- 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
So much crime in poor areas is committed by people against their own family and neighbors in the same circumstances. And most of the people in those circumstances aren't committing crime, so it's not the circumstances that causes it. You want to help underprivileged people, get them a more effective protective service. Increased patrol s would help. Maybe some social workers walking the block.
You are much more likely to be poor if you're black
Not in Puerto Rico.
because of systemic racism
Pretty simplistic to look at one variable and hang your explanation on it. High school dropouts are more poor because of arrogant educated people holding em down, right? Or maybe generational factors play more of a role...
Why does systematic racism not keep poor black immigrants poor? They tend to do well after they are here for a bit. Also, why does systematic racism disappear for black people after they are married? Hmm
Shouldn't have gotten yourself on a no-knock warrant.
"Large capacity" in this case means a magazine holding 10 or more rounds. Many handguns have magazines that hold 15 as it's normal standard magazine. It's unlikely that you will find a police officer with anything less than a LCM.
The officer who was "worried about excited delirium or whatever", stated his concern because positional asphyxiation is a greater risk for someone suffering from excited delirium or even intoxication. He was fresh from the academy, but he didn't know what anything looks like in real life. So he listened to the senior guy who said to keep Floyd face down. The rookie was right and Chauvin was 180 degrees from right.
Given the extended time Chauvin had to re-evaluate and change course, charging him makes sense. However, the factors involved with positional asphyxiation and intoxicants are mitigating to the charge of murder. I expect that a jury is likely to weigh these mitigating factors against the likelihood of public outcry rather than the likelihood of murderous intent. The whole worlds eyes creates a lot of pressure.
The fact that Floyd deserved to be arrested can't be an argument for killing him slowly in the street. Similarly, the fact that Chauvin deserved to be charged for Floyd's death cannot be an argument against him having a reasonably fair trial.
I know the jury can't be truly and fully unbiased. But after what has transpired, can we believe they will be even somewhat unbiased?
I'm not your friend buddy.
But I did not make that argument
You did. While it is true that absent life, values would not exist, this doesn't render values fictional. Without life, eyes wouldn't exist.
It is not a false premise to say that, if there was no life, there would be no such thing as the fairy godmother.
Nice try, but this is a much better example of a false equivalence then your false dichotomy explanation, and it rests on begging the question of values. Fairy godmother is a work of creative fiction whereas values are a phenomenon of human cognition (and more). Regardless of this false equivalence, it is still a false premise to claim that a thing cannot be objectively real because it wouldn't exist absent it's necessary preconditions. This is a false premise even if you insert a true conclusion, as you did with the fair godmother example.
Your consistently wrong words placed on this site objectively exist, specifically in the form they take, in large part as a result of your twisted up values.
I have provided the logical argument that, if the universe were devoid of life, nothing could be said to be of value. Therefore, value is not objectively real
That is not a logical argument, first because the universe is not devoid of life. Second, it's a false premise to assume that a thing cannot be objectively real because it wouldn't exist absent it's necessary preconditions. Yours is a baseless assertion that is forgivable in small children who are only beginning to understand the contrast of imagination with reality.
If the universe didn't exist at all, then nothing could be said of material, or of anything else. Therefore material is not objectively real, nor is anything at all. Of course this is non-sense, but it is non-sense in exactly the same form of your supposed logical argument.
This irrefutable refutation of your dribble is usually the point at which you claim to be incapable of reading comprehension, but only as it concerns my argument.
This one's not too bad actually. Though likely dishonest if your pattern of behavior holds. We're using two slightly different conceptions of nature. The biological world vs the quality of the universe.
I'm curious genius, do you know the difference between yourself and a frog?
I have never encountered anyone so wrong about so much in so many different areas. A fictional phenomenon is, for example, and extra sense written in a story that does not actually exist. It's nature is whatever the author decides in that story. Value is an actual phenomenon. So is perception by the way.
If there were no life? That's a big of you fuckin retard, there IS life! 'If there were no matter then nothing in the universe would be material, that makes material a fiction'. Jesus Christ!
I am tired of explaining, in the most simplistic language I can, basic issues to someone who can't even manage to behave like more than a cartoon villain. Jesus you are in rare form today.
There is no "nature" of value where value is not objectively real
That's absurd as usual. Subjective phenomenon exist objectively. But then, I'm arguing with the same idiot who believes that human beings don't have a nature. Do human beings exist objectively? Do you suppose there is anything that has a nature?
I saw a guy take a blotch color vision test wherein numbers are visible only through distinguishing between color variations. After the test he went on about how stupid the test was because they kept asking about numbers but their obviously weren't any numbers. Everyone paying attention understood what happened except for him. You're like him.
Your kind of stupidity isn't usually this far out. 'Labor theory is invalid because it is critiquing capitalism which is invalid'. That's not a valid position at all. If you critique my invalid position, you need to use a VALID position to do so smart guy.
Indeed, no philosophical work accurately describes the nature of value
Not only is it false, but you demonstrate that even you don't believe it later in the very same sentence. Watch
because value is entirely subjective, arbitrary, and relative to the observer.
Oh? Is that the nature of value? Have you accurately describes it?
Hence, capitalism needs defending against labour theory, not the other way around.
Labor theory does not accurately describe the nature of value. It is an invalid theory. Thus, it doesn't qualify as a valid critique of anything at all.
A black man doesn't need to defend the legitimacy of his existence against a white supremacist. The racist theory is invalid.
I pointed out that Plato's ideas are not invalid simply because the Greeks liked to sleep with kids.
I knew we would get to your backpedal eventually, that's why I downvoted your original post (for posterity). It's plain in your post that Plato would be judged for Greek pedo acceptance IF we judged the past by the values of the present. That's what your argument was about afterall.
I articulated this exact point in my first post here, but you are extraordinarily slow..So here we are.
Between you and FM, only FM tried to defend labor theory. But not until after I posted that debate. You, on the other hand can't even grasp the meaning of basic fallacies or the reasons they are invalid.
I suppose it's unfair to expect you to try much of anything. "Try looking around blind man"..Just rude of me .
Nazis weren't fought for their ideas, but for their actions. Similarly, communists who theorize ought to be left alone, stupidity and historical ignorance isn't a crime. But communists who practice? They need to lose thier revolution in the swiftest, most effective way possible. I don't think you have anything to worry about there.
Apparently I have to reiterate what this particular thread is about.
Your collectivism causes you provide an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic. Your near universal use of ad hominem causes you to suppose that, after judging Socrates and Plato for their status as Greeks, you could discount their argument for the same, without regard for their actual arguments.
it would NOT be reasonable
To judge those of the past based on present standards. Do we judge Plato for Greeks accepting pedophiles? No! Because you can't just the past by present standards!
Nevermind that you can't judge Plato for the ills of his group...keep going
Clearly, I am inferring that it is not logical to ignore the works of Plato
You provided an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic.
See? Collectivism is supposedly valid in your post, but due to the invalidity of judging the past by the present we cannot judge Plato for actions of Greeks. Keep going stupid. This is funny.
To assist you with reading comprehension, I have identified the contents of the post in a more simplistic form for your benefit.
In order of the sentences of my original post:
1- Your post demonstrates your fallacies.
2- This the first fallacy.
3- This is the second fallacy.
4- Comment on entertainment value.
This effort is similar to describing red to a color blind person. That's it for lessons for today.