CreateDebate


Lawnman's Waterfall RSS

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

a. protect us from the possible tyranny of an all powerful Creator?

The answer to question “b” can preclude question “a”. Therefore I will focus on question”b”.

1 point

b. absolve the Creator from being a negligent parent?

Excellent question!!!

Across the span of twenty-years have I endeavored to answer that very question. And yes, I have both answered that question and questioned my answer to that question. However, what I am now questioning is whether or not I can provide an answer which will satisfy your mind like my mind is now mostly satisfied.

Next, I then question whether or not I should provide my answer. After all, the satisfaction that I derive from my answer is founded upon twenty-years of intermittent examination and experience. As a result, that intellectual journey in the pursuit of a logical conclusion is a part of why my answer is satisfactory to me.

So, I must ask: Do you want my answer or would you prefer to know why that question should be answered?

1 point

Hello stranger:)

This post evidences receipt of your latest reply.

Shortly, I will address your contentions with an alternative written explanation.

(I need some time to consider your conclusions. I don’t simply disagree for the sake of disagreement.)

Note: Call me stubborn, but don’t call me inconsiderate:)

1 point

It is an empirical theory, meaning it is based on experimentation.

Thought experiments and hence not empirical!

You deluded yourself because of preference for a different explanation, is what I'm reading.

Your inference is derived from the imagination of your mind, is what I infer.

Again, why do you waste our time with futility?

If you disagree with my conclusions it is because you believe I am ignorant of the subject. If I examine the evidence you submit, written evidence that is, you assert that I am deluded if I submit a conclusion which contradicts yours. Either way, you are failing to debate the subject and are shifting your argument back and forth betwixt what you call ignorance and/or delusion on my part. This is not how a rational adult conducts logical debate. It is how a religious zealot protects his faith from scrutiny.

(I too can argue ad hominem.)

You missed the point. Evolution causes divergence in populations.

You don’t understand the subject term of your assertion.

Evolution is an abstract term. It is not the cause or effect of that which it describes.

Asserting that evolution causes divergence in populations is analogous to asserting that democracy causes the divergence of government.

Dogs are diverged from wolves, and specifically certain breeds of dogs cannot naturally interbreed with wolves, or other types of dogs due to physical barriers (size difference).

This is not a contradiction of my assertions.

Evolution works because a mutation is selected for, or a specific allele, and this shapes the population.

Mutation shapes the population of what species? You are not providing any evidence that mutations cause genetic incompatibility within a species.

In the case of dogs and wolves, dogs have totally different fur, skeletal proportions, breeding cycles, and behaviour.

So, are you asserting that dogs and wolves can’t interbreed either naturally or artificially because they are not genetically compatible?

If we had no idea where dogs came from we'd assume that each breed was a different species and apart from wolves, due to morphology.

Agreed! Your camp would assume morphology as an alternative theory to protect the theory of Evolution. After all, the theory of evolution is absolutely irrefutable.

Try researching canid evolution for wolf evolution.

Funny!

In a vain effort to direct me to accept, as truth, your evolutionary claims, you are directing me to research evolution for wolf evolution, all of which evidenced by a timeline chart which is nothing more than another theory formulated to conform to the theory of evolution.

Perhaps I should direct you to research the bible of god for the existence of god.

Evolution accounts for diversification, changes in allele frequencies in a population, and speciation. You are mistaken.

Okay, then I suppose that you also think that the theory of evolution does not account for the origin of species; if I am mistaken as you claim.

Whatever you call yourself, you are incorrect on many fronts.

Don’t feel too lowly of yourself because I understand your opinions are rarely correct on any front. Otherwise you would not continue to demonstrate sophomoric inferential skills of deductive and inductive reasoning.

As I said before, denying evolution is like defending a flat Earth. There's just no way that the genetic, molecular, fossil, anatomical, and experimental evidence is all a coincidence supporting the same thing.

Agreed, the absence of evidence for the origin of species!

That's because you don't know much about the subject.

The very beginning of life dealt with primitive protocells and horizontal gene transfer.

Great, an un-testable hypothesis in support of a theory!

There was no breeding to speak of and you could say that we had a soup of mutts. Everything descending from that transitioned to a less hard-to-trace inheritance, and we got to your basic eukaryotic life which at this point had more emphasis on diversification in the way we know now. In other words, live diversifies like branches on a tree, and eventually the branches cannot interbreed due to more and more accumulated genetic differences producing sterile offspring. That's how it works.

While I am chuckling, I must ask the question:

How many theories or hypotheses are necessary to validate a theory of religious proportions such as Evolutionary theory?

Go ahead and include geological, cosmological, and metaphysical theories in your final answer.

2 points

The illegal Mexican immigrants who have sought and found refuge in the U.S are not fleeing the debauchery that plagues Mexico. They are spreading the debauchery into the U.S. Consequently, they are debauching, following invasion, the U.S. to make it just like the land they left.

Do they not fly the Mexican flag in the U.S.? Yes, just like the fly it in Mexico, in the front of a vermin infested residence wherein twenty people split the cost of rent of a two room and bath shack which is owned by some moronic liberal seeking to prevent a foreclosure from his favored WallStreet Bank! (There are some conservatives who are equally guilty of the same. Maybe they are closet liberals who are too afraid of being hostile toward foreign invaders. All for the sake of exploiting a gaggle of illegal, Mexican immigrants to protect their social status and a cherished ‘Credit score’!)

2 points

What you mean to say is that you know of no empirical evidence for evolution.

No! Evolution is not a sensory experience. It is, however, a theory that is derived from an application of reason.

Of course, if you research it, you'd find that over the last ten thousand years humanity has evolved wolves into dogs, feral cats into kittens, chickens from wild fowl, pigeons, cattle, all manner of animals, and we've taken simple grasses and turned them into corn, rye, wheat, and so on.

Unfortunately, I wasted my time examining a large body of supposed evidence for evolution. Consequently I am aware of the root problem with the theory as well as the fallacious abstractions of the proponents of the theory.

Let’s tackle your examples of the evidence for evolution beginning with wolves and dogs.

Dogs are a variety of wolves; as such, they can interbreed.

Where is the evidence that they, wolves, have slowly and incrementally evolved from some other species which is not genetically compatible for interbreeding?

Should we therefore imagine that the evidence has not been discovered though it must exist?

Btw, the theory of evolution was formulated to explain the origin of species and not the variants of a biological family.

(Consider this a precursor of the logical hurdles you must overcome in order to logically persuade me that the theory of evolution explains, with evidence, the origin of species.)

Reminder: I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. I am however one who is convinced that both camps rely solely upon fallacious arguments to advance their views. None of which means you do as well. It merely means that you must appeal to sound reason in order to validate a conclusion I can accept on the grounds of truth and reason.

Think of it this way, I think that all life originates from one life source. But nobody has yet to explain, with empirical evidence, the how and why of all other forms of life which are not genetically capable of interbreeding with the original source.

2 points

Again, it doesn't matter whether my statement comes off as opinion it is still a fact.

Yes, your statement is a fact. But it just doesn’t have any logical connection with reasonable discourse. Specifically:

…trying to refute evolution is like trying to defend a flat Earth.”

The Earth is a tangible object. The theory of evolution is an assertion. One does not analyze the theory of evolution like the Earth is analyzed. Blah, blah blah!

Your analogy would be less illogical if you were to assert:

…trying to refute evolution is like trying to refute a spherical Earth.”

Yet it too is an illogical comparison, despite the modification.

Now for a logical comparison the following suffices:

…trying to refute evolution is like trying to refute the Big Bang.”

I know you believe that the theory of evolution is irrefutable.Therefore why do you waste our time with futility? It is not as though you question your belief. And nor is it as though my belief is known. However you can know this of me: Most Evolutionists and Creationists are prejudicially faithful to their ignorance.

I'm not disputing evolution, like a spherical earth I am saying that it is beyond doubt because so much supports it. Try going to the produce section of a grocery store. That is evolution, with all the cultivars made from totally different native species.

Evolution is not an empirical observation. Furthermore, cultivars denote artificial and not natural selection; unless of course you subscribe to the theory that all species originate from artificial selection.

2 points

It doesn't matter how you want to frame what he asked you, trying to refute evolution is like trying to defend a flat Earth. You can't "win" at it because you've chosen the wrong position.

It is purely your opinion that that analogy is valid. None of which is an argument that validates your position or invalidates my position.

Getting back to our Earth example, we've been in space, seen the Earth from afar, sent probes to other worlds, the issue is settled and it is assumed that the evidence speaks well enough for itself that we don't need to explain how seeing Earth from afar validates its spherical nature.

By disputing evolution you're in the same position but simply aren't aware of it yet.

My previous statement still stands.

Are you thinking that evolution is a subject of observation? If so, what are its attributes outside its written definition?

2 points

Is this an invite to refute the inferences of which you already believe are irrefutable?

If so, then there is no point in wasting my time attempting to overcome your belief of the irrefutability of evolutionary theory.

You have assumed an absolute and therefore are not subject to considering contradictory propositions.

Essentially, you believe the debate is over. I on the other hand assert that the debate is now rationally impossible because of the absolute nature of your camp’s opinion.

Furthermore, what you are asking me to refute is thus:

The proponents of evolutionary theory believe the theory is irrefutable.

Ergo, that is why you continue to claim that such and such is evidence of evolution without arguing why such and such is evidence of evolution.

2 points

In this case I'm talking about beliefs that are held before one hears about evolution, specifically which can affect how a person responds to it.

Then they are, simply, convictions. There is no need to modify the term ‘conviction’ to express your thought.

‘Conviction with prejudice’ is a better term.

It's really not that complicated.

No kidding! But it is a fine piece of sophistry.

Let me now apply your description according to its logical contrary, post-conviction: beliefs that are held after one hears about evolution, specifically which affect how a person responds to it.

1 point

Oh!

Then I should just simply accept your inferences as valid without any form of validation?

1 point

Pre-conviction?

This is an excellent example of a hyphenated perversion of both logic and the English language.

It is nearly identical to pre-knowledge. And it is identical with pre-belief.

How can one know today what it is he/she shall believe tomorrow? If this is possible we could use another hyphenated perversion and couple the terms post-belief or post-conviction.

1 point

My question was neither hypothetical nor irrelevant.

Then strike the term “if” from your assertion/question. Until you do, it is hypothetical.

Furthermore, strike the terms “then is it”. Until then, it is also a rhetorical question.

Lastly, it is irrelevant because it is does not the answer the question of this debate. Why? We are not debating the purpose of taxation. We are debating whether or not the attribute “legalized theft” is predicable of taxation in truth.

Theft is not a payment, taxes are a payment. If someone breaks into your home and takes your money they are not going to then mow your lawn and take out your garbage afterward. The reason you don't have a choice to pay taxes is because as long as you live in this country you are benefiting from the services provided by the government.

Again, we are not debating the purpose/s of taxation. What do you not understand about debating a proposition?

The reason you don't have a choice to pay taxes is because as long as you live in this country you are benefiting from the services provided by the government.

Perfect, you are now on record of admitting that taxation is theft, by inference. Clearly, you are aware of the fact that taxation is theft. Consequently all you are doing is obfuscating ‘theft’ by renaming it ‘taxation’. How is this so?

Simple, “you don't have a choice to pay taxes”!

Forego your inclination to again argue the purpose of taxation in order to negate ‘theft’ as an attribute of taxation.

1 point

The foundation of the U.S. is built upon freedom from taxation, hence the war of independence.

Clearly, the King of England, George, was willing to kill taxpayers in order to benefit the taxpayers. Mind you, all of which was tax-payer funded.

Therefore, he stole from others in order to steal from more.

1 point

I am not disputing whether or not it is understood by some. Obviously, it is understood. The debate is concerned with why it fails to convince.

1 point

You are assuming the truth of your conclusion without proving the conclusion. Hence you are “begging the question”.

You must prove that the evidence is proof of something that is not proof of anything else.

Claiming that something is evidence of a claim is not the proof of a claim. If you claimed: “Semi-trucks create craters and therefore some of the craters on the moon were created by semi-trucks”, I would regard that claim with equal contempt on the grounds of logic alone as well.

Here is the inescapable fact: Your camp does not have enough evidence to prove the claim of evidence. Claiming otherwise is again begging the question.

Answer this one question, true or false:

You were taught what to think long before you were taught how to think. ]

I ask that question because I am aware that most proponents of evolutionary biology accepted the premises thereof long before, if ever, they were taught how to logically infer.

2 points

Agreed. (Is this an admission that chance exists?)

Yes, artificially, and this is the crux of my contention.

Chance is an attribute that is predicated of our knowledge. Chance is not an attribute that is predicable of any subject other than the knowledge of man. We can’t prove that something exists by chance because our knowledge of its origin is derived from ignorance.

Scientifically, our minds tend to associate cause and consequence. However, there comes a point that that knowledge is based on a purely metaphysical, a priori and not empirical, knowledge. Consequently, if we assert that something exists by chance, we are equally asserting that we do not know the cause of why something exists. After all, all that exists must have a cause. And chance is not the cause of anything.

So yes, we may rightfully use ‘chance’ as a term to describe willful or inescapable ignorance, but we can’t prove that chance is knowledge. Ultimately, chance is equivalent to ignorance. Therefore, chance is the absence of our knowledge.

Whereby shall I infer order?

Nothing which exists is both the cause and consequence of its existence. And in the case of our personal, individuality, every attribute that is predicable of you and I must have a cause that is not predicable of chance.

My conclusion: All things exist as a consequence of a cause; chance is not the cause of any consequence. Rather it describes the limits of our knowledge of cause and consequence and/or our hopes. All of which evidences that ‘chance’ exists only in our minds apart from any external empirical evidence.

I’ll await your reply before I continue…

1 point

The whole point of so badly wanting amnesty is because they know they will be able to recruit them to their ideological warfare.

True!

It is as though they are importing the “Mexican ideology”. Perhaps they should deport themselves to Mexico where their ideology is free to debauch and destroy themselves much like the Mexicans have successfully accomplished the same. Like a swarm of locusts, they destroy, devour, and turn to shit everything they land upon.

(Note: Have you noticed that any debate question which requires independent, cognitive thought is void of MSM talking points?)

Btw, thanks for contributing to the debate despite the fact that other’s have yet to receive their talking points.

1 point

If taxes are a payment for services (ie benefits) then it's not really theft then is it?

Your hypothetical question is irrelevant. We are not debating the distribution of property which is collected by taxation.

1 point

Mainstream media does not support the illegal-immigration of any people who are opposed to their ideology. But, any people who supports their ideology should be free to enter this country and oppose their ideological counterparts.

Think of it as recruiting illegal foreigners to promote their agenda as long as the same foreigners oppose their ideological enemies.

1 point

No. Winning the lottery means winning the money.

To win the money you must have all six numbers.

If you buy tickets for all the possible number combinations you can eliminate the chance of not having the correct numbers.

But if you do that, you will have spent more than the value of the jack pot, so you have not "won the lottery".

That is both true and false. But that is not the reason why I asked the question. Let me now reason from what I think I understand about your position concerning chance.

There are two principal parties of all lotteries, they are: the author/s of the lottery and the lottery players. And of the two there is only one party which does not lose: the author.

So, is the lottery a game of chance or a game of order?

Do we call it a game of chance because there are many losers, or do we call it a game of order because the authors will always derive the benefits of the intended purpose of the lottery?

Obviously, the players are taking a chance that they will win or lose. But the authors are not leaving their benefits of the lottery to chance.

Which is it, chance or order?

(I’ll move on to the question of egg fertilization after we settle the above.)

1 point

My taxes go to the army for them to follow the orders. If they lock me up - I have consented to their actions.

That is not consent. It is surrender. One cannot consent to an ultimatum. Shall I explain this in detail?

What I have not agreed to is the government's decision to lock me up. It's the government who I have the problem with not the army.

So, you have a problem with the decision to “lock you up” but you don’t have a problem with being locked up? This is not compatible. Either you have a problem with both the order and its affect, or you have a problem with neither; but you can’t, reasonably, separate cause and effect and then affirm you have a problem with the cause and no problem with its effect.

If I'm not being hypocritical that is. Nobody would truly admit this though. ;)

I hope you can agree with that.

Here is what I agree with:

As long as you pay taxes by consent, taxation is not theft. But, the moment you decide you no longer consent to it, taxation is legalized theft.

Remember, the legalization of an act is not the negation of a criminal act. Furthermore, justice is a natural, universal concept that is common to all men and not subject to a society of criminals who believe that the writ of man establishes justice. After all, this debate can be reduced to one, compound, propositional question:

Justice is not legal or illegal.

Evidence:

Not robbing your neighbor is not legal. There is no law that legalizes the negative action of not robbing your neighbor. This is an evidence of the existence of justice. But contrariwise, just because men can write and obey laws which are thusly legal, does not mean those actions are above and immune to natural justice. See, whether it is legal or illegal, justice is the judge of both.

Have you heard the expression: “Justice is blind.”?

1 point

While that statement is true to fact to a certain extent. What it falls short of is exposing that the banks require more umbrellas than they have loaned.

1 point

Is this reference to the "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."

No!

The currency (fiat) of the United States is the Federal Reserve “Note”; as you full well know. All notes evidence debt.

The creation of all Federal Reserve notes is authorized only by the Fed. No other entity has this authority. The U.S. mint does not have this authority, only the Fed.

Answer this question:

Is there enough money in the system to satisfy all debts, public and private? With interest, the answer is an obvious “no”.

Credit is extended to those who can repay their debts. If the Banks have determined that the debts of this country have exceeded its ability to repay its outstanding debts, then debt is the problem. This is why banks have reduced credit issuance; we are overly indebted to them. I do not think they perceive that additional debt will enable the U.S. to pay its debt liabilities.

(We owe the banks more money than they have created. Borrowing more money from them only exacerbates that problem.)

3 points

My wages are my property. Any law that deprives me of my property, without my written, formal consent, is theft de jure.

Do you honestly believe that the distribution of the spoils of theft is the negation of theft itself?

2 points

Clearly, you don’t understand the proposition of this debate.

Let’s begin with a question:

What is theft?

Next, what is the difference betwixt de facto theft and theft de jure?

(Are you a kid? Or do you simply think like one?)

1 point

Did you know that the same army, which is paid in part from your wages, could in fact be given orders to imprison you as an enemy of the state because of your ideology?

Would you therefore consent to taxation for the purpose of depriving you of your ideal? I do not think so! Unless of course you desire to pay the cost for unjustly imprisoning you.

Does this make sense?

1 point

Every single dollar in existence has entered commerce as a debt. There are no dollars in the economy which do not represent a principal debt. Thusly, if the economy does not have enough money for the service of its debts then the current crisis is a debt crisis and not a credit crisis.

Albeit, I do agree that the Federal Reserve has laid the foundation for the U.S. economy to perpetually suck off its credit tit.

“End the Fed!”

(Did you know that the economy is debt-based and not credit-based?)

1 point

Firstly isn't your argument the improper use of taxes rather than tax itself?

I was following along with your post. Consider it an application of how tax revenues can and do benefit both the poor and wealthy. But, truthfully, I am not intending to dispute proper or improper allocation of tax revenue.

I'm guessing you're not against welfare or helping the poor pay for their meals - but would prefer it if the money didn't go into the hands of private companies?

If I consent to be taxed for that purpose, then the answer is no. And consequently I must disregard who is the final beneficiary.

Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)

I think it'd be better if you argued this one though because I don't really know how to poke at this subject.

I was not thinking ‘private’ standing Armies, rather public.

Would you like to have the first stab at this one? Originally, I did not clarify either a public or private Army.

2 points

I completely agree. And I also simultaneously know that Israel has already finalized its plan to strike Iran with nuclear tipped missiles. What I don’t know, however, is what will trigger the execution of that plan.

Obviously we are not, as a country, troubled by Israel’s plan to bomb Iran, with nuclear weapons, but we certainly are troubled by Iran’s intention to finalize the necessary parts for a plan to bomb Israel.

Did I ever mention that I am impervious to fear and war-mongering?

Also, did you know that there is a population of about 25,000 Jews in Iran who are quite comfortable living in Iran? It’s as though 25,000 Jews are telling the world that they feel safe and sound in their home, Iran, despite what the world press and media fills the air-waves with. Hell, the damned constitution of Iran protects, specifically, Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews

Note: Without taking the time to cite the source, I do know that Israel will pay Jews to move to the mother-land. Yet, there are very few takers. Take that for what it is worth.

1 point

I have the ability to produce more than I can use. The surplus can either be used to pay private companies to help themselves and me... or the government to help everybody. That's tax in this day and age (to me anyway) hiring a public (not a private) company.

Do you disagree?

Interesting perspective you have there.

And yes, categorically, I disagree.

Let’s consider exhibit 99: Food stamps

In the U.S., a portion of the taxes collected from private citizens are allocated for food benefits. The recipients of these benefits can then buy food from their local China-mart or Mexi-mart. The businesses which accept these benefits as payment for food are monetarily reimbursed by Morgan Stanley, which handles the clearing house for these transactions; well, 80% of them anyway. Shall I also add that Morgan Stanley generates a profit thereby? What about the farms that receive monetary payment from China-Mart or Mexi-Mart in exchange for their food.

See, in the example of the food stamps, the government is transferring your surplus wealth from your hands to the hands of other private entities, through the hands of the impoverished citizens of your society.

Therefore, in the example of food stamps, you are benefitting private corporations despite your effort to benefit a public company by paying taxes.

(For the record though, I do believe, and I mean “believe”, all human beings have a responsibility to not over-look the needs of the poor. Why? In one simple term: reasonable and unadulterated COMPASSION!) But, I will add the qualification: each according to his ability and abundance in accord with his choice. After all, no man will rationally choose to give one cent each to 1000 paupers when ten bucks given to one pauper will..., and the right to choose which pauper shall be...)

But let’s assume that no man dissents to taxation for the sake of paupers, despite the lucrative profits such taxation provides for private corporations, and consider another subject: a standing army.

Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)

2 points

Have you noticed that Iran's effort to procure energy independence is a threat to the world?

In an age of "Global Warming", man-made, I would have thought that Iran's effort to be "green" would be welcomed.

2 points

Legally living in a country means willingness (or atleast pretence) to abide by the rules, and so by owning property within a nations border you have given consent to the laws set by the nation. By living (legally) in a country I have consented to paying tax.

Bullshit! And you know it! (I am being friendly and not antagonistic. Just ask my friends and family.)

Sorry, there is no argument which will persuade me that my dissent is illegal. Especially when I am told that my consent is legally assumed by other persons. However, the fact remains that I have not formally consented to anything. There is no contract in existence which allows another man to evidence I have formally consented, by writing, to be taxed without my consent. (Prove to me that paying taxes universally negates coercion. After all, I would rather consent to the demands of a thief/thieves than suffer both the loss of my property and imprisonment.)

And until some man or group of men can produce a document in which I have voluntarily, and contractually, bound myself to taxation, all efforts to extort my wages are criminal.

Ultimately, your rebuttal, as well as nearly all others of the same position, is criminalizing dissent.

(I would have thought that most people understand that one man’s liberty is not legally negated by other men’s tyranny.)

Let me now focus my argument toward you and those of your view.

Currently, your camp believes it derives a greater benefit from taxation than the benefit of self-reliance. Your camp, which I will now refer to as the “Cabal”, thusly relies upon the labors of others in order to support its standard of existence.

(I’ll stop for moment for the sake of avoiding my re-visitation of the degenerate intellect of serfs and proletariats. And no, I am not intending to insult you. But you may very well be my punching bag, temporarily. Sorry! )

1 point

Sorry, my computer cannot reliably download the simplest of videos.

But I did notice in the description of the video an identical comment to my assertion:

The Great Sperm Race tells the story of human conception as it's never been told before. With 250 million competitors, it is the most extreme race on earth and there can only be one winner.

…”and there can only be one winner”.

The following sources support a consideration for the inference of order. Please read the complete articles.

Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at Sheffield University, told BBC News Online: "This study is potentially very exciting as scientists have been searching to demonstrate whether or not sperm really are attracted to the egg in mammals.

"What it illustrates is that the process of sperm transport to the egg is not just about sperm swimming around until they find an egg.

"It is likely to be highly coordinated and involving a number of different mechanisms of which odorant receptors may play an important role. --

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2891349.stm

Sperm do not swim randomly; they use various clues and factors to help reach the egg.

In humans, apparently, the female reproductive tract becomes warmer as the Fallopian tubes are neared. Current research at Harvard University has shown that sperm swim from colder to warmer regions (Flam 2006). Also, research has indicated that sperm swim towards increasing concentration gradients of a synthetic compound called bourgeonal (Flam 2006). Whether the egg or female body releases the chemoattractant is unclear as of now. But studies have been convincing to show that sperm can smell. Essentially, sperm smell their way from the vagina to the to the location of the egg in the distal parts of the female's Fallopian tubes (Flam 2006). Once the sperm meets the egg, fertilization can occur.--

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sperm

2 points

Do you know why the Mexican president, California, and Washington DC. oppose Arizona’s immigration law?

All of them are fearful of a half-million Dora Explorers, which now reside in Arizona, migrating to their lands.

(Have you heard any of them inviting Arizona’s illegal population? Personally, I would have thought the president of Mexico would have wanted his citizens back in his country to do the same wonderful job they are doing in Arizona. But I guess he too realizes his country is better off without them.)

2 points

Here is the initial phase of an argument affirming that Taxation is legalized theft.

Let’s digress for a moment. Capital punishment is legalized killing.

Let’s now consider both propositions.

1) Both taxation and capital punishment are legal. This is axiomatic.

2) Capital punishment is killing. This is axiomatic.

3) Taxation is theft. This is also axiomatic.

How? Simple, the government of the United States enforces both taxation and Capital punishment by obvious, open coercion-- which is legal. I’ll now focus upon the principles of taxation as they relate to men taxing other men. (Only men collect taxes from men. Let’s forget the notion that a government exists apart from men.)

Men bind themselves to one another through contracts. All parties who are signatories of a contract are consenting to the terms of that contract. If a person does not sign a contract, the same has then not bound itself thereby, to other men, according to its terms. Either way, no person can be (justly) punished for refusing to contract with other men.

Notwithstanding, no man can justly assume the consent of another man. Two men can’t assume the consent of a third person. Two-hundred men can’t assume the consent of another person. Five-hundred politicians, calling themselves the ‘government’, can’t assume the consent of another person. Yet, if a people decide that they can assume the consent of another person, the same are enemies, criminals and tyrants to the person who no longer has a choice to determine with whom it shall not covenant.

Are we in agreement thus far before I continue this argument?

0 points

Yes I am!

Most of the participants would change their tune very abruptly if the question is: Capital punishment is legalized killing. Albeit, principally, there is no difference betwixt that proposition and the question of this debate.

3 points

Your post is irrelevant. The question of this debate is not about the costs of the infrastructure or the liability of those costs.

But according to your post, you don’t have a problem with theft as long as it benefits you and others. I also suppose your argument would be vastly different if the Christian populace used your taxable wages to pay for infrastructure which benefits them and others.

2 points

Every argument, in this debate, that I have read, which denies that taxation is legalized theft, is a red-herring argument. Not a one of those arguments has argued ‘taxation is not legalized theft’. All of them justify theft by asserting taxation is legal and therefore there is no theft.

Would you care to debate the proposition of this debate?

2 points

Firstly, I apologize for intentionally avoiding the question of this debate. Consider my post an attack against dual-allegiance as evidenced by Christians, so called.

Now, in answer to your question, “How about the people who aren't Christian?”: I must affirm that I have no desire whatsoever to determine which words people choose in swearing allegiance to a flag or a republic. Swearing one’s allegiance is not some prescribed recital of another person’s ideal for swearing allegiance as the acceptable form of the recital of allegiance. The swearing of allegiance is, of all things, a personal conviction which is not subject to the conviction of another’s opinion and intention.

Or said another way: if a person chooses to swear allegiance to something, the same person is the sole authority for determining the terms and conditions of allegiance. No other person, or group of persons, has a natural right to determine how any man or woman swears allegiance. Let alone determining that which qualifies as an oath of allegiance.

2 points

The argument can be made that ‘petroleum’ is the global currency having multiple fiat currencies as its proxy. But I am not here to argue that axiom.

Moreover, I am not here to dispute your intent. For, I am well aware of the pains that are associated with attempting a resolution of the current, global, economic system which is commonly obfuscated by the term ‘globalization’.

However, you do deserve a pat on the back. Very few people are capable of questioning the legitimacy, more rather the lack thereof, of the economic system they are both enslaved and destroyed by.

And to end my appraisal of both as succinctly as I can, I say thus: “ You see the category-six storm building in the horizon and are horrified thereby; your counterparts, on the other hand, see only bright, sun shinny days in the horizon and are daydreaming of the coming bliss."

God forbid you question their ‘coming bliss’!

4 points

Should the words "under God" be removed from the Pledge of All[e]giance

Let’s first consider the terms of the pledge. They are:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Let’s now ask a question. Should a Christian pledge his/her allegiance to a ‘flag’ and its ‘republic’ when it, their pledge of allegiance, is in direct conflict with the will of the God of Jesus Christ as represented in the Bible?

Now before someone dare attempt to answer ‘yes’, and consequently justify that answer by perverse interpretations of the bible, the same should first carefully consider a few matters.

a) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to a flag or a republic in lieu of allegiance to God?

b) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to a republic and its flag as well as God?

c) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to anything other than God?

d) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that God sanctions and demands a “pledge of allegiance” with the qualifier “under God”?

e) Why are American Christians the most ardent supporters of the term “under God” in the pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States when they should be wholly indifferent to the pledge itself? Especially since they should not be pledging allegiance to anything other than God!

But regardless of what I understand of both the scriptures and the inconsistencies of Christian practices as measured by the Bible, I can boldly affirm that no man who calls himself a Christian is justified by the words of the bible by swearing his allegiance to a “flag” and/or a “republic” by the qualification “under God”. Furthermore, no Christian should have any input on any question that is centered upon choosing the terms of the Pledge of Allegiance; unless of course he is an idolater who serves himself despite the God, of whom, he proclaims he is servant.

Conclusion: Whether the pledge reads “under God”, “under Satan”; or “under Obama”, the only people who should be debating the selection of terms for the pledge should be the ones who do not associate themselves with the God of the Bible. Yet, it appears this debate, on a national scale, is one the most ‘holy’ of ‘holies’ among, paradoxically, CHRISTIANS.

As for me, I say thus: “Let all men, who hold the “pledge of allegiance” near and dear to their heart, decide the terms of their ‘promise’, which is an oath, while excluding the opinions of those who have done nothing but demonstrate pseudo, dual allegiance!”

No man can serve two masters…

1 point

On the one hand you have an obstacle course that is almost impossible to penetrate in order to fertilize an egg, and on the other hand, it just so happens that men are equipped with the perfect weapon (high number of sperm) to overcome the obstacle.

One could validly deduce order and determinism.

Agreed!

But when it comes to which sperm will make it, I think that is up to chance. Which does not mean that the selection is not a result of causality.

That is the aspect of your example which truly requires an explanation on my behalf. And so I shall.

With very few exceptions, fertilization is accomplished by one sperm. Of the hundred million or so sperm, only one will fertilize the egg; all others die in the process. In one night of sex, a male may inject hundreds of millions of sperm into the vagina. And yet, only one of millions will succeed ahead of its brothers and sisters. We can call this sperm the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. In this instance of hundreds of millions sperm having the same objective, only one will win out. All others are discharged from the keep as dead, first place, losers. So what does all this suggest? Only the strongest and healthiest sperm of hundreds of millions will fertilize the egg.

Let’s now be philosophical on this question.

Egg fertilization is the ultimate goal of all human sperm. But only one will achieve that goal per pregnancy. No more than one and no less than one sperm.

You and I, as well as all other humans, are rooted in our sperm origin as the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. Therefore all of us have succeeded where all the hundreds of millions of others in the herd have failed. Philosophically, we can reason that all of us can and should be thankful that we are alive today because we were the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. Baring in mind also that our progenitors, siblings, and progeny are also the ‘alpha sperm of the other herds’.

The truth of this is so consistent, it stands to reason that ‘order’ should be inferred thereby; unless of course I have unknowingly erred in my judgment.

How do you maintain absolute order, when you must have choice?

I suspect my answer to that question will lead us to an even deeper discussion. All of which I welcome; philosophy is my delight. (I’ll be easy with the philosophical terms.)

Nonetheless, let’s tackle that question as a separate subject if we have arrived at a termination of the former discussion; though both are inter-related.

Note: I ignored all of the issues associated with human twins. Including those issues would only lengthen, without changing, my argument. I like brevity when it is honestly intended versus deceitfully employed.

1 point

Some biological events are, in my opinion, irrefutably chaotic. For example, the sperm race. The obstacles that a sperm has to go through in order to reach the egg are so many and so deadly that nature has compensated by allowing man to produce millions of them, just so there is a chance of one of them making it to the egg. If I took an egocentric view I would conclude that I was meant to be the one. But the truth of the matter is, it was just chance and good luck.

The fact that men produce millions of sperm during ejaculation is, in my opinion, evidence that even nature recognizes chance and chaos. Why if there was order, men would only need produce one sperm that was equipped to go through the deadly obstacle course and create a baby.

So chaos does exist.

Hello, let’s continue.

Working only from the above example, I can validly infer determinism and order. Yet, that is not your inference. However before I submit a contrary or contradictory argument, accordingly, I give you an opportunity to re-evaluate the example.

And regardless of the result of your re-evaluation, I think your ‘initial’ inference is patently invalid. But, (with the emphasis on ‘but’) I think you are more than sufficiently intelligent to recognize the conflict of the evidence and the inference thereby.

I’ll await your follow-up reply before I support or challenge your final inference. And if you still stand by your initial inference, I will post my explanation of the submitted evidence as outlined in your example.

Btw, your example does, in truth, expose the necessary inference of either chaos or order.

1 point

I was attempting to merely draw-out your knowledge and position on the limitations and basis of human knowledge and their axioms in that regard. I will later reference the same if necessary.

According to what I understand, which is according to what I have been taught and confirmed by personal observation, the theory of evolution is another explanation of diversity by mutation; in which case the theory can be verified by the empiricism derived from the artificial selection of a cattle farmer or dog breeder. The theory of evolution is true to fact on this account, but the theory was not developed for that purpose; it was developed for the purpose of alleging genus to genus mutations which originate from a single progenitor of another genus.

However from what evidence, empirical, shall we infer the mutation of a genus from and to a genus? I know the fossil record is cited as evidence of the same, but there is no empirical evidence available that confirms, or any test that verifies, that genus ‘B’ is the consequent of the antecedent progenitor ‘Z’.

1 point

I am dropping the issue of Mr. Gould’s assertion. Primarily because I perceive you have an interest in considering a viewpoint (without prejudice) which is contradictory of yours’. And, in all fairness, because you are honest with me, I too shall be honest with you. Let’s proceed in that manner.

I shall now begin the process of explaining my opposition to the theory of evolution as a consequence of a reasonable approach. (This will not be easily communicated, so don’t be too critical of what maybe perceived as being ‘overly complex’ or ‘overly simplistic’; so confirm, before you conclude, I have adequately communicated my thoughts to you when you are interpreting statements that appear to be either.) (Key note-- I don’t’ accept this: When not evolution, therefore creation, or when not creation, therefore evolution.)

The theory of evolution is predicated upon the presumption that the knowledge of the diversity of life is derivable from ‘a posteriori’ knowledge. This is the foundational principle of the theory. However, that presumption is only possible by ‘a priori’ knowledge.

Questions or comments?

1 point

I wish to conclude my side of this exchange with two questions.

1) Does any of my complete argument contain a propositional falsity?

2) Do your rebuttals contradict my assertions?

My answer to both questions is ‘no’.

1 point

If it was Jew specific, I would contend it is possible.

Albeit, I would be interested to know which species of animal is impacted most by A.I.D.S.

(I have yet to hear of some scientist somewhere teaching primates to wear condoms to stop the spreading of aids.)

Note: if someone will point me in the proper direction I can argue for or against the specificity of the victims of Aids.


1 of 18 Pages: Next >>

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