ability of humans to make the "right" decisions is extremely limited, and often comes down to blind luck.
Humans are still in the primitive stages of understanding time, and our present assumption that we are at the centre of it (i.e. in the now) is in many ways comparable to the historical assumption that we (i.e. the Earth) are at the centre of the other dimensions. It is only this erroneous assumption about time which convinces us that it may be separated into past, present and future. But these are terms which have been invented by us to describe our own experiences. They do not exist in objective reality.
What we know about time from the parts behind us is that it cannot be changed or altered. The false assumption we make about being in the centre is the only reason we think differently of the time in front of us. But this cannot be the case because time is simply another dimension of the universe itself. You can't divide time in half (to put yourself at the centre) any more than you can divide the universe in half. It exists as one complete dimension.
Hence, if time itself cannot be changed or altered, then it cannot incorporate free will, because every "decision" will inevitably lead to a predefined outcome which already exists.
Free will simply can't exist at the macro level where Einstein formulated his theory of relativity. No theory as yet precludes it from existing in the quantum realm, but since humans do not live in the quantum realm, this is perhaps a moot point.
You can't blame society for peoples unwise choices
You are absolutely retarded. People don't randomly decide to go to university for no reason. They do it because they are advised to do so by teachers, parents, friends and society itself. If you see an advertisement for something, and decide to buy it, then you can't absolve the advertiser of all responsibility if you later discover you don't like it. Granted, it's still early, but that's literally the most stupid thing I've heard today. If everybody thought the same way then there would be no such thing as crime, because it would be automatically assumed to be the victim's fault when they walk into a bad area and get robbed.
You cannot refute what I posted.
The complete opposite is true. He quoted a verse from the Bible in which Moses commands his followers to take child sex slaves. You could not refute it so instead you linked a random Christian blog which denies the meaning of its own Christian scripture. Gtfo you delusional liar.
Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
Nationwide Membership: 5,000
Explain to me what 5,000 KKK members has to do with your claim that there are 12 Nazis.
Only write me a letter, because you're banned.
Too bad for you that Catholics are overwhelmingly liberal.
Get out you idiotic Nazi POS. You're a freaking joke, bronto. I'm absolutely sick of your bullshit. I'm not a liberal and this conversation has absolutely nothing to do with liberals. Stop trying to politicise EVERYTHING and turn it into an attack against the left you retarded Hitlerite twerp. Christians are Christians. Does it say ANYWHERE in the linked article that only LIBERAL CHRISTIANS committed the crimes?
Then STFU you subhuman Nazi weasel.
Atrocities within a given religion do not obsolve attrocities in another.
Absolve. Atrocities.
You are using straw man argumentation again, Amarel. The argument I made was that Christians keep attacking Muslims with accusations of wrongdoings which their own religion is guilty of. The argument you have changed it to is that Muslims have never done anything wrong.
Since you can't debate without abusing language I am going to save us both some time and ban you right away. Have a nice day.
He has HIS ideas of socialism, most have a different idea.
Yes, but of course bronto is trying to purposefully misrepresent socialists, as usual. To be honest it's a breath of fresh air given that he's been quoting Nazis all week. For someone who denies being a Nazi, he sure does get a lot of his information from other Nazis.
When they are aggressive
Ah, but their most holy spiritual guidebook tells them they must be aggressive when faced with wanton acts of barbarism such as, for example, having a different point of view or being a homosexual.
Already debunked Al.
The only thing your "sources" debunk is your own credibility, bronto. I mean seriously? An Amazon Jpeg? Wtf is wrong with you?
The problem isn't him voting Communist. The problem is the bombardment of anti-Communist propaganda the government has been hitting you with since 1917. Nobody would argue that Communism didn't go horribly wrong, but the theory is solid and -- most importantly -- Americans are trained to have double standards when it comes to honestly analysing the results of capitalism. Faults with the implementation of Communism are exaggerated while the same (or similar) faults with the capitalist system are simply ignored or downplayed. This type of ideological bias is exactly what Americans accuse Communists of.
But... But... But.. Islam
But... But... But.. Rape gangs.
But... But... But.. Mohammed was a paedophile.
You make me SICK.
Christians.
Kill 200 million. Sabotage the creation of the scientific method. Send death threats to Darwin.
Then play the victim.
Rinse. Repeat.
158 + lies, brought to you by bront
I don't understand why you are so desperate to get banned from the thread, but I'll happily oblige you.
He said we have 57 states
That wasn't even a lie. A lie requires the intent to deceive or deny the facts, but the above was just a Freudian slip. He messed up and said something stupid.
He did lie about 9/11 though. Obama is no idiot. He knows al Qaeda wasn't responsible for those attacks.
What about all the lies uncovered during the investigation into Hillary
Hillary is not President of the United States and the facts show CLEARLY that Hillary is nowhere near the scale of liar that Donald Trump is.
At their first presidential debate, on Monday night in New York, Trump made 34 false claims to Clinton's four false claims
Stop attacking everybody EXCEPT Trump for being a liar, when the facts show that Trump is the KING of the liars.
Get out you moron.
Ok let's just pretend everything he says is a lie. Did Obama not lie? Did Bernie not lie?
If your attempted argument here is that everyone lies, then that does not mean Hitler and Gandhi were equally honest. Attacking Gandhi also does not mean that Hitler was not a liar.
Hence, apart from being a total deflection of the point, your argument is a fallacy known as a false equivalency.
Now get out. You have nothing valid or intelligent to say.
Ignore the economy at all costs like the plague, eh nom?
I didn't say the economy was a liar. I said Trump and his supporters are liars. Hence, I don't trust Trump and his cronies when they tell me the economy is doing great. Bush and Cheney told us the economy was doing great too, and I don't know if you remember but the entire global system crashed. Millions of people lost their jobs and their homes. Many economists are already pulling at the strings of Trump's economic bullshit:-
Trump cheers ‘amazing’ economic growth as economists caution it could be a blip
“Trump has to be careful not to overhype this. There are still areas of the country that have not fully come back and that’s Trump’s constituency,” said Greg Valliere, chief global strategist at Horizon Investments. “Wage growth has been anemic.”
So clearly you are "overhyping" the economy as a means to avoid confronting your total lack of morality. I seem to remember the economy did pretty well under Hitler too: for a while. Besides which, the above quotation evidences fairly clearly that the economic boost is not benefiting ordinary workers, but rather Trump's buddies the elite rich.
The President of the United States and the most powerful man in the world is a pathological liar. What a complete mess humans have made of this planet. It's pathetic.
Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/
All False statements involving Donald Trump
https://www.politifact.
Tracking over 4000 false or misleading claims made by President Trump
Donald Trump made 103 false claims last week, shattering his dishonesty record
Trump obliterates his dishonesty record: 132 false claims last week
President Trump's Lies, the Definitive List
https://www.nytimes.
That you don't see the irony in using social media for propaganda which accuses the left of using social media for propaganda is retarded. You are retarded.
Since the useless parasites are the bankers, the only real difference is that we don't reward them with billions of dollars under socialism.
But seriously though, how are you not a Nazi when you spend all day here telling lies about socialism?
Atheism is the fear of the light
Christianity is the fear of the psychiatrist.
Bronto thinks this man:-
LISTEN: Donald Trump Once Contemplated a Season of The Apprentice Pitting 'Blacks Against Whites'
https://people.com/politics/
Isn't a racist.
ROFLMAO
Are you DemocraticSocialist01 on youtube?
No. I don't have a YouTube channel.
You probably aren't but the guy reminds me of you a lot.
He must be very handsome.
So if I rebrand myself "Alt Right" does that mean I'm not really a Nazi? Even though the rebranding gambit is a textbook Nazi propaganda technique?
He is a socialist, though it's worth noting that a social democrat is a type of socialist.
He's getting mixed up. Either by accident or -- more likely -- on purpose just to irritate me because he's childish. I said democratic socialist.
Are you a "socialist" or a "social democrat", as you have stated before?--or, just very confused
I have never stated that I am a social democrat you delusional retard. Evidently, you are the one who is confused. What I have stated several times is that I'm a democratic socialist.
Perhaps you should go away and learn the difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist, because -- I'll be honest -- you're annoying as hell.
I never actually said that I am correct, this is just what I think is going on. Also, read the link I gave, it might give you a different outlook on this issue.
It is an objective issue. A question of what is or isn't going on scientifically. I think the problem might be that -- assuming you are American -- Americans are living in a society where everything can become a matter of opinion provided you have the capital and the right political connections.
How do you think we should resolve this issue, anyway?
Stop using the fuels responsible for the crisis. It really comes down to the massive investment the elite rich has in the fossil fuel industry and the fact that the profit is directly tied to the fuel being finite in supply. Once they solve the problem of how to profit from renewable energy you will begin to see most of the idiots arguing against global warming slowly die away, just like they did when tobacco was the big crisis.
You sound like you’re against socialism but you’ve posted on the side for socialism.
Sound is something you hear. Can you hear him?
Honestly, to label you the village idiot would be a gargantuan understatement. The village idiot would thrash you in any mainstream intelligence test.
