- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Right. So first, I am sorry if I worded the debate in a confusing manner. What is meant by "myth/fraud" is not that it is not accurate that women's salaries on average are about 80% of men's. Rather it is stating, is the "equal pay for equal work" a fraud (due to some of the factors you listed as well as others)?
That is, yes, men earn more, but is that simply because on average they work harder (more dangerous, labor intensive) jobs for longer hours, have more STEM and Business interests/pursuits, are more ambitious in the workplace, ect while women's efforts tend to be placed elsewhere (e.g. different career paths, raising children, ect.) that doesn't translate into the same kind of financial success OR is it due to large scale societal Patriarchy, oppression (in this respect), ect.?
To even ask such a question when America's abortion trade has reduced our birth rates to record lows. There are not enough children being born to support our retirees, or keep our economy going at full speed.
This would suggest that there are issues with the social program within the society designed to help support retirees and other solutions may be necessary. However, this does not imply that there is an under-population problem. We have quite a substantial over-population problem accumulating both here (the US) and world-wide that is becoming increasingly dire
Hey, you stole my shit. Lol
It is too good to confine to one person. I think it should inspire a movement on CD to the point where Nomenclature and his many alt-accounts are bombarded with this by the other members here until the behavior is corrected. It is for his own good really (Lol)
Obama committed some truly horrific offenses and much of it is utterly counterproductive - though he didn't start the drone wars, he clearly owned it. I'm willing to bet it's created more terrorists that it's destroyed - and he's clearly violated the airspace of several independent nations in doing it.
"Not at all, though I do find it hard to think of a useful reason to need to measure one individual's "privilege" relative to another, if such a thing were even feasible.
I know that this has been your point all along. I have been arguing that there are clearly ways to quantify advantages in some respects and is useful to measure in some areas. A prime example of this is the Higher Education System. As in, Higher Education oppurtunities vary greatly from individual to individual based on their economic background, presence of willing/responsible guardians/adults in their life, ect. ect.
I object to the typical "Check your White/Male/Gender/Sexual Orientation/ect. ect. Privilege" as it is typically conceived and applied. However, there are still legitimate measures that should be taken into account
No, it shows that I read the UN Charter as well as other UN documents and apply them universally..
Soldiers are technically held responsible for their actions under this code as well. However, it is made clear that those in Charge (e.g. the Presidents, ect.) are held most responsible by far..
When I exposed your long list of sock accounts last night you claimed I was paranoid and mad.
Yes, you are paranoid and mad..
I have one account. I would be surprised if anyone familiar with my posts would think that I am any of the people you claimed or had any alt-accounts.. Meanwhile, you actually do have a plethora of alt-accounts..
Yes it is.
No, it is not.
By the same logic that she's a war criminal, every single major US government politician of the last 70 years is a war criminal, including Obama, and many of them spectacularly more so than her.
All US Presidents and many government politicians of the past 70+ years have committed indictable offenses..
Yes. Obama committed many indictable offenses (rather obviously)..
If you're going to make these type of accusations, then you shouldn't have such whopping double standards in terms of who you make them against.
What double standards are your referring to? You are the one applying double standards...cherry picking..
"It used to be we thought that people who went around correcting other people’s grammar were just plain annoying. Now there’s evidence they are actually ill, suffering from a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder/oppositional defiant disorder (OCD/ODD). Researchers are calling it Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome, or GPS
new evidence from fMRI scans of brains exposed to real-time grammatical errors, has led some scientists to predict that soon we may be able to find a cure for GPS, for many sufferers a debilitating, off-putting, sociopathic syndrome.
What’s Really Happening
Behind all grammar corrections, back-handed compliments, and “it’s-only-a-joke” jibes lies hidden anger. When a Grammar Bully corrects your grammar (especially strangers online), you can rest assured that you are not the cause of his anger. Your word usage was simply the trigger of that anger. The Grammar Bully is in need of companionship, so publicly correcting you sends the homing beacon out to other Grammar Bullies. Grammar Bully is ringing in the friends with whom he can bond over mutual hate of the their/they’re misstep.
When we are angry or stressed, a bonding hormone called oxytocin is released, urging us to form social connections with other humans so as to better our chances for surviving the cause of the stress. A Grammar Bully is feeling insecure in some way, and the insecurity is driving her to gather up friends. Many observers may think the Grammar Bully is about belittling others, but really, the Grammar Bully is just looking to find other Grammar Bullies because she is feeling angry and/or stressed.
Anger can be subconscious and many times it is. We are discouraged from expressing anger when out and about in polite society, so we suppress it. Unfortunately, anger is one of those emotions that bubbles up to the surface. Grammar-correcting behavior is one of suppressed anger’s outlets.
xMathFanx sources his information from Youtube and Photobucket because he's a dunce who enjoys playing the intellectual.
Am I lying?
The YouTube videos sourced linked to a National Academy of Sciences member (Neil Shubin) discussing his finding (Tiktaalik)
The Photobucket links you are referring to displayed excerpts from Standard Science Textbooks..
Ironically, your links actually are bullsh't more often than not (e.g. journalof911studies.com , Wikipedia, ect. ect).
We have not found any of the thousands of transitional stages of fossils between animals evolving, or have we?
We have found transitional stages between our current form and the last ancestor of both Humans and Chimps (about 6 million years ago). I posted links to this information in a former post.
Also, we have found transitional forms for many other animals. For example, Tiktaalik is a transitionary form between a fish and a land animal. Links here:
No. It doesn't tell you nearly everything about the person's life or other difficulties/hardships they may face (such as in the book The Outsiders). However, that is a very clear and highly relevant privilege that can potentially set a person up for further status, wealth, career, ect. that many or most don't have available to them
How would a young adult possibly pay for a $50,000 a year tuition plus additional expenses for housing, food, ect (so >$60,000 a year; or even a $20,000 a year tuition plus additional expenses) if they are not receiving "help" from other family/guardian/adults in their life? This is a clear huge benefit over others that cannot follow this path due to lack of resources (that a young adult independently has effectively no means of acquiring at that age)
This has nothing to do with the relative privilege of individuals.
Yes it does and it is trivial to demonstrate. An individual with the finances to attend an Elite School can potentially attend while an individual without such high finances cannot potentially attend..
And who we are today is just from a "slot machine" that over millions of years just HAPPENED to land on us?
Natural Selection does not function as a "slot machine". Rather, NS works more like a sieve because what doesn't work tends to die out before it can successfully reproduce.
There is to much of a change from an ape to a human even over millions of years.
We have found many hominin fossils that are transitionary forms between what we are now and our last common ancestor with Chimps about 6 million years ago. Here are two websites you could reference that explores this topic in further detail:
B. http://humanorigins.si.edu/ (more specifically: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/
Dog breeding did happen and made many dogs that we see today.
The Artificial Selection of Dog Breeding is perhaps the best way to initially understand the feasibility and power of Natural Selection to explain Descent with Modification through time. Here is a short video to serve as an introduction to the concept: https://www.youtube.com/
Apes did not need to evolve into humans
Humans are Apes. Apes is a larger group that includes Humans, Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans. Primates is an even larger group that includes both Apes and Monkeys. Therefore, Humans are Apes and Primates, but not Monkeys. Furthermore, Mammals is an even larger grouping in which Primates are included. Thus, all Humans are Mammals.
monkeys still live successfully in the wild today, with no need to evolve
This is correct. Monkeys are doing quite fine inside of their niche and there is no need for them to adapt with a higher intelligence. Since Nature will almost definitely not select for this trait based on their current conditions, it is very unlikely that Monkeys will evolve a higher order intellect any time "soon" if ever.