- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
It does actually.
Every single person, (no matter what he believes in) follows a certain code of conduct based on the self-preservation and survival of the species. It can be from simple politeness and artistic imagination to the founding of united countries
Lots of irrelevant gibberish.
Delusions can have positive effects. A statement which, as of the day before yesterday, you agreed with ref
An insane person on the other hand lacks a sense of humanity for he cannot see himself on others. Hence, he sees nothing wrong in being cruel
you are describing psychopathy/sociopathy, not delusion.
Please take a second to think about the absurdity of what you are saying - you are claiming that in order for something to be a delusion, you must first prove that it is true, or, at the very least could be true. A true (or likely true) delusion is an oxymoron. Why are you not getting this by now?
Exactly why you cant call it delusion
This is exactly where you are wrong. All of those things are well known delusions - by the definition you gave and by the medical literature on the subject. Can you point to one source where those phenomenon are specifically excluded from being delusions?
No matter how bizarre a claim is, without any evidence to support nor disprove it, it will stay on the grey area
I pasted a link to the relevant except from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders describing the clinical use of delusion including bizarre delusion - did you not read it, can you not understand it, or do you disagree with it (and your own definition)?
If God created the chicken, then he would have either created it in an egg, or as a chicken which would have ovaries - so both the chicken and egg would have come into existence at the same time.
But, the biblical version of creation didn't happen - feel free to debate here.
The classic chicken or egg question predates our current evolutionary understanding and does deserve a 'well, duh' response as phrased (which is why I said "This question has actually long been answered." in my response on the other side.)
In regards to chicken egg vs chicken:
To answer conclusively, we would have to determine the immediate precursor to the chicken and what final genetic mutation gave rise to the chicken. Then, we would have to determine whether that mutation occurred during fertilization of one specific egg or during the life of one or more of the precursor animals (due to a change in diet, etc.)
Additionally, in the case where the mutation happened during fertilization, we would have to decide whether an egg is said to be of the animal it came from or the animal it contains. (This might be what you are saying in your last sentence.)
I contend that we do not (and may never) have enough information to answer the question.
That process does not say that no matter what was done it followed the constitution.
And that's not what I said either.
It is hard for me to believe you when you can't even answer a question.
question was answered.
I am talking about your argument, not mine.
You highlighted my argument and then said "that was my[your] argument the whole time."
It is a summation of what you said
It is a fallacious concoction. If it was based on what I said, you would be able to point to the constituent parts and the reason you can't is because it is not what I would have said since it is not what I believe.
Your links showed that they were helpful in putting a greater percentage of black people in jail.
Which disproved your contention that it is unfairly applied to whites.
I am not sure how that has anything to do with my wife
I was pointing out your loaded words, but apparently you've never even heard of the loaded question fallacy. You never fail to dash expectations.
Well, all of the relevant information is presented to any interested reader, and you can chose to inform yourself or remain ignorant. You do not have anything constructive to add to the debate so I am moving on.
The constitution does not say that as long as every branch of the government misinterprets the constitution the same way then it is ok.
The Constitution says here is the constitutional process to enact/enforce a law and that process was followed.
If I would be able to sue the government and win, could I argue that it is currently unconstitutional?
You could argue that it would then be unconstitutional, but that would take actual legal knowledge which you are lacking.
that was my argument the whole time.
Ha. It's awesome to see your cognitive dissonance play out. So now you believe that if the government does it, then it is constitutional?? Also, you have never pointed to where I have said that since the government does it, that makes it good - because you can't. In fact, in my very first rebuttal to you on the topic I gave you 2 reasons why the laws have been helpful and then specially reiterated them later – we'll see if you can put all that mental power to work and find out what they were. If you need a remedial lesson, just let your teacher know...
Well, look at that, a change of subject.
Yes, you have indeed changed the argument several times now.
Saying that you don't have a problem with it probably means you do have a problem with it and you are lying.
Classic – when did you stop beating your wife... It was in response to you saying people here won't see your posts and won't understand them and won't call you out on them – so who is the one that is (or should be) embarrassed?
Correction, sanity is the state of a healthy mind
wow - I'll spell it out even further - by "measure of mental impairment (sanity)" I mean on a scale from sane to insane.
There is a word for strong belief and that is "Faith"
There is a whole book just dedicated to synonyms, maybe you've heard of it - it is called a thesaurus. Using 'strong conviction' which is from your given definition is not just playing with words; if it is, then I sure wish you would play with words yourself since you seem to completely ignore your own given definition.
Your presented definition:
a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary
Nothing in that definition says that the person must commit inhumane atrocities or that they must believe something which is completely disprovable and disproved or that it can't be useful as a defense mechanism, or any of the other arguments that you are making which are outside of your own definition. Would you like to change your definition to include some of these factors or would you like to stay within the given definition??
Correction, it was made to mock religion and its philosophies.
Is mocking religion different than pointing out absurdities in religious belief in some significant way that is relevant to our discussion?
If you cant prove them wrong, then they aren't.
If you can’t completely disprove something, that does not make it true.
Appeal to ignorance is a fallacy, not sound logic.
It is called Delusion because they are wrong.
You cannot completely disprove any of those scenarios - in the same way that one cannot completely disprove the unicorn in the middle of the sun, nor a god created in a person’s imagination.
None of which has said anything about your claims that a person can be called delusional without any need for evidence that he is wrong
There is a need for some evidence and I have presented some evidence - complete disproval is not achievable and is not required. There is a whole category of delusions (bizarre delusions) for beliefs that are entirely implausible – they do not have to be disproved before they can be said to be delusions.
The federal government can, has, and will continue to violate the constitutional through this mechanism.
That pesky government keeps violating the Constitution by following exactly what the Constitution says...
Saying they do this mechanism doesn't mean they didn't violate the constitution
You can argue that it should not be Constitutional, but not that it is currently unconstitutional.
Your argument is saying that if the government does it it is constitutional
Yes – if all three branches of the government follow the Constitution, then a law is, at least currently, constitutional. That is still not saying that hate-crime laws are good because the government said so. Just change your argument again, it will make you feel better.
Your logic is flawed.
So now you have argued that: "You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual."
But, since you couldn't support that, you changed your argument to: "You only dodged the question and changed the subject"
Then, when I show that I did address it, you change your argument again to: "Your logic is flawed."
You’re making progress...
Wrong place for that man.
Which is worse – telling someone with obvious reading comprehension issues that I wish the arguments were addressed by someone who could read them, or Gee thanks dick. What else are you supposed to do dumbass?
I just chose not to rely on your logic that most people on here are too oblivious or stupid to hold someone accountable for what they are saying.
behemoth: ox of the water
and leviathan: serpent
are not necessarily dinosaurs and are perfectly explainable in ways that do not disagree with several lines of scientific evidence - e.g. hippo and crocodile
You claimed that the government can break the constitution by passing laws and it isn't considered violating the constitution.
What I actually said was:
"If congress passes it, and the President signs it and the Supreme Court upholds it as Constitutional - then it is Constitutional.
At least until any future date where the Court rules differently."
Which you did not (and cannot) refute in any way - and, of course, is not the same as saying that hate-crime laws are good because the government says it's ok. Do you really not understand that??
maybe it is inaccurate
you didn't recognize that
You couldn't give a reason why it wasn't unusual.
yes, I very specifically did. ref
You only dodged the question and changed the subject
Do you see that you have already changed your argument from: "You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual."
to: "You only dodged the question and changed the subject"?
Only a dozen more posts until you admit "Ok, fine."
You benefit as well.
I am perfectly willing to have any of my posts scrutinized, I just wish it was by someone who could read. I don't depend on people not seeing my posts and not holding me accountable for posts that don't make sense as you are apparently comfortable in doing.
You said it wasn't a violation simply because the government went through the process of getting passed.
No, you said it was unconstitutional and I showed how that was a false statement.
You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual.
Completely untrue. You should try to find the section where you think I am saying that and actually read it.
Most people on here don't hold it against you for making bad posts
Lucky for you!
I think you would be doing yourself a favor if you go back and re-read this debate (and probably others) to see if you can determine how your perception diverges so far from reality.
At no point have I said hate-crime laws are a good thing simply because the government says so. And, at no point did I say hate-crime laws are cruel and unusual punishment - in fact, I have specifically stated the contrary.
So, why do you think your perception of the argument is so far afield and yet you feel comfortable posting your assertions on a site where anyone can see that they are blatant fabrications?
the logic behind the Russel's Tea Cup and FSM
Russel's Tea Pot and FSM are devices used to point out absurdities:
The teapot points out the absurdity of trying to have someone provide conclusive proof against unfalsifiable claims (like the existance of any god, more so if that god was deliberately created in a person's imagination).
FSM aims to point out some of the absurdities of intelligent design
Anyone who actually believes that Russel's teapot or the FSM exist are delusional.
You have said: "everything that cannot be proven false can be proven true" and "If it cannot be disproven, it can be proven" - and I am pointing out that both of those are 100% wrong.
Your examples are already disproven, being analyzed or condemned as unscientific.
What are you talking about? I gave specific examples of known delusions from the relevant literature.
I question your definition of "delusion"
My definition is largely the definition from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition. (I have one difference which is not applicable in your given scenrio, so I will save for the time when/if that area is broached.)
Well, that's progress I suppose.
You just pointed out a few linguistic errors.
I was pointing out that you didn't seem to know the definition of conviction as used in your given definition of delusion - that seems somewhat significant to me.
Whether a person is delusional or not is judged by the measure of his sanity.
Your reliance on "sanity" as the delineation is basically an attempt to make a tautological argument such as:
the measure of mental impairment (delusion) is determined by the measure of mental impairment (sanity). It says nothing of what empirically distinguishes imagination from delusion. The definition you gave does exactly that - "strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary".
In terms of evidence to the contrary in your specific scenario the person does not believe in any of the traditional notions of god and instead creates one in their imagination, so evidence to the contrary for customary belief in god is already assumed. And all possible evidence to the contrary of the imaginary god is present - the inventor going through the process of creating the god, etc.
The only remaining aspect - per the definition you gave - is 'strong conviction' (meaning strong belief - not a determination by a jury...)
If a person actually maintains a belief in that imaginary god, the conviction threshold is surpassed and the belief is a delusion.
None of this explains how adding on a punishment to something that is already a crime isn't unusual.
Yes, it does exactly that, only you chose not to (or cannot) comprehend what was presented.
I don't feel any need to convince you as that tends to take dozens of inane posts, I just wanted the information out there for any actually interested (and capable) reader.
Since you have already admitted this is unusual punishment previously there is nothing more for me to argue.
Of course that is patently false and anyone can review the discourse to prove as much.
You said that there wasn't anything wrong because the government approved it.
I contended that there was nothing wrong and that the government approves it - not because. You have a real knack for creating the argument you want to attack in your head since you cannot actually attack the substance.
So far you have proved yourself a bit slow on the uptake, but apparently I am a glutton for punishment so I will attempt to tell you why your understanding of the eighth amendment in this area is incorrect.
all you said hate crime laws do is give extra power to the federal government and assign unusual punishment
The federal government applies the same punishment for a bias motivated crime as it does for the same crime when done against a federal employee as you can see by reading 18 USC 245. Therefore the punishment is not unusual for the crime as far as the federal government goes.
The second important piece of information that you are missing is that the federal punishment is not seen as being applied 'on top of' the state punishment; they are seen as separate cases prosecuted by separate sovereigns which is also why the 5th amendment double-jeopardy clause does not apply.
you just think that if the government does something it is ok.
Thinking that one thing the government does is ok is different than thinking that everything the government does is ok. Nice straw-man though.
If your prior legal acumen is any indication, I look forward to the pretzel-like logic you will use to insert your foot into your mouth. Please proceed...
Conviction The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged.
Wow. I have seen some responses to your arguments asking whether English is your second language and have seen some instances where your replies were confusing or grammatically incorrect etc., but until now I haven't actually thought that you just might not be very smart.
Your definition seems to come from the first definition here, but, in case you are unaware, some words have multiple meanings. Like definition #3 from the same link: "A fixed or strong belief."
Conviction has no relation to our topic and I dont even know how you came to the idea of having it on our table
re-read the definition you copied and pasted for delusion and see if you can determine how 'conviction' is 'on our table': "a belief held with strong -> conviction <- despite superior evidence to the contrary" (emphasis added)
I try to be somewhat forgiving on grammar and anyone can see that I am not perfect in that regard, but when it impedes understanding the argument you are trying to make, I feel I have to call it out - especially when the arguments are semantic in nature. Please take your time, understand the issue and decide the point you are trying to make, then take the necessary time to phrase it cogently. It will save us both a lot of back and forth as this debate will elucidate.
Its called "Circular Reasoning"
You are attempting to use things which refute your argument (e.g. Russel's Teapot and Flying Spaghetti Monster) as your support. Argument from ignorance and 'Circular Reasoning' are both logic fallacies and yet you seem to think they are valid arguments for your position.
If God cannot be disproven and your beliefs does not define your actions, then you are not delusional
a belief does not have to be wholly disproved in order to be a delusion - in fact, many examples of delusions from the literature (i.e. that organs have been replaced without leaving any scars, that a family member has been replaced with an impostor, that thoughts are being read by others, that a person is the reincarnation of a famous person, that a building or other inanimate object has a consciousness or emotions, etc.) are completely unfalsifiable.
All of a person's beliefs influence what actions they will or will not take. Delusions can have positive and negative expressions.
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement