CreateDebate


Stmac10's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Stmac10's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

You can feel him inside you? Does it hurt? I hope he lubed up...

2 points

See the long white bar at the top of your screen, 'click' your 'arrow' on that and type: www.google.com

Now press enter.

Okay heres the fun part, type: burden of proof

Press enter again

Have a bit of a read

Have fun.

1 point

Haha, I like you man...but you're crazy!

If you could read you'd understand that the person I was replying to listed their 'kitchen cabinet' website as 'evidence' (which incidentally is as fit for purpose as any other evidence you bible bashers have)

the bibole tells you how to escape eternal hell, torture, death?

We're not going to escape anything. When we die, we go stiff, start to decay then we'll be buried or burned. You might not like the sound of it but that's it. Plain and simple. No eternal hell, no torture. You will not 'escape death'. No heaven, no 72 virgins, nothing.

Sorry, but if you can accept that as the most likely truth you'll enjoy your 70-90 years alive much much more.

2 points

What are you talking about?

Kitchen cabinats weren't inventrd, dumbo

read that back...what is the relevance of that statement?

The person I'd originally replied to goes around making tiny inutile contributions to debates and posts a link to their kitchen website as 'evidence'. That's what I was referring to.

luv the christadelphian bitch

wow, I'm really intimidated by a jebus loving gimp.

1 point

I believe you just made up that I believe in 'God day.'

Wouldn't it be ridiculous to just make up something someone believes in...plucked from thin air!!...some might even say the whole concept is 'stupid'!! bet AuntieChrist feels like a fool for assuming your beliefs would be founded on nothing!

2 points

It's a hollow gesture really. A bit like getting someone a drink at a free bar.

1 point

Haha, this is a hilariously bad riposte! It seems Aveskde, AuntieChrist and RiceDaragh have pretty much summed up everything I would have wanted to say so I'll leave it in their capable hands.

you are the sick-minded, selfish, uncaring, ungracious, un-everything god on this planet, person I have ever known or heard of.

I don't see how I'm sick minded, selfish, uncaring and ungracious, simply because I refuse to subscribe to your delusions. You don't know me at all.

you are the only person so far I can actually hate with a passion

Cool. How 'christian' of you. How caring and 'forgiving'. Love thy neighbour and all that crap? What have I done to hurt you, your family, your friends...or anybody? I couldn't give a shit if you hate me or not, why not waste some time by praying for my demise...I won't lose any sleep about what your imaginary friend will do to me.

It pleases me that my contempt for your absurd beliefs angers you so much. It makes me think that deep down you know I'm right but you don't want to upset mommy and daddy by confronting them for indoctrinating you. Grow a brain or some balls, douchebag.

1 point

First of all that is a quote from Richard Dawkins

I wasn't trying to pass that off as my own by the way!! I would have expected someone to have read it before!

1 point

please ban me too Enlightened...

2 points

I know, it was a bad ending. I had to go eat some dinner.

haha, fair enough.

I don't point out anything religious. I just don't want you calling me a Jesus Freak as an argument or assumption.

The majority of people who argue against evolution are proponents of creationism, which I will admit, does rile me. I'm not implying that you are a 'Jesus-freak' and I get the feeling we're arguing the same point here. I'm saying that theory and fact are almost the same thing in science, and you're saying that scientific findings are 'theory' by definition. We don't really disagree, I just don't want the fact that the term 'theory' is used to become part of a creationists arsenal. I wanted to make it clear that the scientific use of the term 'theory' isn't the same as the colloquial 'theory'.

You can only declare anything a fact when it is beyond doubt, especially when you look at time from an end-of-time perspective.

I'm sure most biologists would argue that evolution is beyond doubt but I get what you mean. The reason I'm arguing against you is I feel that the vast majority of opponents to evolution on this website are fervent creationists, and I don't want the fact that evolution is a 'theory' (in scientific literals), to be hijacked by the god-brigade as an argument against logic.

I was merely making the argument from the start that the Theory of Evolution was Theory IN NAME ALONE and giving some debatable points to make on why its still considered such and Not the "Fact of Evolution.

I completely agree with you. The only thing I would want to add is that the term 'theory' in science, is the closest thing to 'fact' that any scientific proposal can ever become.

I'm not trying to mislead anyone, I'm making a statement that was supposed to be somewhat funny because THERE IS NO ARGUMENT TO BE MADE EXCEPT THAT EVOLUTION IS SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED.

and you are right, and as I said it is a stupid and leading question. I didn't really think you were trying to mislead anyone. I more just felt that your argument could be misinterpreted to undervalue the findings of evolution.

Throughout you're argument you state a multitude of supposed Absolutes, such as the last sentence in your second section. Both of these statements are assumptions of Bible-Blabbing and extreme-ism and are both not true nor very appreciated.

Having read both of them back it sounds like I was directing those statements at you personally, but it was meant to be in a general sense. I'd debated the topic with someone else recently and I must admit I might have confused yourself with them. I had thought that you were a pseudoscientist closet creationist at first, so apologies for that!

Merely a suggestion on my part, but you should adjust your arguments to be comparative and more, err, comprimisable in the sense that you are right but don't wish to necessarily insult everything your opponent sees.

Haha, taken on board. The problem for me is that I have no room for compromise on 'creationism vs evolution'...which is usually what these thing are about (even though I know that's not the case with yourself). I do agree that I should try to limit just insulting peoples perspective, for doing so I apologise. I try to focus on respectful debate, but on occasion I feel I want to highlight absurdities in peoples perspective and to joke about the topic is sometimes quite effective, however it often reduces the debate into ineffective ridicule. I appreciate that in your case (bearing in mind the mistaken identity) it wasn't fair or accurate, so genuine apologies.

5 points

Nobody cares where your from or 'how much' of an American you are.

Turns out we were calling it football before Columbus had even set sail, so you don't have much of a right to "hate it".

You don't really have much of a point. Are you saying that you prefer handegg to football because we call it football and you want to call handegg football? That's not really a justification for why you prefer the sport.

4 points

I agree with you on overstepping the boundaries from protection to intrusion, but I have to say that the threat of terrorism isn't unproven. 9/11 aside, there have been an abundance of terrorist attacks and attempts around the world in the last 10 years. While I appreciate that the threat has maybe been exaggerated, it certainly exists.

4 points

We all know about the man who tried to exterminate an entire ethnoreligious group of people and directly initiated the deadliest conflict ever, a global conflict resulting in the deaths of over 70 million people ...but did he always get a round of beers in? Did he let Eva Braun hold the remote control?

He could have personally given everyone in western Europe a footrub to try to make up for it and he'd still be a douchebag...so no, he couldn't have been a good man.

3 points

I hope you say religious in non-theist terminology.

???

I say 'religious agenda' meaning the disregard of overwhelming supporting evidence of evolution simply because it contradicts the idea that god created everything by clicking his fingers a few times over six days.

I still adhere to THEORY seeing as thats what they are all titled as.

As I already explained evolution is both theory and fact. That they use the term theory does NOT imply that it might be wrong. I've never heard anyone question gravity...never. To adopt a sentence you actually used, if I was to say "It is not a fact, by the way, as you cannot actually prove Gravity"...I'd be ridiculed. It would be stupid. I could claim that if I drop this ball how can you say for certain it will fall to the ground? Without my dropping it you cannot prove it, but based on repeated observations and overwhelming evidence it is, obviously, fact.

It is the exact same with evolution, a wealth of evidence and observations of evolution actually happening...but there's still people who deny it....and it is blatantly all down to religion.

Nothing(more or less) has definitive proof

I know what you are trying to say but to deny that evolution is a fact is like saying that gravity isn't a fact. While they are both known as 'theories' in the scientific sense, they are repeatedly observed and with a massive amount of supporting evidence they are overwhelmingly agreed upon by the scientific community. By overemphasising the importance of the title "the theory of evolution" when discussing it (especially among non-scientists)..you are blatantly seeking to mislead.

If Evolution was a fact, then why did this man post this debate to begin with? Ill leave you on that nice little note.

That 'nice little note' is probably the most hilariously bad riposte I've ever seen.

If evolution was clearly just a theory then why did he post it? People post stupid or leading questions all the time. In this case it is obvious that the person who posted this debate has a religious agenda. Evolution contradicts what his crazy, unfounded, old book says, that's why.

If you understand the concept that theory and fact are almost the same thing in science then you would accept evolution. I struggle to think of any reason anyone could deny it without religious influence.

3 points

I am an atheist and get what you mean with that skin crawling feeling when saying "I know"...

I wouldn't deny that there might be a god...but I would say that I am 99.99999% sure there isn't.

With any other absurd premise, I cannot declare that it definitely isn't true. You can say you have a pet dragon in your garden, but without coming and seeing for myself I can never be 100% sure you're insane...almost sure, but not 100%.

3 points

Evolution is the imagination of one man, and you believe it?

Literally the dumbest and most contradictory thing I've ever read on this website.

It takes a lot for me to laugh out loud at the written word, but that was classic!

5 points

uuurgh, another debater with a religious agenda posing as someone with scientific knowledge but spouting nothing but pseudoscience.

EVOLUTION isn't supported at all.

absolute nonsense. It pains me to even reply to a statement like this.

there needs to be a crazy above fifty percent mutation rate

..and here was me thinking you understood evolution.

From your other post I thought that you understood the term 'theory' in the scientific sense. In the colloquial sense, theory means 'speculation' or 'opinion; in the scientific sense a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions. In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory. Evolution is a theory and fact in the same way that you having a nose on your face is theory and fact.

7 points

The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.

Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.

6 points

You sound like you understand why the term 'theory' is used...which makes me think you know that being infinitely evidenced makes it as much a fact as it can ever be! Evolution is both theory and fact. Why mislead people by stating that it anything but? If working on that basis we can argue that gravitational theory isn't fact, but in the more practical sense of the word, it is clearly 'fact'..nobody would even question it without some religious agenda.

5 points

The bible is correct and evolution goes agains the bible so evolution is wrong

The Wizard of Oz is correct and talking lions exist in Oz, so talking lions must exist.

2 points

Did you mean 'of course'? It's just strange because E and U are quite far from one another on a keyboard.

Do you know what 'coerce' means? It turns out it's more relevant than you think when talking about religion.

Again with the kitchen cabinet rubbish, you can't be much of a business person. If your trying to get backlinks, that's not how SEO works. If you're hoping people will cold click on your link randomly and happen to buy a kitchen from you then your wasting your time, the odds are literally in the millions.

1 point

What a fucking cunt

...that's about the most sensible thing you've said.

Don't even think of debating on my level till you read what I've written.

Saying that you really, really, really feel like your imaginary friend is in the room with you doesn't cut it...especially on a debating site.

1 point

That the way to do it!... If you don't understand something, or cannot accept that something is as yet still unknown...simplify!! Dumb it down! A big man in the sky with a beard waved a magic wand and ping..universe is ready! having a god of the gaps is great isn't it!

1 point

Please O' mighty Jonny 23, give us all your account number so that we can deposit holy cash into your bank account.

I challenge all ye doubters to prove that Jonny 23 isn't god!...pffffft!

1 point

'Faith' is what you have in things that don't exist

1 point

NVYN, EnigmaticMan burned you. You have lost big style with your unadulterated pseudoscience.

2 points

wheres the proof that there isnt

The burden of proof is on the believer. Can you disprove that I have a dragon in my bedroom? If I made such an absurd claim would you blindly accept it as true without using some sort of logic or reasoning?

I believe in one god

If I was to say with a straight face that I believe in fairies, everyone would think I was insane. I would have no real friends, wouldn't get a proper job, would never be taken seriously. For some reason though, it is socially acceptable for you to believe in your invisible friend.

Isn't it convenient that you believe in the exact same god that you were brought up to believe in? The exact same one your family believe in? The exact same one you were taught about in school? The one they spoke about at your church? What are the odds!!? Out of the thousands of gods who have been revered around the world by thousands of cultures over thousands of years...it just so happens that the god of your time, and your community is true! Turns out (with no additional knowledge or anything else to go by) that Zeus wasn't true, neither was Vishnu or Tenrikyo or Allah or Agdistis or Ah Puch or Ahura Mazda or Alberich or Amaterasu or An or Anansi or Anat or Andvari or Anshar or Anu or Aphrodite or Apollo or Apsu or Ares or Artemis or Asclepius or Athena or Athirat or Athtart or Atlas. What a stroke of luck for you!?

(I can go through B-Z for you if you wish)

4 points

Ace Ventura Pet Detective is a more believable story than the bible. Just because you were weak minded enough to be indoctrinated doesn't mean that the things you believe are true. You are not strong minded, you are the exact opposite, but you are stubborn...these delusions are so deeply ingrained that you will never accept you are being irrational. Even if it was 100% true...why would you want to revere your god? He is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

2 points

For centuries, people agreed that the world was flat, they were wrong.

2 points

you must be kidding?

1 point

What did you get jail for? How long did you serve?

0 points

Did the bible teach you how to build kitchen cabinets?

2 points

Your God is the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

1 point

Are you sure you want me to answer the question about my amazing life

Really, I want to know.

2 points

Psuedo = Pseudo

Antartica = Antarctica

IQ of 160???

1 point

I never said anyone should be exterminated

You started a debate entitled 'Is there any justification for antisemitism?' In which you argued Jews deserve their persecution. You claimed the Jews were "milking the holocaust", describing the holocaust as a "wildly exaggerated" and "tired, old story". You then also added "DOWN WITH JUUIIIIIICCCEE".

In another debate you stated that "Another holocaust is right around the corner". All this is not to mention repeatedly linking to Neo-Nazi websites with a white supremacist message as 'evidence'.

I never said Blacks should be shipped back to Africa.

You started this topic! You're the only one still arguing that the blacks are dumb criminals who are severely detrimental to life in America.

In the debate "Blacks are animals" You argue in support of the statement by saying "Niggers do not want to sing Kumbaya with you, dickhead, they want to kill you"

What are you implying should be done? I think we all know what you're getting at.

You asked my IQ earlier, it is 160, what is yours?

1 - I'm almost 100% certain it isn't.

2 - It's really pathetic to state your IQ in some kind of attempt to garner some approbation online.

3 - I don't even know my IQ. I don't feel inadequate enough to get involved in the self-absorbed, vain attempts at self aggrandisement.

4 - Even if I did know my exact IQ, and let's say it would be higher than yours (which it would be). I still wouldn't tell what it is, because comparing IQ's online is the saddest form of dick-measuring I've ever heard of.

While we're on the topic though, you said that IQ, wealth and power go hand in hand...please tell us about your amazing life! With an IQ of 160, you must have a great job and wealth that most of us can only dream of!

1 point

You're not very bright are you?

1 point

Couldn't have explained it any better myself.

1 point

...Cartman?.. is that you?

1 point

Wow. You'll be embarrassed when you sober up and read that drivel.

Look up the wikipedia page on 'Intelligence Quotient'. You talk about it so much I think you could do with knowing a bit about it. It takes certain things into account. One of them being 'age'.

You link to a website that gives vague references from the 1980's. Stuff like, "The Department of Justice - Victimization in the US 1987"...No page number, no direct quote, no way of validating the information presented. If whatever your Nazi website is saying is true (which it may well be), I'm sure you could find something to validate it online that doesn't happen to be a White Power indoctrination site.

dumbass

dumb son of a bitch

shit-for-brains bastard

STUPID ASSHOLE!

educated idiots

FUCKING JEW

spineless fools

liberal schmuck professors

All good points...

Is this your attempt at a rebuttal?

I can just see you sitting alone smashing that out on the keyboard in your grand mansion (as you're so intelligent you must be super rich, but not as rich as those pesky evil Jews! - who by the way must be really intelligent if, as you say, they control everything and have the majority of the worlds cash?!)

I've been on this website for about two weeks and so far you've said that Jews should be exterminated because they are clever, rich and powerful...while you say Blacks should be thrown out of America because they are too dumb and poor.

Do you see how you've contradicted yourself...accept that you have an agenda and you're not thinking straight. You don't seem that stupid to me. You use the odd big word now and then. We would all think a lot more of you if you came clean now and started over.

2 points

I take it you think that men have a lower IQ than women?

2 points

I believe "the God Delusion" will become the most significant book of our time.

3 points

Because he is the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

1 point

Uuurgh...it is painful trying to talk sense into you.

No. Of course not. I think people with low IQ's make up the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder.

Well why didn't you say so earlier when you implied it was a result of crime?! It's funny how every justification and answer you have is in some way a slight at an ethnic minority. Is that just a coincidence?

Research has been proven this

Research..has...been..proven...this.

...What is your IQ?

Do you not understand that IQ is related to education? Do you not understand that standard of education is linked to wealth? Do you not understand that crime is linked to poverty? Can you not comprehend that many of these things are interlinked and obviously a society that is still racist will make life hard for ethnic minorities to get out of that circle. Given enough generations the barrier will break down but there is still a culture whereby poor people cannot get a good education, which means they cannot get a good job, which means they are on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder, meaning their children are more likely to receive a poor education and they are more likely to commit crime. Is that too much for you or would you just prefer to think that "them dumb niggers are always robbin' an rapin"?

I listed some rape statistics below. I invited everyone to rip them apart yesterday. No one has challenged them yet.

The website you linked to is a 'White Nationalist Racial Library'...it offers an abundance of positive articles and references to Hitler and Nazism. With titles like "Enduring allure of Hitlerism" and "Demonizing Nationalism", I can see why it's your favourite.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think your website might have an agenda..?

Go and find a reliable source.

1 point

Is this what your resorting to Enlightened1? ...and here was me thinking I couldn't think any less of you...

2 points

How do you know that the lower societal status is not due to crime?

Ridiculous question.

Are you suggesting that everyone of low societal status has committed a crime that has hindered their progression within society? Even if there was no crime in America there would still be people of low societal status.

The white people of the Appalachian mountains are about as low on the socio-economic scale as you can get in the U.S. and they have nowhere near the crime rate.

You're obviously clutching at straws here, it is pretty anecdotal to pull up a rural group with low socio-economic standing and claim that that supports your claim that 'black people will commit more crime than anyone else regardless of other factors like poverty/education/employment.' Crime in Appalachia is increasing faster than anywhere else in the US and the clearly defined correlation between poverty and crime that has been proven in urban areas may not be relevant in rural areas (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/189560.pdf)

The fact that poor white people in Scotland commit far more crime than poor black people in London completely disproves your theory...move on and create your next debate with a racist, antisemitic or bigoted agenda.

Your theory doesn't explain the black-on-white rape epidemic either.

For starters it's not really a theory, it's pretty much accepted fact that poverty and the effects of low social status increase crime within society.

Secondly I never said it did. If I drilled down into every point you made I'd be here all day, and frankly I think you're a lost cause. I don't know much about the demographics of sexual assault, but I would love to see you provide some evidence. Has it crossed your mind that maybe black males aren't specifically targeting white women but it has more to do with the opportunistic fact that 80% of potential victims are white.

In fact, it sounds like a bullshit excuse.

The fact that crime is higher within low socio-economic groups is not a "bullshit excuse". I'm not black and I don't really consider myself entirely politically correct so why would I be concocting these wild irrational 'excuses'. I just try to think analytically about things and to not let any agenda I may have cloud my judgement on topics...something you seem to struggle with.

3 points

Most people do know that black people commit more crime per head of population, but that's not exactly what you asked. Crime is obviously linked to socio-economic status and if you just 'removed' every african american from the US, other ethnic groups would fill their low socio-economic standing and crime would very quickly rise within those groups.

Using the UK as an example, the further north you go the smaller the black community is. In Scotland there are much fewer black people but far higher crime and violence rates than anywhere else in the developed world. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British_communities#Black_British_ communities

Crime is a result of low societal status, not of increased eumelanin in skin.

1 point

football is the most popular sport on the planet...whereas I've never even heard of AFL...........................................................................................................

1 point

Messi doesn't have enough skill? You clearly know nothing about football. Scoring over 1000 goals is amazing, but Messi plays in a far superior league to what Pele did, and still has a pretty astonishing goal record at that.

3 points

This isn't up for debate. It's a considered fact by the scientific community..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

1 point

Wrong.

While I respect the fact that football/soccer bores 'you', it cannot be that the game is so boring the entire nation has decided to do other things. The rest of the world has adopted it as their primary sport so it must have a pretty significant appeal to manage that when NFL, NBA and MLB have failed to make any waves outwith the states. To refer to 'boring 0-0 draws' is extremely anecdotal, as it happens, some 0-0 draws are thrilling to watch. Personally I find the stop-start-stop of NFL and MLB unbearable and think that NBA lacks the flair to even remotely interest me.

1 point

South America always brings great footballers to the fore, but the home of football is still, and always will be Europe. The biggest competitions and the pinnacle of footballing competition...the UEFA Champions League. When players have established themselves in South America, they come to Europe. The entire Brazil and Argentina teams play within Europe. You have to go back to 2002 for a non 'all-European' world cup final. Don't get me wrong, South America produces great footballers, it's just that Europe produces more.

1 point

Messi is considered to be by far the best player in the world. Ronaldo is an excellent player but overshadowed by Messi. Rooney is not even comparable to them. Beckham was a good player but never even close to best in the world and certainly not now. Zidane was outstanding, potentially the best player of all time.

In my opinion, if Messi can continue this form and keep dominating and winning things throughout his career..avoiding injury etc, he could become the best player of all time. Commentators talk about him like that already and he's only 23 so still has around 10 years playing at the highest level! Landon Donovan is struggling to be good enough to play in a decent league...never mind be best player on earth!

4 points

Hahaha, what did I make up? Are you saying that education, environment and culture do not affect peoples IQ scores? Think about it, if you cannot accept that then there is genuinely something wrong with you (more than we already know). It's difficult to argue against facts that disprove your position so it's often easier just to assert them as 'made-up' and ignore their existence.

It's also interesting to see you trawling the topics of race and ethnicity, always somehow taking the controversial positions (blacks are dumb, jews deserve what they get, the holocaust is exaggerated)...you're blatantly nothing more than a racist bigot. I'd be interested to know where you stand on topics like 'Hitler' or 'homosexuality'...for and against in that order.. am I right?

2 points

What a shock to find 'Enlightened1' spouting his crap on this topic. Intelligence has more to do with nurture than nature. Yes, people in the sub saharan region score lower than average on an IQ test, but they usually have not had any form of formal education. Yes, far eastern people have a higher than average IQ, but education is of huge cultural significance within those countries...studies have shown that under similar socio-economic conditions and levels of education, there is no significant difference in average IQ scoring between people of different ethnicities.

2 points

I actually agree with you. I also agree that truth is not necessary for personal justification. I think the subtopic we've got onto is a bit pedantic. The question is whether the original poster meant justification as in 'personal justification' or justification as in 'a community or societies justification'.

Interestingly...if you look up the definition for 'justify', it says "to validate a statement with evidence"...and bearing in mind that 'antisemitism' essentially means 'prejudice', if you look up the term 'prejudice' it says " to make a judgement about someone or something without having adequate knowledge to do so".

So, if you are antisemitic, you do not hold adequate knowledge about your subject and cannot provide evidence to justify your hostility toward jews.

Hence, you cannot 'justify' your 'antisemitism'...????

1 point

Did you even read my post? It doesn't seem like it. You ARE antisemitic, please don't try and backtrack. I'm not placing any group on a pedestal, I said that nobody is beyond reproach and I asked you what it is you think they have done to justify hostility and prejudice against them? If you think that there is justification for antisemitism - go for it...enlighten us! Don't just say..."well some of them are rich and their religion tells them they're better than us"...what did they do to deserve the holocaust (however watered-down a form of it you accept)?

I am neither stupid, dishonest or a jackass...you seem to tick all three boxes however.

1 point

That's convenient...you say your not anti-semitic, but your deleted post said "down with juuuuiiice!" - what's that all about?

1 point

but the question isn't about personal justification. They are analogous. You conveniently word your description of my analogy - I didn't ponder it for hours upon hours obviously, but it's not far off the mark. if my 'position' is that I'm the best footballer ever, I could have a justification for it (however unsubstatial)...maybe I've only played half a season, never played in a losing team and scored in every game. So long as I justified 'why' I feel I'm the best, and convinced myself thereof...then by your thinking I would have 'justified it to myself'.

1 point

Instead of posting crap videos and saying 'Down with juuuuuiiice'...why don't you respond to my post and answer the questions? ...Out of your depth douchebag?

1 point

How dare who Enlightened1? Is posting that video your rebuttal? There's nothing more pathetic that an internet-tough guy.

1 point

By the same thinking, I can justify to myself that I am the greatest footballer that ever lived...but I'm not. Just because you attempt to justify something and delude yourself into believing your assertion, doesn't mean it's accepted or even acknowledged by society at large.

2 points

You are an idiot. Nobody is beyond reproach, and criticism of Jewish people or Judaism can not be 'labelled' antisemitism. 'Antisemitism' is the prejudice, discrimination and hostility toward Jews; just as 'racism' is prejudice, discrimination and hostility toward people of different race. Every religious group are supremacists, their beliefs are all mutually exclusive. How can you say that they are the 'most successful ethnic group on the planet'...define 'success', what kind of supporting evidence do you have for a ridiculous statement like that. How many Jewish presidents have there been? At least 23 out of the 43 US presidents have been of Scottish descent, is that a relevant barometer of power and success?

'Milking the exaggerated and tired old story of the holocaust' - you are a tool, a huge generalisation about a mass genocide that happened less than 70 years ago. People who are still alive lost their entire families in the holocaust. 2 out of every 3 Jews in Europe were killed in the holocaust...it's easy for you to be flippant about it but imagine it was people from your ethnic group and your area that were persecuted.

Just because a specific ethnic group has exemplified a high level of financial success does that instantly mean that they aren't persecuted in any way? Does that somehow justify your antisemitism? Does it make it okay to gather them all up, starve them and then gas them all to death? Set aside your idiotic prejudices for a minute and think about it.

Despite so fervently arguing that Jews should be persecuted...you fail to state exactly what they have done to upset you? Yes they are religious and all religions think they are right...I don't hear you making comment on Catholics or Scientologists...Jews have a higher percentage of billionaires but I don't hear you saying we should lynch Bill Gates or Warren Buffet...?

3 points

Sorry if this looks long, but lots of it is pasted from 'iamdavidh's post, so bear with it!

"But there is no guarantee that because an advantage is present, that that advantage will be passed on"

- All species have genetic variations (mutations). Beneficial mutations would very slowly become more prevalent within a species. Yes, things will happen that will kill off individuals with that mutation, but as it is in other individuals (who have a tiny evolutionary and therefore reproductive advantage) the mutation will continue to gain prevalence. Evolution is not random, it will always give rise to those within a species who are best suited to their environment at that time. Natural selection is an ongoing rigorous testing process that, over time, weeds out what is less likely to survive.

"it just means they survived, nothing more."

- and what about the millions of generations of offspring after them?! you are compartmentalising the longest and most complex process on earth into the survival of one tadpole! Of course one tadpole can survive by chance, but to say that all his ancestors will continue to thrive (by random luck) and his genetic lineage will continue for millions of years with NO advantage over it's neighbours and competitors is utterly absurd!

"most only consider what already exists, and naturally do not consider all of the potential genetic properties which may have existed but never had a chance to continue"

- That's because they weren't fit for purpose and fell victim to evolution. Any genetic properties 'which may have existed' (and been beneficial to survival and reproduction) had the potential to occur in (some form) in more than one individual...even if some of them died initially for whatever reason, the recessive genetic elements of the species would continue to produce the 'mutation' until a lineage formed that had the feature as part of it's dominant genetic make-up...and then the 'simpler' process of natural selection would begin. even if somehow a massive family of those tadpoles with thumbs was to be killed in a freak accident, wiping them out, the mutations would occur again at some stage within the rest of the tadpole species and the process would kick off again.

"Three arms would be an advantage. Why aren't there people with three functional arms? Well, maybe the gene was never there, or maybe some thing with that potential died off before the advantage could be."

- Haha, I can't see three arms being an advantage personally, but people have a tendency to think that evolution is somehow 'finished', like it's just been working towards 2010 and now it's going to put it's feet up. Humanity continues to evolve and if three arms would be beneficial, then maybe in billions and billions of years, some ancestor of ours will have them, along with numerous other features that make them more suitable for their environment. To say that maybe someone did have three arms and possessed an evolutionary advantage, but died off before reproducing and the 'third arm' was lost forever hints to me that your understanding of genetics and evolution isn't as fine tuned as you think.

"The idea that the most advantageous option is somehow magically gauranteed success is short-sighted"

- Magically...No. Being 'Fit for survival' is an undeniable and insurmountable 'numerical' advantage that with generation after generation after generation becomes stronger and stronger. It is not luck, nor chance, or random or magic...it is inevitable...eventually the beneficial genes will dominate.

"As far as "survival of the fittest" one would have to say that the giant asteroid that killed the dinasaurs, which is the only reason primates were able to come out of their caves and trees, that the asteroid was somehow a guaranteed factor of survival of the fittest."

You're talking about the unpredictability of the environment and assuming that means evolution is random and unpredictable. When an asteroid hit earth, very few things were 'fit for survival'..it would be a very difficult environment to be in. Evolution will tailor species to be right for their environment at that time...it isn't working toward some pre-defined target. After said asteroid, when the environment eventually became more accommodating, species evolved according to 'that' environment. There will be occasions when the environment will be unpredictable and random but how evolution reacts to that will not be.

"it was not, it was random"

- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

see the fourth question down.

"On a smaller scale. Who is fitter, a sloth or a bull?

Put each in a room with no food, the sloth will live longer because it has a slower metabolism therefore it is the fittest right?

Put each in a pen with nothing but long grass for miles around. The bull will survive and the sloth will die. I guess the bull is fittest."

- I'm sorry, but it's difficult to see what kind of point you could be making from this. Again, evolution will develop a species according to it's environment, so yes a bull would be fitter in a field, but a bull wouldn't necessarily compete for survival with a sloth and they cannot mate so using a sloth and bull in an evolutionary analogy doesn't make sense. Evolution would more likely refer to a herd of cows in a field, some of whom are slightly taller and can eat low apples off trees. They are more likely to survive the winter as they can access food the short cows cannot. The tall cows tiny numerical advantage over lots of generations will slowly become more and more significant until all cows have a dominant 'tallness' gene. The circumstances and environment dictate survival. Randomness and luck don't.

"Circumstance and chance has far more impact on survival than fitness"

- This doesn't make sense. The 'fitness' you refer to, is in relation to the circumstances and environment. If you mean chance as in randomness of the environment...fair enough, but evolution doesn't operate on a 'luck' or 'chance' basis as I hope I've explained. What could 'fitness' possibly mean if it doesn't refer to the species suiting it's circumstances? We're not talking about lung capacity or how fast an animal can run a mile!..we're talking about suitability for it's habitat...(or 'fitness' for it's 'circumstance' - to refer to your above sentence).

"we should understand that leaving to circumstance and chance our overall survival, and the survival of individuals within our species, is not an advantage, it is animal instinct sure, but we have big brains so we don't have to depend on something so random as survival of the fittest. Nor should we"

- We don't leave the survival of humanity and our circumstances to chance. The depletion of the ozone layer is a threat and we (as a species) have taken steps to rectify and tailor our environment (circumstance) so that it provides a suitable means of survival. Nonetheless, that has very little to do with evolution. Evolution isn't something we, as you say- 'depend on' day to day...it's a biological and genetic inevitability.

If you still think 'survival of the fittest' is 'random'...then you do not understand it at all.

Supporting Evidence: Top Ten Myths about Evolution (www.toptenmyths.com)
2 points

Are religious people open minded and humble?!

Declaring yourselves as the 'god's chosen ones' and prancing around blindly believing the absurd fairytales you were indoctrinated with as a child...?

This is truly the most contradictory and stupid question I've ever read.

If this is the standard of debate on this website I think I'll spend my time doing something else.

1 point

What!? the burden of proof is not on him to prove there is no such thing. The onus is on those who say it's true to provide evidence...and don't play the cringeworthy and pathetic 'faith' card

1 point

Oh well it must be true then. I believe in fairies and the wizard of Oz...therefore lions must be able to talk.

2 points

David you don't understand the intricacies of Evolution. Yes, people and things will die before they invent something...but that has nothing to do with 'survival of the fittest', genetic lineage or evolution of a species. Evolution is absolutely not random.

Evolution refers to the tiny tiny advantage that a small element or feature of a species or group of animals may have over others in its environment, the numerical and reproductive advantage that provides increases it's propensity for survival and thus the increased liklihood of future generations of that species having said element or feature.

I don't want to get into massive amounts of detail but one particular individual's death or survival will not significantly impact the entire evolutionary path of a species.

1 point

What about the inevitable situation when someone is executed for a crime it is later proven that they didn't commit?

Have you never heard of Blackstones formulation - "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"



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