CreateDebate


J-Roc77's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of J-Roc77's arguments, looking across every debate.
J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Neither of your options are the most common form of homicide in America.

The question asked wasn't that one but whatever.

1 point

Well kinda in that they are referred to by their geological location and date like the 1906 San Fran earthquake. Of course not all quakes are referred to in this manner, prolly because they don't all have as much damage associated with them to be considered historical in this way. I guess you mean "should earthquakes have names", like "earthquake Paul has caused problems in location X".

1 point

If in instances where an inequality was forcibly enacted that resulted in the detriment of one group for the benefit of another then yes restitution or assistance ought to be owed. For instance Jamaica is asking for debt forgiveness from many of the institutions that have played a role in cementing their situations due to unequal trade that was set up during slavery and so on. 1 2

1 point

Straw-manning evolution doesn't make your stance any more believable. You are attacking a construct that isn't representative of the sciences stance.

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenisis. Evolution has to do with the diversity of species.

If I see someone with a bullet hole, see the gun that was used, see the powder burns etc but don't know who pulled the trigger I can still see the evidence that suggests someone was shot. Your stance says despite all the evidence someone was shot, that conclusion can't be right because we don't know who pulled the trigger. Your stance is untenable. Your stance ignores what evolution actually says and you just make something up that is irrelevant.

You appear to be a troll or a crazy person. On the off chance you are neither; If you really want to discuss evolution try starting with something actually claimed by evolution and is relevant instead of your made up straw-man. Here is a link for you to start. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

2 points

Straw-manning evolution doesn't make your stance any more believable. You are attacking a construct that isn't representative of the sciences stance.

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenisis. Evolution has to do with the diversity of species.

If I see someone with a bullet hole, see the gun that was used, see the powder burns etc but don't know who pulled the trigger I can still see the evidence that suggests someone was shot. Your stance says despite all the evidence someone was shot, that conclusion can't be right because we don't know who pulled the trigger. Your stance is untenable. Your stance ignores what evolution actually says and you just make something up that is irrelevant.

You appear to be a troll or a crazy person. On the off chance you are neither; If you really want to discuss evolution try starting with something actually claimed by evolution and is relevant instead of your made up straw-man. Here is a link for you to start. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

1 point

Well 'solves' is an overstatement but still pretty cool. There is no quantity shown for how much of this ethanol would have to be created for 'solving' global warming; can production/storing/reuse/ overcome the C02 output and reverse the rise of CO2 to avoid costly changes? It really look like more of playing with the 'fast' carbon already in the atmosphere as it is proposed as well, reusing the carbon already in the atmosphere rather than putting new carbon in.

That being said it is certainly not off the table for reducing the amount of new carbon being put in the atmosphere. Carbon capture as an idea isn't new but this is one of the processes that has more appeal to business than other carbon capture/sequestration methods because the end product is usable. Other studies have had similar success but with an intermediary product as the end result. It's still early on so a few tests replicating/refining the work will have to be done before its cemented in as a viable route.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

The first things fromwithin says is "First of all, you can not lump all religions together...." clearly this implies separation and not unity. The rest of his post devolves into acts of 'othering' warranting my statement even further. Clearly religion gives us another category to divide us even further than before.

1 point

Sure. It is a bit of a balancing act though and not an on/off switch. Some negatives appear too great to be overcome by an act of heroism redeeming a person. Of course it is a matter of perspective, hero to some might not be hero to all.

But a hero with flaws can give hope and is easier for others to relate to. A 'hero' with flaws shows that it does not take some iconic bastion of heroism to make a positive change but that every day people can do these acts too.

1 point

Couple ways to take this debate.

1) Are Americans (more than the average amount by some odd measure...population density?) more paranoid than they should be?

2) Are Americans more paranoid than other populations?

The "yes, what a bunch of kooks." answer makes me think the debate is asking the #1 above. I found this that kind of suggests not but I don't think their measure is really comprehensive enough for a solid answer.

Quantifying the overall paranoia level seems a bit of a subjective and overly generalized task but there is sure plentty of subjects that groups of Americans are overly paranoid about.

So in that vein I would slightly agree that Americans on average are more paranoid than need be on many topics rather than overall. Its how media works within the populations, it plays to sensationalism and false or irrelevant equivalencies. US paranoia has been discussed for years since it is deep within the US culture. More recent writings have touched on this too.

0 points

As illustrated by FromWithin; religion divides us. An 'us or them' mentality.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

http://sociology.about.com/od/Ask-a-Sociologist/fl/Whats-the-Difference-Between-Prejudice-and-Racism.htm

Within academia racism is often discussed as a systemic issue however the colloquial use of the word 'racism' is more akin to the words 'bigotry' or 'prejudice'. Certain ways power is arranged can certainly not be conducive towards racism directed at specific groups however those people who do not experience racism sure can experience other forms of prejudice.

If you were to suss out the meaning from of your generalization above many of the speakers premise would explain something in the vein of what replied. What I said certainly isn't uncommon by any means, a quick search supplied many examples besides my first more academic one. 1 2 3

1 point

http://www.journalism.org/interactives/media-polarization/table/overall/%20

Kind of old but still relevant, here is a bit on how people feel about their news sources. Some less newsy sources are included as well. You can see how groups of people answered the poll and see what news sources are used by those groups. This is not a take on quality of news source but on public perception and use.

Interestingly enough, but not surprising, is that the fewer news sources one uses the more polarizing the respondent is. That is the more conservative a person is for instance the fewer news sources they use, basically just frequent echo chambers.

So sure there are more objective and less biased sources; however for more objectivity one should peruse many news sources and make decisions off of more information to avoid echo chambers outlined above. Comparing and contrasting the same subject from different sources can also help people recognize things their the implicit biases make difficult for them to see, like loaded language.

2 points

Truth and happiness are not necessarily at odds with each other. But if I had to choose I would choose truth because it isn't as fickle as someones mood.

2 points

Open environment? That brings up control issue that would cause some problems with the study itself, any study really. A controlled environment for testing is needed. But thats not the issue that is often brought up when someone is discussing GMO's in a negative light.

Often the reasons against GMO's are based on 'unknown' factors which are arguments from ignorance. "We don't know..." or "what if something goes wrong" are not valid reasons let alone solid logical foundations to dismiss an idea or practice.

The definition of GMO is pretty nebulous itself causing even more issues with the arguments of those who rally against them. Practically all of our food sources fit the definition, tomotoes, corn, broccoli and so on.

1 point

Saintnow not using proper defintions and obscuring what the science says has been discussed before. His actions imply a knee jerk reaction opposing an idea rather than considering an idea before discarding it.

After he banned you look at how many responses he gives to you in just a matter of minutes. None of those responses he gives even addresses the arguments made in your video in a rational manner. He plays cavalier about it and tries to laugh or produced ad hominem attacks on the speaker in a fashion that avoids any meaningful critique. He certaintly hasn't shown he even knows what is said by those he opposes he just reasserts his faulty representation.

Saintnow is fine with himself attacking strawman creations of evolution rather than the real science he opposes. He is willfully ignorant on these subjects.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Ultimate scope is not the problem I mean thats kind of in the definitions people give for a god.

The issue is that it is unsupported and not demonstrated, it is just tacked on the end of where knowledge stops. Saying god is responsible for the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis or the charge an electron is jumping to conclusions or an an argument from ignorance.

2 points

This method of 'proving' a god is just moves goal posts and changes the scope of a gods power. A god both shrinks and grows in this argument.

A god shrinks because things that a god was thought to be responsible for (lightening for instance) becomes explained by a growing knowledge base. We no longer accept 'god' as an answer for many phenomenon because we have reasonable knowledge of how things work. A god is not needed in an explanation because we have an understanding of the forces that produce the phenomenon without envoking the supernatural.

A gods scope of power grows in this explanation because the moving of goal posts pushes the 'god conclusion' to the edge of our growing knowledge base effectively now claiming a god to be responsible not for secondary, tertiary and so on effects of phenomenon but the fundamental forces that are govern the phenomenon. A god is no longer claimed to be responsible for lightening but now claimed to be responsible for the forces that produce lightening and so on.

This has been going on since knowledge has been accumulated. Currently the god of the gaps argument is resting near things like abogenisis, flagellum and the big bang theory. If or when these ideas get some knowledge to produce a reasonable explanation for how those phenomenon work then the god of the gaps argument will just move the goal posts tacking the conclusion of 'god did it' to the end of the line of knowledge again.

God of the gaps is just jumping to conclusions using god as a filler for the unknown. Not knowing the reason for something doesn't automatically mean a god did it.

1 point

Long story short Kaku offers an opinion during a discussion about physics and mathmatics. He does not advance any testable idea let alone a "theory" in any scientific use of the word on there being a god or not. He does assert that the 'rules' where we exist are created...but that's just turtles all the way down from there. To think that Kaku offers proof of god here is to misrepresent what he says and/or to misunderstand how science works.

During discussions Kaku often leaves his field study of theoretical physics and interjects his personal philosophy. He also likes to use flowery language which the video is full of. He's a bit like Deepak Chopra sometimes except with a little more credability in his field.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/lawyers-group-not-pro-mexican/

But some Trump supporters have confused the San Diego legal group with the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization that supports “comprehensive immigration reform,” including a path to U.S. citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Osuna, the SDLRLA president, said the two groups are separate.

“The only connection we have is that we provide services to the Latino community,” he said. “We are not affiliated in any other way.”

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

So, with DC, nothing that happened before 86, as well as nothing that has appeared in any movie or TV show that has ever aired counts.

Well depending on which metric you wanted to compare. For the general discussion I would assume most folks want to keep the matches to more contemporary times. Its best to keep apples with apples...that is not force mismatches like the one you allude to;

Can you imagine if modern Batman had to interact with the continuities of the old 60s show or Super Friends?

I think thats a premise of a College Humor clip, Robin fom the 60's comes to help todays grim Batman.

As an aside...The silver age of comics was a pretty interesting time concerning censorship. The book "Seduction of the innocent" had done some damage through sheer pseudo science assault. Comics were a mess back then and some pretty embarrasing moments ensued. Mr. Myxlplyx for example.

If someone were to pick a 'worst' hero from any time line or universe that era is ripe for the taking.

And more to your point, I think I disagree with you on your stance concerning flawed heroes. To see a knight in shining armor win over adversity is inspiring but in a way that focuses on their virtures. Seeing a flawed hero that is still capable of doing good can possibly give hope that the average person can do good despite their flaws.

Heroes with flaws can have more in common with the reader more relatable than shiny epitomized heroes. I guess it makes sense too that more heroes would be flawed (Iron mans alcoholism etc.) than a collection of pillars of virtue, that seems highly utopian. Not many heroes that start that way maintain that as Supes has.

I guess everyone loves a winner...or in my case doesn't hate him at least. To me he just seems to unbeleivabley written/powered to be interesting. I think Martian Manhunter does a better job with this archetype than SuperMan.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
2 points

Edit...double post.

Also pretty sure the turn back time didn't happen in print but only the movies. If ya could find the issue though that would be helpful.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Everyone has their favorite cannon, universe or story line and so on.

The issue of age is kind of an intersting one because many superheroes experience 'power creep' over time. For instance some of the older versions of Superman has his power levels quite reduced than compared to now.

The art deco Superman cartoons from the 40's shows Supes struggling to stop a train and momentarily being brought to his knees by tear gas.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Christianity is an ideology that can be applied to politics, so is atheism, relativism, polygamy and so on. Just becausee a school of thought can be applied to poitics does not make it a political philosophy.

"Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. It is Ethics applied to a group of people, and discusses how a society should be set up and how one should act within a society."

Pragmatism isn't about such a narrow area of study but surely can be applied to such questions concerning governance as all other philosophies can.

I would imagine something along the likes of "liberal-pragmatism" or "libertarian-pragmatism" could be considered forms of political philosophies that are informed from a pragmatic philosophy but still pragmatism itself is much too broad in scope to accurately confine itself to be considered a political philosphy.

I would even hazard a guess that most pragmatists align themselves along the liberal leaning side concerning political philosophies.

J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

I wouldn't think that is a political ideology. Was it on the list?


1 of 37 Pages: Next >>

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