- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
So people born with physical and/or metal deficiencies do not fit into the category of, nature's mistakes.
To say something is a mistake is to ascribe a pair of faculties to basic chemical nature that it doesn't inherently possess: intent, and recognisance of its own being, or the ability to recognise and learn from cause and effect. Nature has absolutely no intent, no higher consciousness that we know of other than the humans who study it. Which means we, humans, get to define on our own terms how much of nature's brutality we choose to adopt into our social policies. Nature IS harsh. But we don't necessarily have to be.
Thank you, neocortex.
Even a quick scan of the male and female anatomy by a shortsighted dimwit on a galloping horse could clearly see from a mile off that the two sexes were designed by nature
They most certainly weren't "designed" by anything.
Any psychological condition which detracts from this vital function is due a malfunction by nature
Reproduction isn't the only thing human life is about. That's the upshot of having a cognitive faculty that can over-run our instincts. Many people don't want and have no intent on having kids. That's a psychological state of being, a condition of mind. Is that a malfunction too? I would say it's a blessing, actually.
We can utilize our higher functioning to separate ourselves from pure instinctual drive. It's why plenty of people rather pursue a life of personal freedom defined by their pursuit of happiness or some other measure or quality. Reproduction is everything in evolutionary terms. It's not everything in "human" terms.
Our ability to think beyond our instincts makes biological reproductive function largely irrelevant in the conversation about sexual orientation. Modern humans are endowed, thankfully, with the ability and opportunity to defy social Darwinism even as we recognise that reproductive fitness is central to biological evolution; we can study natural selection and understand the mechanisms by which it operates, but that doesn't mean we have to adapt the view that it is all that matters. We get to ascribe meaning to our lives in whichever way we choose. That's what sets us apart.
Prove to me why I should believe your interpretation of "God" over someone else's, without using circular reasoning like "I believe my God is the true God and he's the true God because that's what I believe".
You have no irrefutable mechanism for determining which interpretation of "God" is the true one. If I was a gambling man, I'd say the probability that your version of God is the "right God" is unfathomably against you. In fact, might be better to just drop the whole charade and admit you haven't got a fucking clue anymore than Joe Jew or Marty Muslim does.
Time to wake up.
There is no God.
though it's unclear why natural and artificial sources would differ in effect
... quantity. I read the study on Irish tea, of particular interest because I'm Irish and live in Ireland. I'll have to look into that some more, and perhaps stop drinking so much tea.
Thanks for the information.
I'd be careful with drawing blanket inferences from these. They're literature reviews of Chinese studies which don't necessarily conform to the same standards as Western academia, and the studies which are cited almost all concern fluoridation of Chinese water which arises as a result of natural contamination, rather than as a result of controlled supplementation. The levels of fluoride they are talking about are often much higher than those we would expect to find in water that has been deliberately fluoridated.
Certainly, I would expect that exceptionally high levels of fluoride would have adverse effects on health, but these studies are not conclusive in proving that deliberate fluoridation of water sources at relatively lower levels is a harmful practice.
Anything can be poison if you ingest enough of it within a short enough time-frame. That's not to say that a tiny amount of fluoride is a bad thing.
Numerous studies have shown that video games have no discernible relation to actual violence. In fact, playing video games has been shown to reduce stress, anxiety, depression and anger problems in teenagers. It's really no different than playing make believe with toy guns, or having a fake sword-battle with sticks with your friends in the street. It is a form of entertainment and play which utilised in moderation as part of a balanced lifestyle has all the same benefits as everyday pursuits such as: sitting down to relax in front of the telly with an action-flick; watching your favourite TV police drama; reading a riveting thriller.
People who think video-games cause violence, I suspect, have yet to play one.